Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Reyes, Nichali C.

Introduction to Law
Atty. Alfierri E. Bayalan & Atty. Gene Edward DC. Lopez



Philippine History and the Legal System

1. In re Application of Max Shoop for admission to practice law, November 29, 1920, 41 Phil.
213

Facts:

Max Shoop is applying for admission to practice law in the Philippines. It was shown in his application
that he was practicing for more than five years in the highest court of the state of New York. The rule of
New York court, permits admission without examination under similar circumstances to attorneys
admitted to the practice in the Philippine islands.

Issue:

Whether or not under the New York rule as it exists the principle of comity is established

Held:

Petition granted. Max Shoop can practice law in the Philippines. The jurisprudence of the jurisdiction is
based upon the English Common Law. Decision is based on the interpretation of the New York rule,
doesnt establish a precedent with respect to future applications.


2. Government vs Springer, GR No. L-26979, April 1, 1927, 50 Phil. 259

Facts:

The National Coal Company was created by the Philippine Congress in 1900 under Act No. 2822 and
provides that the voting power shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting of the Governor-
General, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1926, the Governor-
General issued E.O No.37 and it emphasized that the voting right should be vested only in the Governor-
General. NCC held its elections and elected Milton Springer and four others as Board of Directors of
NCC even though it was objected by the Governor-General.

Issue:

Whether or not the Senate President as well as the House of the Speaker can validly elect the Board
Members of NCC.

Held:

No. EO No. 37 is valid and it is in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers. The power of the
legislature is to create public office and it has nothing to do with designating persons to fill the office. To
appoint members of NCC is already an invasion of executive powers.

3. Marcos vs Manglapus, GR No. 88211, Sept.15, 1989, 177 SCRA 668

Facts:

After Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown from the presidency, he with his family fled to Hawaii. He was
asking the court to order the respondents to issue their travel documents and enjoin the implementation of
the Presidents decision to bar their return to the Philippines. And the petitioners contend that under the
provision of the Bill of Rights that the President is without a power to impair their liberty to abode
because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law.

Issue:

Whether or not the president has the power to bar Marcoses from returning to the Philippines

Held:

The president has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and
advance national interest. And in this case, it also calls the exercise of the Presidents power as protector
of the peace. The Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in determining the return of the petitioners at the present time so the petition is dismissed.


4. In re Cunanan, March 18, 1954, 94 Phil. 534

Facts:

The Congress passed Republic Act No. 972 or Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. In accordance with the law,
the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of
72% by raising it to 75%. And after its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed
petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions while other motions for the revision of their
examination papers were still pending also nvoked the law as an additional ground regarding admission.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 972 is constitutional and valid

Held:

RA 972 is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly had
inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. Also the law passed by the Congress is
permissive in character. So RA 972 is held to be unconstitutional.



5. Angara vs Electoral Commission, GR No. L-45081, July 15, 1936, 63 Phil. 139

Facts:

In the elections of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara and the respondents Pedro Ynsua, et al. were candidates voted
for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, Quezon. Angara
proclaimed as the member-elect of the NA and he took his oath of office. Ynsua filed before the Electoral
Commission a motion of protest against the election of Angara. And then Angara filed a petition to
dismiss arguing that by virtue of NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longer protest but he argued back that
EC proclamation governs and can take cognizance of the election protest and it cannot be subjected to a
writ of prohibition from the SC.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over such matters
2. Whether or not EC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the election
protest

Held:

1. The SC ruled in favor of Angara and it emphasized that in cases of conflict between the several
departments and among the agencies, and as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional
mechanism devised to resolve the said conflict.
2. Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with the specific powers and
functions to execute and perform for the purpose of classification to the legislative than to any
other departments of the government and they are the one who is judging the contests relating to
election, returns as well the qualifications of members of the NA.




The Constitution and its Construction

1. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, GR No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997


Facts:

The controversy arose is when GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila Hotel Corporation pursuant to
the privatization of the government. There were two bidders participated, MPHs bid was P41.58 per
share while Malaysian Firm Renong Berhads bid was at P44.00 per share. RB was the highest bidder and
need to declared so. Pending declaration, MPH matches RBs bid and invoked the Filipino First policy
enshrined under par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution but GSIS refused to accept. In turn MPH
filed a TRO to avoid the perfection or consummation of the sale to RB.

Issue:

Whether or not RB should be admitted as the highest bidder and be proclaimed as the legit buyer of
shares.

