Skip to main content

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

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:
  1. Whether or not BP 883 is unconstitutional.
  2. Whether or not the Supreme Court should allow incumbent President Marcos to run on that said special election.                         
HELD:

 After deliberating, 7 Justices voted to dismiss. On the other hand, 5 Justices voted to declare the statute unconstitutional.

 In accordance with Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, of the view that as there were less than ten votes for declaring BP 883 unconstitutional.

 The petitions should be dismissed.

 On the second issue, it turned out to be a political question. It can only be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election.

 Thus, it is outside the ambit of the courts.

 The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to the give the incumbent president a new mandate or elect a new president.

 Read more case digests here:
Tolentino vs. Comelec
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary
Ople vs. Torres
Frivaldo vs. Comelec
Labels:

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