Lawyerly

GR No. 206513

2015-10-20

PERALTA, J.

In this jurisdiction, the concept of probation was introduced during the American colonial period.[14] For juvenile delinquents, Act No. 3203[15] was enacted on December 3, 1924. It was later amended by Act Nos. 3309,[16] 3559,[17] and 3725.[18] As to offenders who are eighteen years old and above, Act No. 4221[19] was passed by the legislature and took effect on August 7, 1935. Said Act allowed defendants who are convicted and sentenced by a Court of First Instance or by the Supreme Court on appeal, except those who are convicted of offenses enumerated in Section 8 thereof,[20] to be placed on probation upon application after the sentence has become final and before its service has begun.[21] However, We declared in People v. Vera[22] that Act No. 4221 is unconstitutional and void as it constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards.

GR No. 207145

2015-07-28

GIL G. CAWAD v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD

PERALTA, J.

Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.[10]

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Indeed, Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution mentions of the term item that may be the object of augmentation by the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions. In Belgica v. Ochoa,[32] we said that an item that is the distinct and several part of the appropriation bill, in line with the item-veto power of the President, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not be only general provisions, thus:For the President to exercise his item-veto power, it necessarily follows that there exists a proper "item" which may be the object of the veto. An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Islands, the US Supreme Court characterized an item of appropriation as follows:

GR No. 209287

2015-02-03

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Relevantly, the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, being public officers, further enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. This presumption is necessary because they are clothed with some part of the sovereignty of the State, and because they act in the interest of the public as required by law.[55] However, the presumption may be disputed.[56]

UDK-15143

2015-01-21

IN MATTER OF: SAVE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND

LEONEN, J.

In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is "a Filipino citizen, and a concerned taxpayer[.]"[8] He filed this petition as part of his "continuing crusade to defend and uphold the Constitution"[9] because he believes in the rule of law.[10] He is concerned about the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority Development Assistance Fund[11] case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement Acceleration Program[12] case on July 1, 2014.

GR No. 213181

2014-08-19

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

MENDOZA, J.

The fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion, however, does not automatically denigrate an applicant's entitlement to due process. It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. [44] Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[45] On the whole, disciplinary proceedings are actually aimed to verify and finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit from the rights and privileges that membership in the legal profession evoke.

GR No. 209287

2014-07-01

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

Our previous Constitutions equally recognized the extent of the power of judicial review and the great responsibility of the Judiciary in maintaining the allocation of powers among the three great branches of Government. Speaking for the Court in Angara v. Electoral Commission,[28] Justice Jose P. Laurel intoned: x x x In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several department and among the integral or constituent units thereof.

GR No. 209287

2014-07-01

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

(1) A certified copy of the Memorandum for the President dated June 25, 2012 (Omnibus Authority to Consolidate Savings/ Unutilized Balances and their Realignment);[10]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of legislative authority. The petitioners question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to determine whether a product is non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List (EDL).[51] The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule provision under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.[52] The RH Law violates Natural Law.[53] The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local Government Units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). It is contended that the RH Law, providing for reproductive health measures at the local government level and the ARMM, infringes upon the powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM under the Local Government Code and R.A. No. 9054.[54]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

Various parties also sought and were granted leave to file their respective comments-in-intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the RH Law. Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which commented on the petitions in behalf of the respondents,[55] Congressman Edcel C. Lagman,[56] former officials of the Department of Health Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez,[57] the Filipino Catholic Voices for Reproductive Health (C4RH),[58] Ana Theresa "Risa" Hontiveros,[59]and Atty. Joan De Venecia[60] also filed their respective Comments-in-Intervention in conjunction with several others. On June 4, 2013, Senator Pia Juliana S. Cayetano was also granted leave to intervene.[61]

	GR No. 206513 2015-10-20	MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
In this jurisdiction, the concept of probation was introduced during the American colonial period.[14] For juvenile delinquents, Act No. 3203[15] was enacted on December 3, 1924. It was later amended by Act Nos. 3309,[16] 3559,[17] and 3725.[18] As to offenders who are eighteen years old and above, Act No. 4221[19] was passed by the legislature and took effect on August 7, 1935. Said Act allowed defendants who are convicted and sentenced by a Court of First Instance or by the Supreme Court on appeal, except those who are convicted of offenses enumerated in Section 8 thereof,[20] to be placed on probation upon application after the sentence has become final and before its service has begun.[21] However, We declared in People v. Vera[22] that Act No. 4221 is unconstitutional and void as it constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards.
	GR No. 207145 2015-07-28	GIL G. CAWAD v. FLORENCIO B. ABAD PERALTA, J.
Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.[10]
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, Section 25(5) of the 1987 Constitution mentions of the term item that may be the object of augmentation by the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions. In Belgica v. Ochoa,[32] we said that an item that is the distinct and several part of the appropriation bill, in line with the item-veto power of the President, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not be only general provisions, thus:For the President to exercise his item-veto power, it necessarily follows that there exists a proper "item" which may be the object of the veto. An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Islands, the US Supreme Court characterized an item of appropriation as follows:
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Relevantly, the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, being public officers, further enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. This presumption is necessary because they are clothed with some part of the sovereignty of the State, and because they act in the interest of the public as required by law.[55] However, the presumption may be disputed.[56]
	UDK-15143 2015-01-21	IN MATTER OF: SAVE SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE v. ABOLITION OF JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND LEONEN, J.
In the letter-petition, Mijares alleges that he is "a Filipino citizen, and a concerned taxpayer[.]"[8] He filed this petition as part of his "continuing crusade to defend and uphold the Constitution"[9] because he believes in the rule of law.[10] He is concerned about the threats against the judiciary after this court promulgated Priority Development Assistance Fund[11] case on November 19, 2013 and Disbursement Acceleration Program[12] case on July 1, 2014.
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
The fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion, however, does not automatically denigrate an applicant's entitlement to due process. It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. [44] Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[45] On the whole, disciplinary proceedings are actually aimed to verify and finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit from the rights and privileges that membership in the legal profession evoke.
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
Our previous Constitutions equally recognized the extent of the power of judicial review and the great responsibility of the Judiciary in maintaining the allocation of powers among the three great branches of Government. Speaking for the Court in Angara v. Electoral Commission,[28] Justice Jose P. Laurel intoned: x x x In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several department and among the integral or constituent units thereof.
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
(1) A certified copy of the Memorandum for the President dated June 25, 2012 (Omnibus Authority to Consolidate Savings/ Unutilized Balances and their Realignment);[10]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of legislative authority. The petitioners question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to determine whether a product is non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List (EDL).[51] The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule provision under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.[52] The RH Law violates Natural Law.[53] The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local Government Units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). It is contended that the RH Law, providing for reproductive health measures at the local government level and the ARMM, infringes upon the powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM under the Local Government Code and R.A. No. 9054.[54]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Various parties also sought and were granted leave to file their respective comments-in-intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the RH Law. Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which commented on the petitions in behalf of the respondents,[55] Congressman Edcel C. Lagman,[56] former officials of the Department of Health Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez,[57] the Filipino Catholic Voices for Reproductive Health (C4RH),[58] Ana Theresa "Risa" Hontiveros,[59]and Atty. Joan De Venecia[60] also filed their respective Comments-in-Intervention in conjunction with several others. On June 4, 2013, Senator Pia Juliana S. Cayetano was also granted leave to intervene.[61]

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA