Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
33Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Conlaw II Case Doctrines

Conlaw II Case Doctrines

Ratings: (0)|Views: 477 |Likes:
Published by puerile_28

More info:

Published by: puerile_28 on Apr 03, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page
1
of 
31
 
CASE DOCTRINEI.
 
Rights-Based Discourse
Norms, Rights and the Place of Judicial Power 
A.
 
G
eneral
Art. VIII, §1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.Art. VIII, §2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive theSupreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.Art. VIII, §4(2)
 
All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by theSupreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving theconstitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall bedecided 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.Art. VIII, §5(2)
 
Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments andorders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidentialdecree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
G
arcia v. BOI
Right to Information; Access to public records; exceptionTrade and industrialsecrets-
 
B
ataan Petrochemical Corp. decided to transfer its proposed refineryoperations to
B
atangas.
BO
I approved despite objections of localgovernment officials. SC reversed
BO
Is decision.-
 
Pursuant to Art. VIII, §1, it is the duty of the court to address thecontroversy. It may substitute its discretion and judgment to that of 
BO
I andthe investors.-
 
D
issent 
: The court should not delve on matters beyond its competence.
Oposa v. Factoran
The SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their parents, to challenge thevalidity of logging concessions on the basis of the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility for and right to a balanced and healthful ecology guaranteed by Art. II,§16.Does not involve a political question but an issue of enforcing a right vis-à-vis policyformulated. Nevertheless, political question is no longer insurmountable in view of Art. VIII, §1(2).
Kilosbayan v. Morato
In
Kilosbayan v.
G
uingona, Jr
., the SC affirmed the right of petitioners to challengethe validity of the lotto contract of the PCS
O
with the Phil. Gaming Mgt., Corp. on theargument that the case was of transcendental importance. This case reverses thisdecision on the ground that the petitioner had no substantial interest in the contractbeing challenged.Justice Felicianos guide in determining
cases of transcendental importance
:a)
 
the character of the funds involvedb)
 
presence of a disregard of law prohibiting an agency from doingcertain actionsc)
 
lack of party w/ a more direct & specific interestd)
 
wide impact or applicationA partys standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by theCourt in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raisedby petitioners are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, theCourt may brush aside the procedural barrier.
Tañada v. Angara
Senates concurrence in WT
O
 Judicial power is not impaired because rules of procedure under TRIPS are notincongruent to our own system.
 
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page
2
of 
31
 
Santiago v. Bautista Parent of 6
th
grader is appealing the Committee on the Rating of Students forHonors awarding of 3
rd
honors to his son"Judicial Power"
-
 
the authority to determine the rights of persons or property by arbitratingbetween adversaries in specific controversies at the instance of a partythereto;
-
 
the authority exercised by that department of government which ischarged with the declaration of what the law is and its construction so faras it is written law;
-
 
the authority or power vested in the judges or in the courts;
-
 
the authority vested in some court, officer, or persons to hear anddetermine when the rights of persons or property or the propriety of doing an act is the subject matter of adjudication;
-
 
the power belonging to or emanating from a judge as such;
-
 
the power conferred upon a public officer, involving the exercise of  judgment and discretion in the determination of questions of right inspecific cases affecting the interest of persons or property, asdistinguished from ministerial power or authority to carry out themandates of judicial power or the law;
-
 
the power exercised by courts in hearing and determining cases beforethem, or some matter incidental thereto, and of which they have jurisdiction; the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment;
-
 
the power which adjudicates upon and protects the right and interests of individual citizens, and to that end construes and applies the law."Judicial power" implies the construction of laws and the adjudication of legalrights. It includes the power to hear and determine but not everyone who may hearand determine has judicial power. The term "judicial power" does not necessarilyinclude the power to hear and determine a matter that is not in the nature of a suitor action between the parties.'People v. Ferrer
Freedom of associationThe right to associate is not absoluteRA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines a clear and presentdanger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in such organization,was contended to be a bill of attainder. Although the law mentions the CPP inparticular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a basis or to justify thelegislative determination that membership in such organization is a crime because of the clear and present danger to national security.Fernando,
dissenting.
A taint of invalidity is seen even in the title of the Act, whichstate the specific name of an organization and create a presumption of guilt.
Director of Prisons v. Ang Chio Kho
-
 
