Constitutional Law 1 - page 10

FACTS: Patricio Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has already retired from his office and has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same office. Meanwhile, Congress enacted Batas Pambansa Blg. 52. Dumlao assailed the law averring that it is a class litigation. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Dumlao, Igot and Salapantan have a cause for action. HELD: NO. The constitutionality of an act of the legislative will not be determined by the Courts unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases an dis necessary to the determination of…

Keep Reading

Ynot vs IAC; G.R. No. 74457; 20 Mar 1987; 148 SCRA 659 FACTS: Petitioner transported six carabaos in a pumpboat from Masbate to Iloilo when the same was confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for violation of Executive Order 626-A. ISSUE(S): Whether or not E.O. 626-A is unconstitutional. HELD: YES. The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabao is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the…

Keep Reading

Belgica, et.al. vs Ochoa, et.al.; G.R. Nos. 208566/208493/209251; 19 Nov 2013; 710 SCRA 1 FACTS: Petitioner sought that the annual pork barrel system be declared unconstitutional and null and void for being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the 2013 PDAF article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel laws are unconstitutional for violating the constitutional provisions on separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power and checks and balances. HELD: The post enactment measures including project identification, fund release, and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and does not allow legislature to intervene…

Keep Reading

LAMP vs The Secretary of DBM, et.al.; G.R. No. 164987; 24 Apr 2012; 670 SCRA 373 FACTS: Petitioners contend that the General Appropriations Act of 2004 prohibits the automatic or direct allowance/allocation of lump sums to individual senators and congressmen for the funding of projects. The GAA does not empower individual members of Congress to propose, select and identify programs and projects to be funded out of the PDAF. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Court may prohibit respondents from further implementing DAP on the ground of its unconstitutionality. HELD: To justify the nullification of the law or its implementation, there…

Keep Reading

Bondoc vs Pineda; G.R. No. 97710; 26 Sep 1991; 201 SCRA 792 FACTS: The House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) reached a decision on the election contest between Marciano Pineda and Emigdio Bondoc in favor of the latter. Representative Juanito Camasura, Jr., a member of the ruling party and one of the House’s representatives in the HRET was removed from the party for disloyalty. With Camasura’s ouster, the House of Representatives resolved to withdraw his nomination and rescind his election as a member of the HRET. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the move of the House of Representatives to change its representation in…

Keep Reading

Keep Reading

Tolentino vs COMELEC; G.R. No. L-34150; 16 Oct 1971; 41 SCRA 702 FACTS: The Constitutional Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which seeks to amend the Constitution in lowering the voting age. COMELEC resolved to inform the Constitutional Convention that a plebiscite will be held to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Organic Resolution No. 1 and all its organic acts should be rendered NULL and VOID. HELD: YES. The amendment proposed to be submitted to the plebiscite is only the first amendment the Convention proposed. The Court holds that plebiscite being called for the purpose of…

Keep Reading

Almario vs Alba; G.R. No. L-66088; 25 Jan 1984; 127 SCRA 69 FACTS: The Filipino electorate will vote in a plebiscite to either approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by six COMELEC resolutions. Petitioners seek that the electorate be given more time to study the meaning and implications of Resolutions 105 and 113 before they be asked to answer Questions 3 and 4. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date. HELD: YES. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the…

Keep Reading