Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
The Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ordering petitioners to
clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their different capacities.
The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly
progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the agencies in accordance with said
decision and to monitor the execution phase.
In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee recommended that time
frames be set for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the recommendation by the Committee is an encroachment over the
powers and functions of the Executive Branch headed by the President of the
Philippines.
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Adjudicative function
The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial
power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but
an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court.
While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission of plans of
action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the execution
stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Petition is DENIED
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should be referred to Court En banc.
HELD:
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's motion for reconsideration and motion to refer the case to
the Court En Banc are hereby DENI ED WI TH FIN ALI TY, without prejudice to any and
all appropriate actions that the Court may take not only against counsel on record for
the petitioner for his irresponsible remarks, but also against other persons responsible
for the reckless publicity anent this case calculated to maliciously erode the people's
faith and confidence in the integrity of this Court.
RATIO:
This reorganization, like those before it, was made only upon prior consultation with and
approval of the Members of theCourt. The petitioner itself found such reorganization
"long overdue"
NOTE:
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
thereof.cralaw
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.cralaw (3) Cases or matters
heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number
is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en bancor in division may
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.