Article 8 Cases
-
Upload
ezra-denise-lubong-ramel -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Article 8 Cases
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
1/9
BADUA vs. CBA
Facts:Spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua allegedly
own farm land from which they were forcibly
ejected through the decision of the Cordillera
Bodong Administration, with the case entitled David
uema v! Leonor Badua! "he bac#ground of this
case reveals that David uema owns the parcels of
land evidenced by "a$ Declarations %&&' and
%&&(! "he parcels of land were purchased from Dr!
)rotida *alera! "wenty+two --. years later, he was
able to redeem the parcels of land through payment
of /0,000 to the vendor1s heir, 2essie 3acaraeg!
uema was prevented from tilling the land by Rosa
Badua! 4rompted by such turn of events, David
uema filed a case in the Baranggay Council but
failed to have the dispute settled! A judge advised
uema to file his case in the provincial courts!
5owever, uema did not, and filed it in the tribal
court of the 3aeng "ribe! Due to several warnings
from the tribe, spouses Badua filed a petition for
special relief, with the following to be settled6 a!
"hat the respondents be enjoined from enforcing
the decision of the tribal court in the pending case!
b! "he respondents be prohibited from usurping
judicial power! c! "hat the legal personality of the
Cordillera Bodong Administration be clarified! "he
Baduas also allege that they were denied due
process or hearing. and that the tribal court has
78 jurisdiction over the case, since neither they nor
the respondent are members of the 3aeng tribe!
"he respondents contend that the SC has no
jurisdiction over the case since the tribal court is78" a part of the judicial system!
Issue:9hether the tribal court has jurisdiction over
the case!
Held6 7o! "ribal courts are not a part of the
4hilippine judicial system which consists of the
Supreme Court and the lower courts which have
been established by law Sec! /, Art! *:::, /&('
Constitution.! "hey do not possess judicial power
Li#e the pang#ats or conciliation panels created by4!D! 7o! /;0( in the barangays, they are advisory
and conciliatory bodies whose principal objective is
to bring together the parties to a dispute and
persuade them to ma#e peace, settle, and
compromise! An amicable settlement, compromise
and arbitration award rendered by a pang#at, if no
seasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of
a final judgment of a court Sec! //, 4!D! /;0(., but
it can be enforced only through the local city ormunicipal court to which the secretary of the Lupon
transmits the compromise settlement or arbitration
award upon e$piration of the period to annul o
repudiate it Sec! /%, 4!D! /;0(.! Similarly, the
decisions of a tribal court based on compromise or
arbitration, as provided in 4!D! /;0(, may be
enforced or set aside, in and through the regular
courts today!
JAVELLANA vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
50 SCRA 30 Political law Constitutional Law
Political Question Validity of the 1973
Constitution Restiction to !udicial Powe
:n /&'
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
2/9
proposed constitution! =urther, the election held to
ratify such constitution is not a free election there
being intimidation and fraud!
ISSUE: 9hether or not the SC must give due
course to the petition!
HELD: "he SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the
case at bar! 3ajority of the SC justices e$pressedthe view that they were concluded by the
ascertainment made by the president of the
4hilippines, in the e$ercise of his political
prerogatives! =urther, there being no competent
evidence to show such fraud and intimidation
during the election, it is to be assumed that the
people had ac?uiesced in or accepted the /&'
"he nomination of the last two members who
would fill in the supposed seat of the minority
members. must not come from the majority party! :nthis case, the Chairman of the S)", apparently
already appointed members that would fill in the
minority seats even though those will come from
the majority party.! "his is still valid provided the
majority members of the S)" referring to those
legally sitting. concurred with the Chairman!
Besides, the S)" may set its own rules in situations
li#e this provided such rules comply with the
Constitution!
%ON&ALES vs. #OMELE#
"1 SCRA 77# Political Law A*end*ent to the
Constitution Political Question %s !usticia.le
Question
:n 2une /&E', Republic Act %&/< was passed! "his
law provided for the C83)L)C to hold a plebiscite
for the proposed amendments to the Constitution! :t
was provided in the said law that the plebiscite shall
be held on the same day that the general national
elections shall be held 7ovember /%, /&E'.! "his
was ?uestioned by Ramon onales and other
concerned groups as they argued that this was
unlawful as there would be no proper submission of
the proposals to the people who would be more
interested in the issues involved in the general
election rather than in the issues involving the
plebiscite!
onales also ?uestioned the validity of the
procedure adopted by Congress when they came
up with their proposals to amend the Constitution
RA %&/
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
6/9
able to compare the original proposition with the
amended proposition!
LO*E& vs. RO+AS
17 SCRA 75: Political Law Constitutional Law
!udicial Powe=efined
=ernando Lope and erardo Ro$as were the
candidates for *ice 4resident in the /&E; elections!
