You are on page 1of 4

Datu Zaldy v.

Puno
Facts: After the Maguindanao Massacre, PGMA placed Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao,
and the City of Cotabato under State of Emergency. 3 days later, then PGMA issued
Administrative Orders 273 and its amendment 273-A delegating the supervision of
the ARMM to the DILG. Petitioners claim that the issuances encroached on the
ARMMs authority granted in the constitution.
Issue: WON the Proclamation 1946, and the Administrative Orders issued by the
president violate the principle of local autonomy in the constitution
Held: No. DILG secretary did not take over control of the powers of the ARMM. After
law enforcement agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody, ARMM
vice-governor assumed the vacated post pursuant to the rule on succession found
in RA 9054.
Kuluyan v. Tan
Facts: On January 15, 2009, 3 members of the International Committee of the Red
Cross were kidnapped in the vicinity of the Provincial Capitol on Patikul, Sulu.
Governor Tan issued Proclamation 1-09 declaring a state of emergency in the
province of Sulu due to the incident describing it as a terrorist act. Petitioners
contend that such proclamation is in violation of the constitution as only the
president has the authority to exercise emergency powers and calling-out powers.
Respondent argues that such act was not ultra vires as it was in line with the Local
Government Code which empowers Provincial Governor to carry out emergency
measures during calamities and disasters, and to call upon the appropriate law
enforcement agencies to suppress disorder, lawless violence etc.
Issue: WON the Provincial Governor can exercise emergency powers and calling out
powers
Held: No. The calling-out powers contemplated under the constitution is exclusive to
the president. The respondents cannot rely on Par1 Subsection vii of the Article 465
of the LGC, as said provision expressly refers to calamities and disasters, whether
man made or natural. The intent behind the powers granted to local
government units are fiscal, economic, and administrative in nature. The
code is concerned only with powers that would make delivery of basic
services more effective to the constituents.
Abbas v. Comelec
Facts: The case involves the plebiscite in the 13 provinces and 9 cities in Mindanao
and Palawan, for implementation of RA 6734: An Act Providing for an Organic Act for
the ARMM. It also involves the Tripoli agreement, which is between the Government
and the MILF.
Issue: WON RA 6734 unconditionally creates ARMM
Held: No. The constitution clearly indicates that It will readily be seen that the
creation of the autonomous region is made to depend, not on the total majority vote

in the plebiscite, but on the will of the majority in each of the constituent units and
the proviso underscores this. for if the intention of the framers of the Constitution
was to get the majority of the totality of the votes cast, they could have simply
adopted the same phraseology as that used for the ratification of the Constitution,
i.e. the creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
It is thus clear that what is required by the Constitution is a simple majority of votes
approving the organic Act in individual constituent units and not a double majority
of the votes in all constituent units put together, as well as in the individual
constituent units. the creation of the ARMM shall take place only in accord with the
constitutional requirements.
Ordillos v. Comelec
Facts: On January 30, 1990, the people of the provinces of Benguet Mountain
Province, Ifugao, Abra, and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votes in
a plebiscite held pursuant to RA6766 entitled An Act Providing for an Organic Act
for CAR. The results of the plebiscite showed that the only the majority of the Ifugao
Province approved of the creation of the Region.
Issue: WON the province of Ifugao alone can constitute a Region
Held: No. It is explicit in the constitution that provinces, cities, municipalities and
geographical areas connote that region specified in the ARMM and CAR. This means
it has to be made up of more than one constituent unit.
Badua v. CBA
Facts: Petitioners allegedly own a farm land in Lucaga, Abra. They were forcibly
ejected from the land by virtue of a decision of the Cordillera Bodong
Administration. As Quema was prevented by Rosa badua from cultivating the land,
he filed a case before the Barangay Council, failing to settle the dispute, he
instead of filing his complaint to the provincial level courts filed it to the tribal
court of the Maeng Tribe. The Tribal Court conducted a trial and subsequently
rendered a decision in favor of Quema.
Issue: WON a tribal court of the Cordillera Bodong Administration can render a valid
and executory decision in a land dispute
Held: No. As the creation of the CAR was rejected by all the provinces and city of the
Cordillera Region except the Ifugao Province, the CAR did not come to be. As a
logical consequence, the Cordillera Bodong Administration, the indigenous and
special courts for the indigenous cultural communities of the Cordillera Region, and
the Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army do not legally exist. Maeng Tribal Court is
only an ordinary tribal court existing under the customs and traditions of an
indigenous cultural community, such tribal courts are not part of the Philippine
Judicial System, they do not possess judicial power and mere advisory and
conciliatory bodies. An amicable settlement, compromise, and arbitration award
rendered by it, if not seasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of a final

judgement of a court, but can only be enforced through the local city or municipal
court to which the secretary of the Lupon transmits the compromise settlement etc.
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Panel
Facts: The case involves the controversy on the armed conflict between the
government and the MILF. On Aug 5, 2008 the Government were scheduled to sign a
memorandum of agreement on the ancestral domain aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli
Agreement on Peace in KL Malaysia.
Issue: WON BJE is constitutional
Held: No. There is nothing in the law that contemplate any state within the
jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it provide for a transitory
status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence. The
court disagrees with the respondent that the MOA-AD merely expands the ARMM.
BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a state laid down in the
Montevideo Convention, namely, a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. As such the
MOA-AD clearly runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic.

Gonzales v. OP
Facts: The case is related to the hostage taking of P/S Insp. Rolando Mendoza that
ended up killing 8 Hong Kong nationals. IIRC identified Gonzales as among those
whom culpability must lie. In its report, Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales committed
serious and inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules of
procedure by allowing Mendozas motion for reconsideration to languish for more
than 9 months without any justification, which precipitated the desperate resort of
Mendoza to take-hostage. RRC then referred to the OP its findings for further
determination of possible administrative offenses and for initiation of the proper
administrative proceedings. He was subsequently dismissed after a Preliminary
Clarificatory Conference was conducted by ODESLA and was suspended for 1 year.
Issue: WON the OP has jurisdiction to exercise administrative disciplinary power
over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor who belong to the
constitutionally-created office of the Ombudsman.
Held: Yes.While the Ombudsmans authority to discipline administratively is
extensive and covers all government officials, such authority is by no means
exclusive. While Sec.21 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act) declares Ombudsmans
disciplinary authority, Sec 8 of the same RA grants the President express power of
removal over a deputy ombudsman and a special prosecutor. A harmonious
construction of these two conflicting provisions leads to the inevitable conclusion
that the congress had intended the Ombudsman and the President to exercise
concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over petitioners.
Gutierrez v. HRCJ

Facts: On July 2010, impeachment case were submitted to the House of


Representatives. Another impeachment complaint was filed after the opening of the
15th congress. Only after the complaints were filed, that the 15 th congress
promulgated their rules of impeachment by merely adopting the rules of
impeachment of the prior congress
Issue: WON the Congress promulgation its own rules of impeachment

Lecaros v. Sandiganbayan
Fact: On October 21, 1980 petitioner was charged with the crime of grave coercion
in an information filed before the Sandiganbayan. PD 1486 was issued mandating
that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over other crimes or offenses
committed by public officers or employees, including those employed in GOCC, in
relation to their office. In 1983, PD1861 amended PD 1606 providing that public
officers and employees that exceed prision coreccional or imprisonment for
imprisonment for 6 years are no longer within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and Regular courts but are now vested in the latter.