Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

JOSE A. ANGARA v. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

This case has been cited 33 times or more.

2015-06-16
VELASCO JR., J.
In compliance with the writ, FPIC directors Edgar Chua, Dennis Javier, Dennis Gamab and Willie Sarmiento submitted a Joint Return[3] praying for the dismissal of the petition and the denial of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan. They alleged that: petitioners had no legal capacity to institute the petition; there is no allegation that the environmental damage affected the inhabitants of two (2) or more cities or provinces; and the continued operation of the pipeline should be allowed in the interest of maintaining adequate petroleum supply to the public.
2015-02-03
BERSAMIN, J.
The respondents argue that the Executive has not violated the GAA because savings as a concept is an ordinary species of interpretation that calls for legislative, instead of judicial, determination.[11]
2014-11-25
PEREZ, J.
If in sacrilege, in free translation of Angara[124] by Justice Laurel, we say when the judiciary mediates we do not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Manila Sangguniang Panlungsod, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to the Court by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.
2014-07-01
BERSAMIN, J.
Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and balances.[35]
2014-04-08
MENDOZA, J.
In many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the actions of the Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court temper its exercise of judicial power and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government, which obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.[81] Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines;[82] (b) the executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines;[83] and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.[84] The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, the allotment of powers among the three branches of government.[85]
2014-04-08
MENDOZA, J.
Insisting that we can impose, modify or alter rules of the Food and Drug Administration is usurpation of the executive power of control over administrative agencies. It is a violation of the principle of separation of powers, which recognizes that "[e]ach department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere."[326] The system of checks and balances only allows us to declare, in the exercise of our judicial powers, the Food and Drugs Administration's acts as violative of the law or as committed with grave abuse of discretion.[327] Such power is further limited by the requirement of actual case or controversy.[328]
2014-02-18
ABAD, J.
Besides, a client's engagement of an ethical hacker requires an agreement between them as to the extent of the search, the methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. This is referred to as the "get out of jail free card."[6] Since the ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the client, such permission would insulate him from the coverage of Section 4(a)(1).
2014-02-18
ABAD, J.
Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms.[7] But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,[8] the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no freedom to destroy other people's computer systems and private documents.
2013-11-19
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It must also be borne in mind that "when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature [or the executive], but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution."[144] To a great extent, the Court is laudably cognizant of the reforms undertaken by its co-equal branches of government. But it is by constitutional force that the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Court's avowed intention that a resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede the endeavors of the two other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are erected on firm constitutional grounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each great branch of government, within its own sphere, contributes its share towards achieving a holistic and genuine solution to the problems of society. For all these reasons, the Court cannot heed respondents' plea for judicial restraint.
2013-11-19
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Act 3044,[10] or the Public Works Act of 1922, is considered[11] as the earliest form of "Congressional Pork Barrel" in the Philippines since the utilization of the funds appropriated therein were subjected to post- enactment legislator approval. Particularly, in the area of fund release, Section 3[12] provides that the sums appropriated for certain public works projects[13] "shall be distributed x x x subject to the approval of a joint committee elected by the Senate and the House of Representatives." "[T]he committee from each House may [also] authorize one of its members to approve the distribution made by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications."[14] Also, in the area of fund realignment, the same section provides that the said secretary, "with the approval of said joint committee, or of the authorized members thereof, may, for the purposes of said distribution, transfer unexpended portions of any item of appropriation under this Act to any other item hereunder."
2011-10-18
BRION, J.
Congress acted within its powers and pursuant to a constitutional mandate - the synchronization of national and local elections - when it enacted RA No. 10153.  This Court cannot question the manner by which Congress undertook this task; the Judiciary does not and cannot pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.[87] As judges, we can only interpret and apply the law and, despite our doubts about its wisdom, cannot repeal or amend it.[88]
2011-07-05
VELASCO JR., J.
Consequently, before a statute or its provisions duly challenged are voided, an unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be beyond reasonable doubt. [123] FARM has not presented compelling arguments to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657.
2011-02-15
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indubitably, the Court is not asserting its ascendancy over the Legislature in this instance, but simply upholding the supremacy of the Constitution as the repository of the sovereign will.[22]
2010-12-07
MENDOZA, J.
To answer this accusation, the words of Justice Laurel would be a good source of enlightenment, to wit: "And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them."[107]
2010-10-19
VELASCO JR., J.
In fine, the certiorari petitions impute on then President Ramos and the TRB, the commission of acts that translate inter alia into usurpation of the congressional authority to grant franchises and violation of extant statutes.  The petitions make a prima facie case for certiorari and prohibition; an actual case or controversy ripe for judicial review exists.  Verily, when an act of a branch of government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In doing so, the judiciary merely defends the sanctity of its duties and powers under the Constitution.[29]
2010-10-19
VELASCO JR., J.
