P. 1
US vs Dorr

US vs Dorr

|Views: 891|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Mary Christine Cesara Daep on Jul 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee Vs FRED L DORR, ET AL., defendants-appellants May 19, 1903 G.R. No.


FACTS OF THE CASE The defendants were charged of scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands because of an editorial it published in the issue of “Manila Freedom”. The defendants were convicted for said offense basing upon Section 8 of Act. No. 292 of the Commission. Defendants then appealed for reversal of judgment made by the lower courts. ISSUE (ADMINISTRATION) Is the editorial published by the defendants directed towards the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands? RULING/HELD No, the editorial was not directed towards the government itself but towards the aggregate of individuals who were administering the government at that time. “We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the term government, that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are unnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. By "administration, again, we understand in modern times, and especially in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 891.) But the writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always used in their strictness, and that "government" is often used for "administration."” In this case, the editorial published by defendants where directed towards the personnel of the Commission whom they described as "notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character". This as being ruled out by the Supreme Court was an attack not to the government system but to the aggregate of individuals by whom the government is being administered. NOTES The final judgment of the convictions of the defendants was reversed by the Supreme Court acquitting the defendants with costs against the officials.

Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD

192. the object to be published. BENGZON. vs. 62.Commonwealth Act No. an elector. Both officials refuse to issue the required export license on the ground that the exportation of shoes from the Philippines is forbidden by this Executive Order.2044 and L-2756 is Executive Order No. The petitioner. L-3056 is Executive Order No. the Congress may by law authorize the President. Leon Ma. 1949. RAFAEL DINGLASAN. applies for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Treasurer of the Philippines from disbursing money under this Executive Order. . which aims to control exports from the Philippines.The petitions challenge the validity of executive orders of the President avowedly issued in virtue of Commonwealth Act No. the purpose to be subserved. The intention of the Act has to be sought for in its nature. L-3054 relates to Executive Order No 225. August 26. Antonio Barredo. 226. 1950. Eulogio Rodriguez. L-2044 FACTS OF THE CASE . is under prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Manila for violation of the provisions of this Executive Order. 192. and its relation to the Constitution. for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. ISSUE (EMERGENCY POWERS) Whether of not the emergency powers delegated to the President had ceased when Congress held its regular session? HELD YES. ANTONIO ARANETA. The petitioner. No. petitioner. spending or otherwise disposing of that amount or any part of it. 62. to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy. Sr. and JOSE P. 1949 to June 30. Antonio Araneta. Fiscal of City of Manila.R. Judge of First Instance of Manila. which appropriates P6." Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD .. which regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings. and prays for the issuance of the writ of prohibition to the judge and the city fiscal. and for other purposes.A. 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law. 671 does not in term fix the duration of its effectiveness. J.Section 26 of Article VI of the Constitution provides: "In time of war or other national emergency. 671 ( An Act Declaring a State of Total Emergency as a Result of War involving the Philippines and Authorizing the President to Promulgate Rules and Regulations to Meet such Emergency) has ceased to have any force and effect. tax-payer and voter. asks this Court to prevent the respondents from disbursing. .000 to defray the expenses in connection with. and president of the Nacionalista Party.000. L. The petitioner. and incidental to. 671 became inoperative when Congress met in regular session on May 25. as a citizen. Affected in case No. which appropriates funds for the operation of the Government of the Republic uf the Philippines during the period from July 1. as a tax-payer. No.Petitioners rest their case chiefly on the proposition that the C. thereby rendering the assailed Executive Orders null and void. Guerrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Administrator of the Sugar Quota Office and the Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes by the petitioner. Case No. . respondents. Involved in case L. 1949 G. 671 Involved in cases Nos. In this case. the holding of the national elections to be held in November. 1946.055 is Executive Order No.J. Commonwealth Act No. and that Executive Orders Nos.

