Site Loader

CASE DIGEST

Article 1

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Article 3

Article 4

Election

Impeachment Cases of the President

Disciplanary Sanction on the members of Senate and House of Representatives

SUBMITTED BY:

Banie Pasayon

SUBMITTED TO :

Prof. Victoria
Ligan

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 1
NATIONAL TERRITORY
MAGALONA v.  ERMITA
G.R. No. 187167,  August 16, 2011
CARRPIO,
J. :

FACTS

     R.A 9522  Was an act established by the Philippines
on  27th of February, 1984.
The said act was executed by the congress on March 2009 for the purpose of
complying with the rules of UNCLOS III or United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea.
     Professor Merlin Magallona, together
with other petitioners questioned the efficacy of the said act (RA 9522).  They argue that  the 
national territory of the country (Philippines) Decreased because of
this law.  It further argues that :

1.  RA 9522 Violates the Article 1 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution as
As it reduces the territorial waters of the Philippines and also its sovereign
power.

2.  RA 9522 Injures the supreme authority
of the Philippines. Because the said law opens the country’s maritime waters to
all marine vessels and aircrafts. Such act might  affect the country’s  national security and maritime
resources.  It also contravenes the
nuclear-free policy of the Philippines.

3. RA 9522′ Treatment of KIG as “regime of islands” will result to the loss of
large portion of our marine territory and will affect the livelihood of our
fishermen.
   Because of this, the petitioners files
for the writs of certiorari. It aims to criticize whether the RA 9522 Is
constitutional or not.
ISSUE
     Whether 
the RA 9522 or also known as the amendatory Philippine Baseline Law  is Unconstitutional or  not.
RULING  

       NO.  The Decision of the court is that the said
law (RA 9522) is constitutional. The court stated that UNDER The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the sea or UNCLOS III, RA 9522 is a required tool to
Demarcate the Maritime zones and continental Shelf of the Philippines.  It is also an important step in protecting
the territorial waters of the Philippines.
       The court also added that the
conversion of our maritime zones will not risk the Philippines as affirmed in
the  UNCLOS III (Article 49), and
archipelagic country has supreme authority 
that extends to the waters enclosed 
by the archipelagic baselines. It is further stated that regime of
archipelagic sea lanes passage will not affect the exercise of authority of the
state, both its territorial waters and airpace.
        The further explained that  RA 9522 are just an instrument so that the
UNCLOS III can explain the delimitations in an accurate manner and it only
serves as a notice to the others states. The court also explained that baseline
laws will not produce any effect like increasing or decreasing of territories.

 

GOVERNMENT  v. MONTE DE PIEDAD
G.R. No.  L-9959, December  13, 1916
TRENT, 
J.:

FACTS
1. On 3rd of June, 1865, an earthquake struck the
Philippines.  Because of this, spain paid
around $ 400,000 to the treasury of the Philippines. The said money will be
going to use as a relief fund for those who became victim of the said
earthquake.

2. Because of the petition of the Monte
de Piedad, a non-for-profit institution,  the government of the Philippines ordered its
treasury to give $80,000 of the relief fund given by the spain to the Monte de
Piedad. But the said money will given through installment.  $20,000 will be given each installment.
Because of this petition,  many petitions
were filed including the heirs of those entitled on the said money. They also
want the Philippine government to file a suit against Monte de piedad and that
the said company should for the money they took with interest.

3.  The Monte de Piedad  appealed  since all the money that they get from the
relief fund have been spent already. Specifically on jewelry loans.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Philippine government is the right authority to take
action.

RULING
YES.  The Philippine government can take
action  on the said issue since there has
been no change in authority. Another reason is that the Philippine government
has the supreme authority over the state and considered as the legal protector
of inhabitants of the Philippines. They can take action also since they are the
ones who has the authority on the relief fund 
in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 3

Bill of Rights
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION INC.  v. MAYOR OF MANILA
G.R. No.  L-24693,  October 20, 1967
FERNANDO, J. :

FACTS :
   
City ordinance no 4760 was implemented by the Municipal Board of Manila
and was approved by then Mayor astorga on 13th of June, 1963. The
ordinance aims to regulate hotels and Motels. Those who were classified as “1st
class” were obliged to pay  6000 pesos a
year for tax while those who were classified as 
“2nd class” must pay 
4500 a year. The said ordinance also urged the managements of Hotels and
Motels to get the information of the persons who checks in to their buildings.
They also urge the managements to have wide open spaces so that the identity of
their customers will not be hidden. Because of this, Ermita-Malate questioned
the effictiveness of the said ordinance. They also argue that such ordinance is
against  the due process clause.

