Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judicial ReviewPop Sovereignty Constituent Power

Judicial ReviewPop Sovereignty Constituent Power

Ratings: (0)|Views: 179|Likes:
Published by caramelsundae

More info:

Published by: caramelsundae on Sep 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

11/11/2010

pdf

text

original

 
MIRANDA V. AGUIRRE
Petitioners Jose Miranda, mayor of Santiago,Isabel, Dirige & Afiado, councilors and Babaran &Cabuyadao, residents of the said city assail theconstitutionality of 
R.A. 8528 CONVERTINGTHE CITY OF SANTIAGO, ISABELA FROM ANINDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO ACOMPONENT CITY.
Charges were filed againstthe Exec. Sec., DILG Sec., provincial officials, etc.May 5, 1994 – RA 7720 converted municipality of Santiago into an independent component city. Itwas ratified by its residents on July 4, 1994. Thiswas amended by said RA 8528 enacted on Feb.14, 1998.Among other changes, the new law had somepolitical amendments including the qualificationof Santiago residents to vote for the provincialofficials of Isabela. They are in turn qualified torun for provincial posts.Petitioners assail the lack of provision forratification of the new law. Respondents on theother hand assail the standing of the petitionersand the Court’s jurisdiction since according tothem this is a political question. Also, they claimthat there is no need to ratify the law because itdid not involve the division, merger, abolition, orsubstantial alteration of boundaries of localgovernment units as required in
Sec. 10, Art. X1987 Consti and Sec. 10, Chapter 2 Loc.Gov. Code
.
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioners have standing in this case?2. WON court has jurisdiction?3. WON RA 8528 is unconstitutional?
HELD:
Petition granted. RA 8528unconstitutional.
RATIO:
1. YES.a.Constitutionality can be challenged byanyone who will sustain a direct injury byresult of law’s enforcement. Miranda filedsuit in his capacity as Mayor and not onbehalf of the City which needed consent of the council. Definitely, he will sustaindirect & immediate injuries because thiswill alter or affect his powers as a mayor.b.Other petitioners are residents & voters of the city. They are being denied their rightto a plebiscite on a law that will affecttheir city. They have standing as well.2. YES.a.Supreme Court can “determine whether ornot there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of  jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of government.”
(SEC. 1,ART. VIII, 1987 CONSTI)
b.Political question: question of policy, to bedecided by people in their sovereigncapacity or in regard to which fulldiscretionary authority has beendelegated to the legislative orexec.branch, involving wisdom of the law.
(TANADA V. CUENCO)
c.Justiciable issue: given right, legallydemandable & enforceable, an act oromission violative of such right & aremedy granted & sanctioned by law, forsaid breach of right.
(CASIBANG V.AQUINO)
d.The legally demandable & enforceableright of petitioners to a plebiscite is a legalquestion and the Court being the ultimateinterpreter of the Consti has jurisdictionover this case.3. YES.a.Material changes in the political &economic rights of Isabelas localgovernment unit and residents will takeplace as an effect of the new law. Therewill be geographical, political andadministrative changes too.
City’s capacity as a political unit willdiminish
mayor will be placed under provincialsupervision
ordinances will be subject to theapproval of the provincial board
share taxes with the province whichwill diminish funds due to reducedinternal revenue allocations
registered voters will vote for and bevoted as provincial officials Thus, essential that it goes through aplebiscite as spirit of Sec. 10, Art. X of Consti states. Plebiscite was instituted toserve as a checking mechanism againstpublic officials who instituted changes forpolitical reasons without considering thewelfare of the people. This favors directdemocracy over democracy thru theelected representatives. This also grantslocal government units more autonomy.b.When it was converted from a municipalityto an independent component city(upgraded) it was ratified in a plebiscite,why should downgrading not be subjectedto ratification as well?c.Plebiscite is required for all conversions asstated in
Rule II, Art. 6, Par. (f)(1)Implementing Rules & Regulations of the Loc.Gov.Code
.d.Reason for converting it to a componentcity: people aspire for the leadership of theprovince. Surprising enough becausepeople were aware that they were givingup that right when they voted for
1
 