Ang Chio Kho was previously convicted of various crimes but was givenconditional pardon, the condition being he will leave the Philippines andnever return-
 
Under a different name, he arrived at MIA en route to Honolulu about 7years later. He was convinced by some friends to stay longer and sought anextension of his stay from Immigration.-
 
His identity was discovered and he was recommitted to prison.-
 
The CA, in affirming the TCs denial of Ang Chio Khos petition for writ of habeas corpus, recommended that he be allowed to leave the country,SolGen asked the SC to delete that recommendationThe Chief Executive himself can determine if the conditions of a pardon were violated,a prerogative w/c the Courts may not interfere with, however erroneous the findingmay be. It is not for any occupant of any court to play the role of adviser to thePresident as this will constitute an infringement on the separation of powers.
Ex Post Facto Laws
Art. III, §22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
 
 
Wenky Yang & Zhai Garcia | A2013 | Consti 2 | Prof Harry Roque | Page
3
of 
31
 
B.
 
Case or Controversy Requirements: ElementsStandingMuskrat v. US
Under the US Consti the exercise of judicial power is limited to cases andcontroversies. A case or controversy, in order that the judicial power of the US may beexercise thereon, implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whosecontentions are submitted to the court for adjudication. In this action, the US is madedefendant but it has no adverse interest against them thus, there is no justiciable caseor controversy.
PACU v. Secretary
PACU did not show any injury that they suffered or will be suffering through theimplementation of the law. In fact, PACU members have successfully operatedschools even in the presence of the Act.Where the petitioning private schools are actually operating by virtue of permitsissued to them by the Secretary of Education under Act No. 2706, who is not shownto have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no justiciable controversy thatwould authorize the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of said Act.
G
onzales v. Hechanova
The status of petitioner, as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion,entitled him to a chance to sell to the Government the rice; it (the Govt) now seeksto buy abroad and, as a taxpayer affected by the purchase of the commodity effectedwith public funds mainly raised by taxation, gives said petitioner sufficient interest tofile the instant petition seeking to restrain the allegedly unlawful disbursement of public funds to import rice from abroad.
G
onzales v. Marcos
A suit filed a taxpayer questioning the validity of an Executive
O
rder creating a trust,the funds of which came from donations and contributions and not from taxation,fails to satisfy the elemental requisite for a taxpayer's suit.
People v. Vera
The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal andsubstantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injuryas a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act No. 4221 reallyviolates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the presentaction is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside.
O
f greater importthan the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortalwound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute.Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.
Flast v. Cohen
In ruling on standing, it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantiveissues to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted andthe claim sought to be adjudicated. Such inquiries into the nexus between the statusasserted by the litigant and the claim he presents are essential to assure that he is aproper and appropriate party to invoke federal judicial power.2 Aspects of Logical Nexus:1.
 
The taxpayer must establish a logical link between the status and the typeof legislature enactment attacked2.
 
The taxpayer must establish a nexus between the status and the precisenature of the constitutional infringement alleged.
Sierra Club v. Morton
-
 
Petitioner did no allege that the challenged skiing development wouldaffect the club or its members in their activities or that they used MineralKing, but maintained that the project would adversely change the areasaesthetics and ecology.
A person has standing to seek judicial review only if he can show that he himself hassuffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or otherwise.US v. SCRAP
Appellees pleadings sufficiently alleged that they were adversely affected oraggrieved to withstand a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of standing to sue.
Steffel v. Thompson
-
 
Petitioner handed out bills in a Shopping Center protesting Americaninvolvement in Vietnam & left when the authorities threatened to arrest them.They again handbilled and left but a companion decided to stay and wasarrested. (Freedom of expression issue: distribution w/in a private property)-
 
There is an actual controversy even though Steffel had not been arrested yet oreven if there was no complaint filed against him yet. Steffel would be arrested if he continued handbilling. In these circumstances, it isnt necessary thatpetitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled tochallenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.

Activity (33)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Dann Mercado liked this
Em Asiddao liked this
Mon Mercado liked this
Josephine Berces liked this
Clambeaux liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->