ISSUE
The issue is that whether the city ordinance 4760 is against the due process or
not.

RULING
      NO. The city ordinance no. 4760 is
not against the due process clause. The 
Supreme Court favors Astorga because the ordinance they enacted is
considered as valid. The ordinance is a valid exercise of authority of Law
Enforcing officials. One of the aims of the ordinance is to decrease the rate
of prostitution in manila. With regards to the increase in tax on Hotels and
Motels, the goal of the ordinance is not just to discourage the managements
of  these establishments from doing
illegal things, but also to increase the revenue of the lgu concerned.

 

 

MMDA v. BEL – AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION , INC.

G.R. No. 135962,  March 27, 2000

PUNO, J. :

FACTS

1. MMDA is a government agency  that
was tasked with supervitory authority within Metro manila. On the other hand,
Bel – Air Village Association, INC. also known sa BAVA  is a non-profit
corporation in Makati , manila. The members of the said corporation are homeowners  of a private residence in the same city known
as Bel – Air Village. The On the day of 22nd of December 1995, the
MMDA sent a Notice to Bel – Air through its chairman. The MMDA requests for
opening of the Neptune street, a street owned by the BAVA inside the Bel – Air
Village for public use starting on 2nd of January, 1996.  BAVA estimated that in order for the Neptune
street to be used as a public road, The perimeter wall that is separating the
subdivision and the kalayaan Avenue would be demolish.

2. Because of this, BAVA issued a civil case against MMDA for injunction . The
said corporation hopes for the Issuance of 
Temporary Restraining Order (Which was allowed by the RTC) and
Prohibiting  the said demolition of the
perimeter wall that divides neptune street and kalayaan road.

3. After due hearing , the RTC
denied the issuance of preliminary injunction that was requested by  BAVA.

ISSUE
Whether  the MMDA has the
authority to open the said Private road to the public or not .

RULING
     NO. 
Even though the MMDA claims that they have the authority to open the
Neptune street for public use since MMDA is an agent of the state that  given the 
authority of police power, and even 
though the purpose of their act to demolish the perimeter wall of the
Bel – Air village is for the benefit of the general welfare  of metro manila, they still do not have the
authority to issue an order like this. Because according to CA, the City
council of Makati has the right to do such thing of giving a notice to demolish
the perimeter wall of the said subdivision for public use and it must be done
through ordinance.

 

 

 

ARTICLE 4
CITIZENSHIP
ANGAT  v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 132244,  September  14, 
1999

VITUG, J. :

FACTS :
1.  Gerardo Angat, a natural born
citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, make a request  to reclaim his Filipino citizenship in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Marikina.
2.  Marikina RTC approved his request and
angat was allowed by the said court to take his Oath of Allegiance  in
Marikina  on the 3rd of
October, 1996 and then declared as a Filipino Citizen the next day.
3. The Office of Solicitor General file both manifestation and motion in March
1997, the OSG asserts that  because of
lack of jurisdiction, the RTC should have dismissed the said petition.

ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction in deciding over
repatriation case or not.

 

HELD

    NO. 
Because the Regional Trial Court has no official power to make
judgements when it comes to repatriation. 
SC stated that instead of Regional Trial Court, such request of
regaining citizenship must be filed with the Special Committee on
Naturalization.
    There is also a mistake to the petitioner as
well.  When Angat took is oat of
allegiance, he invoked RA 965 and RA 2630. These acts only applied to those
Filipinos who lost their citizenship because they’ve become part of the armed
forces of an allied country. The court further stated that in the case of Angat
who just wants to reacquire his citizenship as a Filipino, he doesn’t need to
file a petition. He just needs to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and register the said oath to civil registry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MERCADO v. MANZANO

G.R. No. 135083,  May 26, 1999
VITUG, J. :

FACTS :
1.  A petition to disqualify the actor
Edu Manzano has been filed for the reason that he holds 2 citizenships
(Filipino and American Citizenship ; The reason he got American citizenship is
that he was born in the United States, on Flipino mother and Filipino Father).
2. The COMELEC approved this petition and Edu Manzano was disqualified from
holding any public position for the reason of manzano having  2 citizenships

ISSUE

   
Whether  having a 2 citizenship is
a reason for disqualification from running in election and holding a public
position in the government or not.

