Guingona, JR v Carague, Supreme Court of the Philippines - G.R. No. 9457 , !!

"pril 99 A group of senators in the Philippines challenged the constitutionality of the budgetary allocation of P86 billion for debt servicing which compared to P27 billion for education. The onstitution of the Philippines obliges the government to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. The ourt found that education had constituted the highest allocation apart from debt servicing which was necessary to safeguard the creditworthiness of the country and the survival of its ecomomy. !n ma"ing its decision, the ourt stated# $There can be no %uestion as to the patriotism and good motive of petitioners in filing this petition. &nfortunately, the petition must fail on the constitutional and legal issues raised. As to whether or not the country should honor its international debt, more especially the enormous amount that had been incurred by the past administration, which appears to be the ultimate ob'ective of the petition, is not an issue that is presented or proposed to be addressed by the ourt. !ndeed, it is more of a political decision for ongress and the ()ecutive to determine in the e)ercise of their wisdom and sound discretion.* The application was unsuccessful. +acts, Petitioner senators %uestion the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service in the -../ budget which was authori0ed by P1 8-. Petitioners see" that 2-3 P1 8-, P1 --77 24ec 5-3, and P1 -.67 be declared unconstitutional, and 223 restrain the disbursement for debt service under the -../ budget pursuant to said decrees. 6hile respondents contend that the petition involves a political %uestion 2repeal7amendment of said laws3 #ssue$ %hether or not su&'e(t la)s has &een implie*l+ repeale* &+ the 9,7 Constitution 89. 2-3. 6ell:"nown is the rule that repeal or amendment by implication is frowned upon. (%ually fundamental is the principle that construction of the generally applied prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is so clearly stated. 223 The ourt finds that in this case the %uestioned laws are complete in all their essential terms and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein. The legislative intention in ;.A. 8o. <86/, as amended, 4ection 5- of P.1. 8o. --77 and P.1. 8o. -.67 is that the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order to enable the ;epublic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, ta)es and other normal ban"ing charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. The purpose of these laws is to enable the government to ma"e prompt payment and7or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit standing of the country. "ntonio "raneta vs Ju*ge Rafael -inglasan Political Law – First Emergency Powers Cases Araneta is being charged under violation of (9 62 which regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings. 1inglasan is the 'udge hearing the case. Araneta appealed see"ing to prohibit 1inglasan and the +iscal from proceeding with the case. =e averred that (9 62 was issued by virtue of ommonwealth Act 2 A3 8o. 67-. 5 other cases were consolidated with this one. >:5/?? which is an appeal by @a. Auerrero, a shoe e)porter, against (9 -.2 which controls e)ports in the Philippines# he is see"ing to have permit. >: 5/?< is filed by ;odrigue0 to prohibit the treasury from disbursing funds Bfrom *<.:$?/C pursuant to (9 22?. >:5/?6 is filed by Darredo is attac"ing (9 226 w7c is appropriating funds to hold the national elections. A 67- is otherwise "nown as A8 A T 1( >A;!8A A 4TAT( 9+ T9TA> (@(;A(8 E A4 A ;(4&>T 9+ 6A; !8F9>F!8A T=( P=!>!PP!8(4 A81 A&T=9;!G!8A T=( P;(4!1(8T T9 P;9@&>AAT( ;&>(4 A81 ;(A&>AT!984 T9 @((T 4& = (@(;A(8 E or simply the (mergency Powers Act. All the petitioners aver that A 67- ceased to have any force and effect hence all (9s passed pursuant to it had li"ewise ceased. #SS./$ 6hether or not A 67- has ceased. 0/1-$ A 67- became inoperative e) proprio vigore when ongress met in regular session on @ay 2?, -.<6, and that ()ecutive 9rders 8os. 62, -.2, 22? and 226 were issued without authority of law. !n setting the first regular session of ongress instead of the first special session which preceded it as the point of e)piration of the Act, the 4 is giving effect to the purpose and intention of the 8ational Assembly. !n a special session, the ongress may Hconsider general legislation or only such sub'ects as he 2President3 may designate.I 4uch acts were to be good only up to the corresponding dates of ad'ournment of the following sessions of the >egislature, Hunless sooner amended or repealed by the 8ational Assembly.I (ven if war continues to rage on, new legislation must be made and approved in order to continue the (PAs, otherwise it is lifted upon reconvening or upon early repeal. onstitution and law is