The petitioners in the first three (3) petitions and the respondent in the fourth have not so said explicitly, but their brief is against the issuance of P.D. Nos. 1112, 1113 and 1894, which conferred a package of express and implied powers and discretion to the TRB and the President resulting in the execution of what is perceived to be offending STOAs and the runaway collection of illegal toll fees. And they have come to the Court to strike down all these issuances, agreements and exactions. While the Court is not insensitive to their concerns, the rule is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute,[153] and the validity of the acts taken in pursuant thereof.  It follows, therefore, that the Court will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except in a clear case of breach[154] and only as a last resort.[155] And as the theory of separation of powers prescribes, the Court does not pass upon questions of wisdom, expediency and justice of legislation.  To Us, petitioners and respondent YPES in the fourth petition have not discharged the heavy burden of demonstrating in a clear and convincing manner the unconstitutionality of the decrees challenged or the invalidity of assailed acts of the President and the TRB.  Because they failed to do so, the Court must uphold the presumptive constitutionality and validity of the provisions of the three decrees in question, and the subject contracts and TOCs.
2008-11-28
NACHURA, J.
Herein respondents' status as legitimate children of Marcelo Sr. and Teofista and thus, Marcelo Sr.'s heirs has been firmly established, and confirmed by this Court in Suarez v. Court of Appeals.[35] True, this Court is not a trier of facts,[36] but as the final arbiter of disputes,[37] we found and so ruled that herein respondents are children, and heirs of their deceased father, Marcelo Sr. This having been settled, it should no longer have been a litigated issue when we ordered a remand to the lower court. In short, petitioner Valente's, Violeta's, Virginia's, and Maria Concepcion's representation in the RTC that our ruling in Suarez required herein respondents to present evidence of their affiliation with the deceased, Marcelo Sr., is wrong.
2008-10-14
CARPIO MORALES, J.
The MOA-AD further provides for the sharing of minerals on the territorial waters between the Central Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter, through production sharing and economic cooperation agreement.[44] The activities which the Parties are allowed to conduct on the territorial waters are enumerated, among which are the exploration and utilization of natural resources, regulation of shipping and fishing activities, and the enforcement of police and safety measures.[45] There is no similar provision on the sharng of minerals and allowed activities with respect to the internal waters of the BJE.
2008-02-13
CORONA, J.
...[Courts] accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary[,] in the determination of actual cases and controversies[,] must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government.[69]
2004-12-15
PUNO, J.
As to suspect classes, non-exempt government employees (those with salary grades below 20) are not a group "saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness, as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process."[217] They are a group so much unlike race,[218] nationality,[219] alienage[220] or denominational preference[221] -- factors that are "seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy x x x."[222]
2004-12-01
PANGANIBAN, J.
The Decision merely shrugged off the Manifestation by WMPC informing the Court (1) that on January 23, 2001, WMC had sold all its shares in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, Inc., 60 percent of whose equity was held by Filipinos; and (2) that the assailed FTAA had likewise been transferred from WMCP to Sagittarius.[11] The ponencia declared that the instant case had not been rendered moot by the transfer and registration of the FTAA to a Filipino-owned corporation, and that the validity of the said transfer remained in dispute and awaited final judicial determination.[12] Patently therefore, the Decision is anchored on the assumption that WMCP had remained a foreign corporation.
2004-01-27
CARPIO MORALES, J.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory,[60] lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.[61] The power does not extend to hypothetical questions[62] since any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.[63]
2003-11-10
CARPIO MORALES, J.
As the phraseology now runs, which may be corrected by the Committee on Style, it appears that the initiation starts on the floor. If we only have time, I could cite examples in the case of the impeachment proceedings of President Richard Nixon wherein the Committee on the Judiciary submitted the recommendation, the resolution and the Articles of Impeachment to the body, and it was the body that approved the resolution. It is not the body which initiates it. It only approves or disapproves the resolution. So, on that score, probably the Committee on Style could help in rearranging these words because we have to be very technical about this. I have been bringing with me The Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. The Senate Rules are with me. The proceedings of the case of Richard Nixon are with me. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee has already decided. Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record x x x x (underscoring supplied for emphasis).[10]
2003-11-10
CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the impeachment mechanism is by constitutional design a sui generis political process, it is not impervious to judicial interference in case of arbitrary or capricious exercise of the power to impeach by Congress. It becomes the duty of the Court to step in, not for the purpose of questioning the wisdom or motive behind the legislative exercise of impeachment powers, but merely to check against infringement of constitutional standards. In such circumstance, legislative actions "might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence."[8] I must, of course, hasten to add by way of a finale the nature of the power of judicial review as elucidated in Angara v. Electoral Commission[9] -
2002-11-12
CARPIO, J.
immediate reelection after three successive terms)."[8] The framers of the Constitution used the same "no immediate reelection" question in voting for the term limits of Senators[9] and Representatives of the House.[10]
2001-02-01
QUISUMBING, J.
The settled rule of statutory construction is that repeals by implication are not favored.[20] R.A. No. 7202 cannot be deemed to have repealed P.D. No. 579. In addition, the power to declare a law unconstitutional does not lie with the legislature, but with the courts.[21] Assuming arguendo that R.A. No. 7202 did indeed repeal P.D. No. 579, said repeal is not a legislative declaration finding the earlier law unconstitutional.
2000-08-15
KAPUNAN, J.
to improve the peace and order situation in Metro Manila through a more effective crime prevention program including increased police patrols.[4]  The President further stated that to heighten police visibility in the metropolis, augmentation from the AFP is necessary.[5] Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless violence.[6] Finally, the President declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time when the situation shall have improved.[7] The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols as follows:x x x