Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from June, 2013

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Post a Comment
Read more

MARBURY vs. MADISON

5 US 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 FACTS: William Marbury, in a petition, challenged James Madison, then Secretary of State of the United States to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding the latter to deliver the commission of the former as justice of the peace in the district of Columbia. Madison contended that Marbury’s designation as justice of the peace was made in a form of a “midnight appointment” and is therefore unconstitutional. ISSUE: Whether or not the designation unconstitutional. HELD: This case declared, for the first time, an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The Supreme Court held that a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the court to issue a writ of mandamus, was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice Marshall declared that in any conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, the Constitution must always take precedence.
Read more

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. GUINGONA

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. GUINGONA G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998  FACTS: During the first regular session of the eleventh Congress Sen. Marcelo B. Fernan was declared the duly elected President of the Senate. The following were likewise elected: Senator Ople as president pro tempore, and Sen. Franklin M. Drilon as majority leader. Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader. He explained that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the "majority," while only those who had voted for him, the losing nominee, belonged to the "minority." During the discussion on who should constitute the Senate "minority," Sen. Juan M. Flavier manifested that the senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party — numbering seven (7) and, thus, also a minority — had chosen Senator Guingona as the minority leader. No consens
Read more

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 FACTS: In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to lift term limits of elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is: “Do you approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC. COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition prope
Read more

FRANCISCO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FRANCISCO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003 FACTS: Impeachment proceedings were filed against  Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide. The justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law. ISSUE: Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis. HELD: In any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address all the issues which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally pronounces, at the first instance, that the feared resort to extra-constitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally pe
Read more

DE LEON vs. ESGUERRA

DE LEON vs. ESGUERRA G.R. No. 78059, August 31 1987 - 153 SCRA 602 FACTS: In the Barangay elections held on May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as the Barangay Election Act of 1982. On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo M. de Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. The other petitioners were also replaced. The designation made by the OIC Governor was "by authority of the Minister of Local Government." Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until
Read more

ESTRADA vs. ARROYO

ESTRADA vs. ARROYO G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001 FACTS:  During the May 1998 election, petitioner Joseph Estrada was elected President while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was plagued by problems that slowly eroded his popularity. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson, a long time friend of the petitioner, accused the petitioner, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expose’ immediately ignited reactions of rage. On November 13, 2000, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives to the Senate. On November 20, 2000, the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of the petitioner. On January 16, 2001, by a vote of 11-10, the senator-judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence sh
Read more

IN RE: LETTER OF REYNATO PUNO

IN RE: LETTER OF REYNATO PUNO June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA FACTS: Petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals, wrote a letter dated 14 November 1990 addressed to this Court, seeking the correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals. It appears from the records that petitioner was first appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on 20 June 1980 but took his oath of office for said position only on 29 November 1982, after serving as Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of the Solicitor General since 1974. On 17 January 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes”. Petitioner was appointed Appellate Justice in the First Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court. On 7 November 1984, petitioner accepted an appointment to be Deputy
Read more

IN RE: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ

IN RE: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ G.R. No. 76180, Oct. 24, 1986 - 145 SCRA 160 FACTS: Saturnino Bermudez, as a lawyer, quotes the first paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as erroneously stated) of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution, which provides in full as follows: Sec. 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1992. Claiming that the said provision "is not clear" as to whom it refers, petitioner then asks the Court "to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who, among the present incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel and the elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. Tole
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more

Philippine Bar Association vs. Comelec

Philippine Bar Association vs. Comelec 140 SCRA 455, January 7, 1986 FACTS: Petitions were filed questioning the validity of BP 883, calling a special election for President and Vice-President on February 7, 1986. The law was enacted following the letter of President Marcos to the BP that he was "irrevocably vacating the position of President effective only when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as Pres. by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation." The principal ground for the challenge to the validity of the statute was that the conditional resignation of the President did not create a vacancy required by Article VII, Sec. 9 which authorized the calling of a special election. ISSUES: Whether or not BP 883 is unconstitutional. Whether or not the Supreme Court should allow incumbent President Marcos to run on that said special election.                          HELD: After deliberating, 7 Justices vot
Read more

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 - 276 SCRA 408 FACTS: The controversy arose when respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation. In a close bidding held on 18September 1995 only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner. Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts, matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered
Read more

Popular posts from this blog

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973 - 50 SCRA 33 FACTS: On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; wi
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more