This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-10-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with decisions invalidating laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances inconsistent with the Constitution. In Pelaez v. Auditor General,[33] the Court considered repealed Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 authorizing the Executive to change the seat of the government of any subdivision of local governments, upon the approval of the 1935 Constitution. Section 68 was adjudged incompatible and inconsistent with the Constitutional grant of limited executive supervision over local governments. In Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., v. Office of the Executive Secretary,[34] the Court declared Executive Order No. 46, entitled "Authorizing the Office on Muslim Affairs to Undertake Philippine Halal Certification," void for encroaching on the religious freedom of Muslims. In The Province of Batangas v. Romulo,[35] the Court declared some provisions of the General Appropriations Acts of 1999, 2000 and 2001 unconstitutional for violating the Constitutional precept on local autonomy. And in Ople v. Torres,[36] the Court likewise declared unconstitutional Administrative Order No. 308, entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System," for being violative of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution. | |||||