what reason could there be for its failure to provide in appropriate and clear terms for the filing of subsequent reports? Such reports. and ought not to be. . that which was intended to meet a temporary emergency may become permanent law.The clear tenor of this provision is that there was to be only one meeting of Congress at which the President was to give an account of his trusteeship. which it could very well have said if that had been the intention. for Congress might not enact the repeal.The assertion that new legislation is needed to repeal the act would not be in harmony with the Constitution either." The silence of the law regarding the repeal of the authority itself. it would be easier for Congress to delegate its powers than to take them back.Section 4 of Act No.. Furthermore. in the face of the express provision for the repeal of the rules and regulations issued in pursuance of it. and the Congress might not be able to override the veto. and even if it would. 671 stipulates that "the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be in full force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide. this would create the anomaly that. If the National Assembly did not think that the report mentioned in section 3 was to be the first and last and did not think that upon the convening of the first Congress Act No. This is not right and is not.Quite apart from these anomalies. . there is good basis in the language of Act No. . laws enacted by the latter. It would be strange if having no idea about the time the Emergency Powers Act was to be effective the National Assembly failed to make a provision for its termination in the same way that it did for the termination of the effects. negative and uncertain. and the President in turn could treat in the same manner. "must be temporary or it can not be said to be an emergency. the repeal might not meet with the approval of the President. since. as suggested. Congress by a 2/3 vote could repeal executive orders promulgated by the President during congressional recess. and incidents of the delegation. the anomaly would not be eliminated. In other words. indefinite. while Congress might delegate its powers by simple majority. in order to justify the delegation of emergency powers. Section 3 provides: "The President of the Philippines shall as soon as practicable upon the convening of the Congress of the Philippines report thereto all the rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers herein granted. 671 was approved with this limitation in view. a clear manifestation of the belief held by the National Assembly that there was no necessity to provide for the former. the President could not only make new rules and regulations but he could restore the ones already annulled by the legislature. the law. and the present Chief Executive issued an executive order on export control after Congress had refused to approve the measure. Emergency. if the President was expected to continue making laws in Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD . 671 for the inference that the National Assembly restricted the life of the emergency powers of the President to the time the Legislature was prevented from holding sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by the war. and is contrary to the principle that the legislature is deemed to have full knowledge of the constitutional scope of its powers.The words "limited period" as used in the Constitution are beyond question intended to mean restrictive in duration. There would be no point in repealing or annulling the rules and regulations promulgated under a law if the law itself was to remain in force. . a former President promulgated an executive order regulating house rentals after he had vetoed a bill on the subject enacted by Congress. 671 would lapse." . If a new and different law were necessary to terminate the delegation. The section did not say each meeting. between sessions of Congress." It is to be presumed that Commonwealth Act No. mutually nullifying each other's actions. it might not be able to recall them except by a two-third vote. in that case. and inspired only by the best interests of the country as they saw them. the period for the delegation would be unlimited. Even if the emergency powers of the President. In entire good faith.More anomalous than the exercise of legislative functions by the Executive when Congress is in the unobstructed exercise of its authority is the fact that there would be two legislative bodies operating over the same field. be suspended while Congress was in session and be revived after each adjournment. The opposite theory would make the law repugnant to the Constitution. legislating concurrently and simultaneously.

were as important." It can easily be discerned in this statement that the conferring of enormous powers upon the President was decided upon with specific view to the inability of the National Assembly to meet. have the specific functions of the legislative branch of enacting laws been surrendered to another department. In a special session. not a different one." that Act No. Quezon in the same paragraph of his autobiography furnished part of the answer. and who was the very President to be entrusted with its execution. if indeed he was not its author.the form of rules. under this framework of government. are called upon to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities committed to them respectively. executive. Article VI of the Constitution. was a period coextensive with the inability of Congress to function. the Congress may "consider general legislation or only such subjects as the President may designate. . given the ability to act. in times of extreme perils more than in normal circumstances the various branches. stated in his autobiography. 1942. with the general context of the law and with what we believe to be the main if not the sole raison d'etre for its enactment. who called the National Assembly to a special session. Decision Petitions GRANTED. The point is.As a contemporary construction. legislation is preserved for Congress all the time. President Quezon's statement regarding the duration of Act No. He said he issued the call for a special session of the National Assembly "when it became evident that we were completely helpless against air attack. not excepting periods of crisis no matter how serious.After all the criticisms that have been made against the efficiency of the system of the separation of powers. or as unimportant. regulations and executive orders. as the initial one. the fact remains that the Constitution has set up this form of government. with all its defects and shortcomings. the basic features of whose Constitution have been copied in ours." (Section 9. had to be repassed if the grant should be prolonged. the power of Congress to legislate is not circumscribed except by the limitations imposed by the organic law." These phrases connote automatic extinction of the law upon the conclusion of a certain period. Together they denote that a new legislation was necessary to keep alive (not to repeal) the law after the expiration of that period. with all its faults.) In a regular session. Indeed no other factor than this inability could have motivated the delegation of powers so vast as to amount to an abdication by the National Assembly of its authority. legislative. The period that best comports with the constitutional requirements and limitations. Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD . The truth is that under our concept of constitutional government. "The Good Fight. 671 is enlightening and should carry much weight. as the ideal. and that it was most unlikely the Philippine Legislature would hold its next regular session which was to open on January 1. . in preference to the commingling of powers in one man or group of men. not even when that Republic was fighting a total war.Pres. who recommended the enactment of the Emergency Powers Act. Never in the history of the United States. 671 was only "for a certain period" and "would become invalid unless reenacted. The enactment and continuation of a law so destructive of the foundations of democratic institutions could not have been conceived under any circumstance short of a complete disruption and dislocation of the normal processes of government. or when it was engaged in a life-and-death struggle to preserve the Union. . The Filipino people by adopting parliamentary government have given notice that they share the faith of other democracy-loving peoples in this system. and judicial. They signify that the same law. Pres.In setting the first regular session of Congress instead of the first special session which preceded it as the point of expiration of the Act. a period ending with the convening of that body. the purpose and intention of the National Assembly is given effect. . Quezon. considering his part in the passage and in the carrying out of the law.