HELD
     NO.  Dual Citizenship is not a ground for
termination in running for a public position in the government. Because, It is
different from Dual Allegiance.  Persons who 
has a mere dual citizenship and not dual allegiance must not be
disqualified from running in elections.

ELECTION  CASES

SOLLER  v.  COMELEC

G.R. No. 139853,  September  5, 
2000

QUISUMBING, J. :

FACTS:

1.  Soller, and Saulong were both
candidates for the position of mayor in the City of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in
the 11th of May, 1998 elections.

2. After the election. Soller was proclaimed the winner and elected as the
mayor of municipality of bansud. Saulong on the other hand files a petition in
the COMELEC to invalidate the proclamation of soller as the mayor of the said
municipality.

3.  The COMELEC denied the petition filed by
saulong  while soller’s motion to dismiss
that was filed in the Regional Trial Court was denied as well. A motion for
reconsideration has been filed by soller but it was denie by the RTC also.

4. Soller then filed a petition for certiorari to the comelec for the reason of
RTC’s grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing Saulong’s  protest. But the COMELEC en banc dismissed
Soller’s case.

5. Soller questions the decision that the COMELEC en banc made.

ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC has the power to make a decision regarding on the case.

RULING
     NO. The COMELEC has no authority
to listen and give decisions on election cases such as the proclamation issue
between Soller and Saulong. Any decision that was made by the commission en
banc with regards to election cases is considered as invalid. The Supreme Court
stated that resolving  issues like
election protest, or even the petition for certiorari that soller has filed
must be done by the COMELEC and not the COMELEC en banc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SISON v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 134096,  March 3, 1999

ROMERO, J. :

FACTS :
1. During the canvassing of election returns in Quezon City Board of
Canvassers,The Petitioner (Joseph Peter Sison) 
to Suspend the Canvassing of Votes and Proclamation of winners in Quezon
City and Declare a Failure of Election.
2. The petition stated that Failure of Election must be declared in Quezon City
for the reason of  “Massive and
Orchestrated fraud”
3. The City Board of Canvassers Declared the winners of election in Quezon City
even though the petition of Sison was still pending.

4. On the 22nd of June,
1998, the petition of sison was dismissed by the COMELEC because there is not
enough evidence to support the claim of the petitioner of massive fraud during
election and that these reasons were not among the grounds of declaring failure
of elections  (As written in the Section
17 of Republic Act. No. 7166 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).

ISSUE

Whether the reasons of the
petitioner to declare the failure of election are valid of not.

HELD

    
The grounds of Sison is not valid to declare failure of
elections. Because under the Omnibus Election code, there are only 3 valid
reason for the election to be suspended 
(Declare Failure of Elections) These are :

– If the election has been suspended for the reason of Violence, Terrorism ,
and other analogous causes
-If the election has been suspended before the hour fixed by law
-If there is an act of violence, terrorism, or other analogous cases during the
preparation/transmission of election result.

    In the Petition of sison, the COMELEC
did not found anything that could support sison’s claims of declaring failure
of election in Quezon City.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPEACHMENT CASES OF THE PRESIDENT

ESTRADA v.  DISIERTO

G.R. No. 146710-15,  March  2, 
2001

ESTRADA v. Arroyo

G.R. No. 146738,  March  2, 
2001

PUNO, J

FACTS :
1.During the May 11, 1998 elections, Joseph Estrada won as the President of
the Republic of the Phipilippines while Gloria Macapagal Arroyo won as the Vice
President.


The Governor of Ilocos Sur Chavit singson accused Estrada of receiving
millions from illegal gambling, specifically from jueteng lords. Reactions of
anger has been receive by the petitioner because of the issue expose by
singson.

3. Because of this issue, the
people wants Estrada to resign to his position as the President. His officials
also withdraw their support to Estrada by resigning to their positions.

4. Trial for the Impeachment of
Estrada was opened on 20th of January, 2000. The trial began on
December 7.

5.. People lined up in EDSA January
19 to show their support in the resignation of Estrada.

6.On the 20Th of
January, Estrada surrendered. Chief Justice Davide appointed Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo as the new President of the Philippines.

7. Arroyo then discharged the
powers of the President after the oath.

8.After the resignation of
Estrada,  Criminal charges were filed
against him.

