This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition filed under Section 78 of the OEC.[21] In the exercise of such jurisdiction, it is within the competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation as to material facts was made in the COC.[22] | |||||
|
2008-09-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Respondent Committees argue as if this were the first time the presumption in favor of the presidential communications privilege is mentioned and adopted in our legal system. That is far from the truth. The Court, in the earlier case of Almonte v. Vasquez,[12] affirmed that the presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. Even Senate v. Ermita,[13] the case relied upon by respondent Committees, reiterated this concept. There, the Court enumerated the cases in which the claim of executive privilege was recognized, among them Almonte v. Chavez, Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),[14] and Chavez v. PEA.[15] The Court articulated in these cases that "there are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public,[16]" that there is a "governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters";[17] and that "the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as `privileged information' under the separation of powers, by which the Court meant Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings."[18] | |||||