LIM. EVELYN PESTAÑO. and spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño (Baraquel group) filed an impeachment complaint against petitioner. 2010 (the fourth Monday of July. On August 3. FELICIANO BELMONTE. by Memorandum of August 2. Luzviminda Ilagan. 2010. DANILO D. February 15. upon the endorsement of Party-List Representatives Arlene Bag-ao and Walden Bello. private respondents Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel. in accordance with Section 15. the House of Representatives provisionally adopted the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the 14th Congress. transmitted the impeachment complaint to House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte. REYES. ACTING SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS (NUPL). Secretary General of the House of Representatives.R. No. 2011 G. Ferdinand Gaite and James Terry Ridon (Reyes group) filed another impeachment complaint against petitioner with a resolution of endorsement by Party-List Representatives Neri Javier Colmenares. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP). GUTIERREZ Petitioner. and JAMES TERRY RIDON OF THE LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS). vs. Jr. Jr. SECRETARY GENERAL OF BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN). who. JR. the Secretary General transmitted the Reyes group’s Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD . DANILO RAMOS. RISA HONTIVEROSBARAQUEL. By letter still of even date. JR. RENATO M.MA.. CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY. 2010. Antonio Tinio and Emerenciana de Jesus. ATTY. Danilo Ramos. private respondents Renato Reyes. On even date. FERDINAND R. Danilo Lim. Rafael Mariano.. EDRE OLALIA. Respondent-Intervenor. FELIPE PESTAÑO. MOTHER MARY JOHN MANANZAN. Mother Mary John Mananzan. Marilyn Barua-Yap. Edre Olalia. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE. MERCEDITAS N.. CHAIRPERSON. Teodoro Casiño. 2010. 193459 FACTS OF THE CASE Before the 15th Congress opened its first session on July 26. directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of Business. A day after the opening of the 15th Congress or on July 27. Atty. RECOGNITION AND ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE). CO-CHAIRPERSON OF PAGBABAGO. 2010. GAITE. Article VI of the Constitution) or on July 22. Respondents.

Meanwhile. also directed the Committee on Rules to include it in the Order of Business. The Supreme Court in the said case held that “The determination of sufficiency of form and substance of an impeachment complaint is an exponent of the express constitutional grant of rule-making powers of the House of Representatives which committed such determinative function to public respondent. House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II. the resolution issued by the House of Representative founding sufficient substance for both complaints was made in relations to the mandates of the constitution. however. absent any contravention of the minimum constitutional guidelines. Thus the Ombudsman. it advised petitioner to await the notice for her to file an answer to the complaints. the Representatives simultaneously referred both complaints to public respondent. On August 10. found the two complaints. The determination of the sufficiency of substance of the complaints by public respondent. Jr. as chairperson of the Committee on Rules. 2010. 2010.m. Executive Director of the Plenary Affairs Department. Merceditas Gutierrez (petitioner). found both complaints sufficient in form. Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD . ISSUE (ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS) Was there grave abuse of discretion. drawing petitioner to furnish copies of her motion to each of the 55 members of public respondent. which resulted to lack or excess of jurisdiction? HELD No. August 11. hinged on the issue of whether valid judgment to impeach could be rendered thereon.” NOTES Petition was dismissed.complaint to Speaker Belmonte who. sufficient in substance. House of After hearing. 2010. 2010 of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice. In the discharge of that power and in the exercise of its discretion. Prudential considerations behoove the Court to respect the compliance by the House of its duty to effectively carry out the constitutional purpose. instructed Atty.. 2010 Resolution of public respondent. which was complied with by their inclusion in the Order of Business for the following day. On August 11. 2010. by Memorandum of August 9. by Resolution of September 1. 2010. for prematurity. during its plenary session. by Resolution of September 7. through Atty. 2010. It was not unconstitutional. On September 6. Cesar Pareja. public respondent. 2010 at 4:47 p. which assumed hypothetically the truth of their allegations. Ma. 2010. petitioner tried to file a motion to reconsider the September 1.. Artemio Adasa. the House has formulated determinable standards as to the form and substance of an impeachment complaint. on the part of the House of Representative Committee on Justice. challenges via petition for certiorari and prohibition the Resolutions of September 1 and 7. which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Deputy Secretary General for Operations. instead. the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the 15th Congress was published on September 2. to include the two complaints in the Order of Business. which complaints it considered to have been referred to it at exactly the same time. Public respondent refused to accept the motion. After hearing. public respondent.

Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest MCCVD .

You're Reading a Free Preview

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