 

ISSUE
1.Whether  the case at bar is a
political or justiciable issue or not. If 
Justiciable,  whether  the petitioner was a president-on-leave or
did he truly resign to his post as the President.

2. Whether  Estrada 
has the right to invoke immunity from suits or not.

RULING
     The court defines Political
issue as questions that should be decided by the people . It is Further stated
that Political Issues depends upon the wisdom and not the legality of a
Particular Issue.
     The court made a distinction between
the Aquino and the Arroyo Presidency. The Aquino administration was built
because of the people who are against the 1973 constitution. On the Other Hand,
the Arroyo Administration is a government who is exercising the 1987
constitution, wherein only the office of the president was affected.  According to the supreme court, the question
of whether Estrada resigns on his position as the President or not subjects to
judicial review. The court further stated that the issue of the petitioner is
considered as legal issue. Not political.
In order for a President to be deemed as having resigned from his position, the
President have have an intention to resign from his position and must be
supported by acts of withdrawal. In the case of Estrada, he resigned by the use
of the totality test.
     With regards to the issue of whether
 Estrada is immune from suits, no. The
court stated that even though those criminal acts were done during his tenure,
the petitioner (Estrada) cannot invoke his immunity from suits.

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY SANCTION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES

JIMENEZ v. CABANGBANG

G.R. No. L-15905,  August 3, 1966

CONCEPCION, C.J, :

FACTS :

1. In 1958, Barotolome Cabangbang, a member of the House of representatives
and Chair of its Commmittee on national defense caused the publication of an
open letter addressed to the Philippines.

2. One of the contents of the letter was a alleged plan of Jesus Vargas
(Defense Secretary during that time) of coup d’état for the purpose of placing him as the President.
Cabangbang addressed in the letter that the planners of the said coup d’état 
were Nicanor Jimenez  and others.

3. The said letter that was published by cabangbang has been
published in different newspapers. Because of this, Jimenez filed a case
against cabangbang because according to Jimenez, the states of Cabangbang in
the said letter were libelous.

4. Cabangbang then file for a petition for the case to be
dismissed and he stated that  he is
immune from suit that covered by the privileged communication and that what he
said in the letter is not libelous.

ISSUE

Whether the said letter published by cabangbang is covered by
privilege communication or not.

RULING

     No. It is not the
said letter is not covered on cabangbang’s privilege communication as a member
of the lower house. Because under the article 6 section 15 of the constitution,
it states that “The Senators
and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest during their
attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from
the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in
any other place.”  According
to the court , the letter published by cabangbang is not covered by the said
privilege. The only thing that the privilege communication covers is the word
uttered by congressman that connects to their official functions such as
speeches delivered, statements, etc.

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES  v.
JALOSJOS

G.R. No. 132875-76,  February 3,
2000

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. :

FACTS :
1. Romeo Jalosjos, a member of the congress, was confined in a national  penitentiary while his conviction for
statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal.
2. Jalosjos filed a petition to be fully discharged the duties of a congressman.

ISSUE
     Whether  Jalosjos should be allowed to discharge
mandate on his duties as a member of the house of representatives or not.

RULING
     No. The immunity from arrest or detention
of senators or members of the house of Representatives arises from a provision
of the Constitution and shows that this privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense.

It is true, election is the authority of the
people. However,  rights and privileges
from being elected as a public official may be restricted by law. Such
privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position,
the higher the rank, the greater the requirement of obedience rather that
exemption.

The court stated that, the petitioner, Jalosjos
has not given any reason on why he should be exempted from the operation
of  article 6 section 11 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. The members of congress cannot force a member to
attend session for the absent is valid. The confinement of a Congressman with a
crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 months is not merely authorized
by law, has constitutional foundations.  It is further stated that if Jalosjos will be
allowed attend meetings in the congress, It will make him a freeman with all
the privileges and would make his status to that of a special class and it
would also be a making of the purpose of the correction system

 

REFERENCES :

http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.html

Magalona vs Ermita

https://www.scribd.com/doc/58600165/Citizenship-notes-with-Case-Digest

http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/angat-vs-republic-of-philippines.html

http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/mercado-vs-manzano.html

http://lawpadiday.blogspot.com/2016/03/case-digest-estrada-vs-arroyo-estrada.html

http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/jimenez-vs-cabangbang/

 

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Sonya!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out