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
PHILCONSA VS. ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994 - 235 SCRA 506
FACTS:
House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets.
On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions.
Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Section 25, Article 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the Supreme Court.
Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void the provision under Article 16 of the Countrywide Development Fund and the veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.
There were 16 members of the Senate who sought for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Department of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and questions the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services.
Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of (1) the veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU’s, DPWH, and National Highway Authority.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Congress have the legal standing to question the validity of acts of the Executive.
HELD:
The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing to question the validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in their person or the institution of Congress to which they belong. In the latter case, the acts cause derivative but nonetheless substantial injury which can be questioned by members of Congress. In the absence of a claim that the contract in question violated the rights of petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as members of Congress.
FACTS:
House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both houses of Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations in the proposed budget previously submitted by the President. It also authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to them and to realign their respective operating budgets.
On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions.
Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Section 25, Article 7 of the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the Supreme Court.
Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void the provision under Article 16 of the Countrywide Development Fund and the veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.
There were 16 members of the Senate who sought for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Department of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and questions the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services.
Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the same respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of (1) the veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and (2) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU’s, DPWH, and National Highway Authority.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Congress have the legal standing to question the validity of acts of the Executive.
HELD:
The Court held that the members of Congress have the legal standing to question the validity of acts of the Executive which injures them in their person or the institution of Congress to which they belong. In the latter case, the acts cause derivative but nonetheless substantial injury which can be questioned by members of Congress. In the absence of a claim that the contract in question violated the rights of petitioners or impermissibly intruded into the domain of the Legislature, petitioners have no legal standing to institute the instant action in their capacity as members of Congress.