Gil Aldrick Fernandez Admin law 1/17/11 Aratuc vs Comelec Facts Petitioner Aratuc filed a petition for certiorari,

to review the decision of res pondent Comelec. A supervening panel headed by Comelec had conducted hearings of the complaints o f the petitioner therein alleged irregularities in the election records. In orde r for the Commission to decide properly. It will have to go deep into the examin ation of the voting records and registration records and it will have to intervi ew and get statements from persons under oath from the area to determine whether actual voting took place. The Comelec then rendered its resolution being assail ed in these cases, declaring the final result of the canvass. Issue Whether the Comelec committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to l ack of jurisdiction? Ruling No. Under section 168 of the revised election code of the 1978 the commission on ele ctions shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers . I n administrative law, a superior body or office having supervision or control ov er another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have do ne. The petition is hereby dismissed, for lack of merit

Gil Aldrick Fernandez Admin law 1/18/11 People vs Rosenthal Facts The accused, Jacob Rosenthal, board of directors of the O.R.O. oil company, have deliberate intent of evading the provisions or sections 2 and 5 of the said act no. 2581, and conspiring and confederating together and helping each other, wil lfully, unlawfully and feloniously trade in, negotiate and speculate with their shares by making personally through brokers or agents repeated and successive sa les, without first obtaining the corresponding written permit or license from th e insular treasurer of the commonwealth of the Philippines, as by law required. Rosenthal contends that that act no. 2581 is unconstitutional. Issue Whether act. 2581 is unconstitutional? Ruling No. Legislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if susce ptible of any reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. An a ct will not be declared inoperative and ineffectual on the ground that it furnis hes no adequate means to secure purpose for which it is passed. We hold that Act no. 2581 is valid and constitutional.