Held:

No, MPH should be awarded as the sale pursuant to Art. 12 of the 1987 Constitution. It enshrines the
Filipino First Policy. Manila Hotel also falls under the national patrimony. And according to the
Constitution, national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the
Constitution could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to the cultural heritage of the
Filipinos.


2. Nitafan vs CIR, GR No. L-78780, July 23, 1987

Facts:

The petitioners seek to instructed CIR from making deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries and
they contend that any tax withheld from their emoluments or compensation as judicial officers
constitutes a decrease of their salaries. But it is contrary to the provision of Section 10, Article 8 of 1987
Constitution provided that during their continuance n office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Issue:

Whether or not appointed and qualified judges may be exempt from payment of income tax

Held:

The primary task in constitutional construction is to make sure and thereafter assure the realization of the
purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. So the petition of the judges
is dismissed.




3. Amores vs HRET, GR No. 189600, June 29, 2010

Facts:

This a petition to declare Villanueva as ineligible to hold office as representative of CIBAC for being
overage to represent youth. Youth sector is represented by 25-30 and Villanueva was already 31 at the
time of filing of nomination and the changes of his affiliation from youth sector to OFW and families not
affected six months prior to elections.

Issue:

Whether the requirement for youth sector representatives apply to respondent Villanueva

Held:

Villanueva is ineligible to hold office as a member of HOR representing CIBAC. If representative of
youth sector, should be between 25-30 and also he is ineligible to represent OFW. Sectoral representation
should be changed six months prior to elections.









4. Francisco vs HRET, GR No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003

Facts:

Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The justiciable
controversy suspended in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second
complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law.
Issue:

Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution and
whether the resolution thereof is a political question and has resulted in a political crisis.

Held:

It is prevalent that the second impeachment proceeding against the Chief Justice is unconstitutional.
Under Article XI of our present Constitution, it is provided that with regard to the impeachment of public
officials such as the Chief Justice, there is a one-year bar provided. No impeachment proceeding shall be
initiated against the same official within a period of one year. The term initiate refers to the filing of the
case against the official. It starts when a complaint is filed with the Committee of Justice of the House of
Representatives. It is not initiated during the time when it is verified by the other members of the House
or when it is given to Senate for hearing. It is said that the SC cannot question or inquire about the
impeachment proceedings since it will disturb the separation of power, check and balance between the
branches of government, and that the SC has vested interest in the issue.

5. Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 83896, Feb. 22, 1991
Facts:
President Cory Aquino issued EO 284 which allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions
subject to limitations set therein. The CLU excepted this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional.
Issue:
Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional
Held:
As what Sec. 13, Art. 7 of 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President, members of
the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment
in the government, except in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified with
respect to posts held without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law . Art 7
in relation to Sec 7, par. (2), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is unconstitutional.

6. Chiongbian vs De Leon, GR No. L-2007, January 31, 1949

Facts:
Petitioner is a son of a Chinese citizen who has been elected into office before the adoption of the
Constitution, wherein said petitioner was still a minor. Respondents seeks to cancel petitioners
registration certificates of vessels and revoked the sale of vessels from the same on the ground that the
latter is allegedly not a Filipino citizen and therefore not qualified to operate and own vessels of
Philippine registry.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
Held:

Yes, because the petitioner, aside from the fact that he was a minor at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, follows the citizenship of his father who having been elected to public office before the
adoption of the said Constitution became a Filipino citizen as provided by Art. IV, 1987 of Constitution.


7. Macalintal vs COMELEC, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine
Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of RA 9189 commonly known as The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003 suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are properly and
lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency requirement
in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution.
2. Whether or not Section 18.5 of the same law violates the constitutional mandate under Section 4,
Article VII of the Constitution that the winning candidates for President and the Vice-President
shall be proclaimed as winners by Congress.
3. Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in
Section 25 of Rep. Act No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations that the Commission on Elections, promulgate without
violating the independence of the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution.

Held:
1. No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. It
disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country.
Petitioner claims that this is violated of the residency requirement in Section 1 Article V of
the Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one
year, and a resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding an election.
2. Yes. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to arrogate a power that constitutionally
belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for
President and Vice President for the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its
duty and power under Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. COMELEC has the authority
to proclaim the winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.
3. No. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the Implementing
Rules & Regulations for RA No. 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional
authority.