independence before. Even during thesecond reading of the bill in Senate,suggestions to subject the law to aplebiscite were given however, CommitteeChairman Sotto withdrew request aftertalking with the elders.e.Tan v. COMELEC: SC declared a lawpartitioning Negros Occidentalunconstitutional because only select areaswere subjected to a plebiscite.f.Oroquieta & San Carlos were downgradedwithout plebiscite but circumstances aredifferent because they were notindependent component cities likeSantiago.
MENDOZA DISSENT:
Not all reclassificationsneed plebiscite. Only those that involve income,population & land area changes need it. Changesare insubstantial. Laws enacted by Congress,approved by President are valid without need forratification/approval.
BUENA DISSENT:
conversion is not amongchanges that require a plebiscite. Breach of theseparation of powers. Presumption oconstitutionality of laws.
2
 
PASCUAL V. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS
Wenceslao Pascual, provincial governor of Rizalprays an injunction upon
RA 920 AN ACTAPPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
which appropriated P85,000.00 for theconstruction, reconstruction, repair, extension &improvement of Pasig feeder road terminal.According to Pascual, this area along with AntonioSubd. belong to Sen. Jose Zulueta. During thetime that the law was enacted, the land was stilla private property. Zulueta donated the feederroads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal after thelaw was enacted. Pascual claims that Zulueta’sact violates the law that prohibits members of Congress from being directly or indirectlyfinancially interested in any contract with thegovernment and that he used public funds infixing the feeder terminals.Zulueta assails Pacual’s standing claiming thatthe Provincial Fiscal should represent theprovince, not its governor and that Pascual hasnot shown that he has a personal and substantialinterest in the said law. He also claims that hedoesn’t know of any law which prohibitsappropriation of public funds for the improvementof private property. He claims that this a validlegislative act which can never be illegal becauseCongress is source of all laws.
ISSUES:
1. WON PASCUAL HAS STANDING IN THIS CASE?2. WON LAW IS VALID?
HELD:
reversed. Remanded to lower court tocontinue proceedings.
RATIO:
1. Yes.a.Taxpayers can file a suit if a public officialuses public funds in an unconstitutionalact and it involves misapplication of thefunds. They have sufficient interest inpreventing such acts.b.RP-citizen relationship similar to a state-taxpayer relationship.c.US SC in Crampton v. Zabriskie,recognized right of taxpayers to assailconstitutionality of legislationappropriating local or state funds.d.Governor is not just a taxpayer but arepresentative of one of the mostpopulated political subdivisions in thecountry which bears a substantial part of the burden of taxation. Thus he has everyright to assail the validity of thelegislation.2. No.a.System of checks and balances. Court caninvalidate legislative acts which areagainst the constitution.b.Funds obtained from taxes may be usedonly for public purposes. It shouldpromote public interest. Not for individualor private use.c.Land was private property during time of appropriation. The donation five monthsafter the law was enacted is immaterial.
 JOYA V. PCGG
Petitioners pray for an injunction and/orrestraining order against PCGG. They wish toprevent said commission from proceeding withthe auction sale of 82 pieces of Old Masterspaintings and 71 boxes of 18
th
and 19
th
centurysilverware seized from Malacanang and theMetropolitan Museum of Manila. Auction will beat Christie’s of New York scheduled on January 11,1991. PCGG entered into an agreement withChristie’s with the consent of then Pres. CoryAquino. Petitioners claim that selling theseproperties is prohibited because they are culturaltreasures of the nation and are public properties.National Museum director issued a certificationthat these items are not classified as protectedcultural properties. Court denied petition andthus, auction proceeded which yielded$13,302,604.86.
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioners have standing?2. WON there is an actual case or controversy?
HELD:
petition dismissed.
RATIO:
1. NO.a.Court will only exercise judicial review if theparties have legal standing. Legal standingmeans having personal & substantialinterest in the case such that party willsustain direct injury as result of thegovernmental act being challenged.b.Exception: when taxpayers question thevalidity of disbursements of public funds.Public funds are not involved here. Theseare private properties.c.Petitioners used
Art. XIV, Sec. 14-18 of Consti on Arts & Culture and RA 4846Cultural Properties Preservation &Protection Act
which protects public
3

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)//-->