Lope won the election! Ro$as appealed his loss
before the 4residential )lectoral "ribunal 4)".!
"he 4)" was created by RA /'&
the law that6
'hee shall .e an inde+endent Pesidential
8lectoal i.unal / / / which shall .e the sole ,ud-e
of all contests elatin- to the election) etuns) and
$ualifications of the +esident;elect and the Vice;+esident elect of the Phili++ines/
:n effect, a losing candidate would have the right to
appeal his loss! Lope assailed the law and he
sought to enjoin Ro$as and the 4)" from
proceeding with the case! Lope averred that the
4)" is unconstitutional for it was not provided for in
the constitution! Also, since the 4)" is composed
of the Chief 2ustice and the other ten members of
the SC any decision of the 4)" cannot be validly
appealed before the SC or that there may beconflict that may arise once a 4)" decision is
appealed before the SC!
ISSUE: 9hether or not the 4)" is a valid body!
HELD: es! :n coming up with the 4)", the
Congress merely conferred a new function to the
Supreme Court! Such is within its power, the
Constitution allowed Congress to determine which
body should decide controversies relating to the
election of the 4resident or the *ice 4resident! RA
/'&< did not create another court within the SC for
pursuant to the Constitution, @the 2udicial power
shall be vested in oneSC and in such inferior
courts as may be established by law
"he Supreme Court went on to emphasie that the
fundamental law vests in the judicial branch of the
government, not merely some specified or limited
judicial power, but @the judicial power under our
political system, and, accordingly, the entirety or
@all of said power, e$cept, only, so much as the
Constitution confers upon some other agency, such
as the power to @judge all contests relating to the
election, returns and ?ualifications of members of
the Senate and those of the 5ouse of
Representatives, which is vested by the
fundamental law solely in the Senate )lectora
"ribunal and the 5ouse )lectoral "ribunal
respectively!
2udicial power is the authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts o
justice or the redress of wrongs for violations o
such rights! "he proper e$ercise of said authority
re?uires legislative action6 /. defining such
enforceable and demandable rights and>o
prescribing remedies for violations thereofG and -.
determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and
decide said controversies or disputes, in the firstinstance and>or on appeal! =or this reason, the
Constitution ordains that @Congress shall have the
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts, subject to the
limitations set forth in the fundamental law!
"he SC ruled that the 4)" is not in conflict with the
constitution! RA /'&< merely added the courtFs
jurisdiction and such can be validly legislated by
Congress! :t merely conferred upon the SC
additional functions i!e!, the functions of the 4)"
"his is valid because the determining of election
contests is essentially judicial!
SAN$IA%O vs. BAU$IS$A
FA#$S:
"eodoro Santiago, a grade E pupil, was adjudged
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
7/9
e$ercising judicial functions, under Rule E;,
certiorari is a remedy against judicial function
ISSUE:9o7 judicial function be e$ercised in this
case!
RULIN%:
A judicial function is an act performed by virtue ofjudicial powers! "he e$ercise of judicial function is
the doing of something in the nature of the action of
the court! :n order for an action for certiorari to
e$ist,
"est to determine whether a tribunal or board
e$ercises judicial functions6
/. there must be specific controversy involving
rights of persons brought before a tribunal for
hearing and determination!
-. that the tribunal must have the power and
authority to pronounce judgment and render adecision!
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
8/9
violation of Section /0, Article I of the Constitution,
as well as for violation of the e?ual protection
clause! 4etitioners also lament that the wholesale
conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce
the share of e$isting cities in the :nternal Revenue
Allotment because more cities will share the same
amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities
under Section -(; of the Local overnment Code!
Issues:
/! 9hether the Cityhood Laws violate Section /0,
Article I of the ConstitutionG and
-! 9hether or not the Cityhood Laws violate the
e?ual protection clause!
Held:
/! "he Cityhood Laws violate Sections E and /0,Article I of the Constitution, and are thus
unconstitutional!
-! es! "here is no substantial distinction between
municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the //th
Congress and municipalities that did not have
pending bills! "he mere pendency of a cityhood bill
in the //th Congress is not a material difference to
distinguish one municipality from another for the
purpose of the income re?uirement! "he pendency
of a cityhood bill in the //th Congress does not
affect or determine the level of income of a
municipality! 3unicipalities with pending cityhood
bills in the //th Congress might even have lower
annual income than municipalities that did not have
pending cityhood bills! :n short, the classification
criterion P mere pendency of a cityhood bill in the
//th Congress P is not rationally related to the
purpose of the law which is to prevent fiscally non+
viable municipalities from converting into cities!
,AR%AS ,S RILLORA&A
4osted by #aye lee on
-
7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases
9/9
who have to be thus appointed and confirmed
Sec;.!
Categories6 Constitutional Law /, *argas vs
Rilloraa case digest
Case Digest6 //; S!C!R!A!