2#N.3" vs. /4/C.5#2/ S/CR/5"R3 R67.16 G.R. No. 8!!9:, "pril !,, !: : ;"C5S, This is an original Petition for ertiorari under ;ule 6? of the ;ules of ourt with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory in'unction against the 9ffice of the ()ecutive 4ecretary, the 4ecretary of the 1+A, the 4ecretary of the 19J, and the 94A. Petitioners are all members of the @A>AEA >9>A4, a non:stoc", non:profit organi0ation registered with the 4( , established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the 4econd 6orld 6ar. Petitioners claim that since -..8, they have approached the ()ecutive 1epartment through the 19J, 1+A, and 94A, re%uesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the Hcomfort womenI stations in the Philippines. Dut officials of the ()ecutive 1epartment declined to assist the petitioners, and too" the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan*s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. =ence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to 2a3 declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac" or e)cess of discretion in refusing to espouse their claims for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them# and 2b3 compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the !nternational ourt of Justice 2! J3 and other international tribunals. ;espondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were dealt with in the 4an +rancisco Peace Treaty of -.?- and the bilateral ;eparations Agreement of -.?6. 9n January -?, -..7, the Asian 6omen*s +und and the Philippine government signed a @emorandum of &nderstanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfort women. 9ver the ne)t five years, these were implemented by the 1epartment of 4ocial 6elfare and 1evelopment.

Page 1 of 4

The editorial in %uestion was alleged to have violated Art. with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. the newspaper >a 8acion. the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our onstitution not to the courts but to the political branches. for it is its own right that the 4tate is asserting. Perfe(to 43 Phil 887 . =e has his agents in the form of diplomatic. do not admit derogation. Perfecto was prosecuted for writing an editorial against the Philippine 4enate. respect for the rules of international law. All they can do is resort to national law. and those arising vis:L:vis another 4tate in the field of diplomatic protection. !t is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom. and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and e)ecutive agreements. Auerrero. Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory. edited by @r. the former are the concern of all 4tates. +rom a municipal law perspective. which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil companies. all 4tates can be held to have a legal interest in their protection# they are obligations erga omnes./$ 6hether Article 2?6 of the 4panish Penal ode is still in force. Dy ta"ing up the case of one of its sub'ects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international 'udicial proceedings on his behalf. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to %uestion.epublic. R. Philippine Normal College Facts: Appeal from the order of the ourt of +irst !nstance of @anila dismissing the action filed by twenty Memployees of thePhilippine 8ormal ollege wor"ing under various capacities in its dormitory "nown as the 8ormal =all. are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. published an article regarding what happened. the Petition is hereby 1!4@!44(1. The President. Petition lac"s merit. Aregorio Perfecto. certiorari will not lie. +urthermore. where such an e)traordinary length of time has lapsed between the treaty*s conclusion and our consideration K the ()ecutive must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan. and could disrupt our relations with Japan. a 4tate may e)ercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever e)tent it thin"s fit. or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or e)ecutive branch of the government. being political in nature. The day following the convening of the 4enate.1#NG. Dut not all cases implicating foreign relations present political %uestions. and whether further steps are appropriate or necessary. Political %uestions refer Hto those %uestions which. They are and should be underta"en only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. 4hould the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not ade%uately protected. (ssential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a 4tate towards the international community as a whole. !n view of the importance of the rights involved. if means are available. !n this case. from the standpoint of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the . not legality of a particular measure. As a general principle.(. consular and other officials. All these %uestions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position internationally.(+9. superseding conflicting treaties and custom. thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. The term H'us cogensI 2literally. of the said ode had been automatically abrogated. Dy their very nature. upon the advent of American sovereignty. The ()ecutive 1epartment has determined that ta"ing up petitioners* cause would be inimical to our country*s foreign policy interests. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due. Hcompelling lawI3 refers to norms that command peremptory authority. The order of dismissal was based on the ground that neither one of the defendants was a corporation or a 'uridical entity with capacity to be sued. and can be modified only by general international norms of e%uivalent authority 6=(. 5h re e mem&e rs of t he (ou rt &e lie ve that arti(le !58 )as a&rogate* (ompletel+ &+ the (hange from Spanish to "meri(an sovereignt+ over the Philippines an* isin(onsistent )ith *emo(rati( prin(iples of government. =ermo+ vs. in relation to everyone3 in international law has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by 4tates towards the community of states as a whole.I 9ne type of case of political %uestions involves %uestions of foreign relations. and especially is this true in time of war. punishing insults to @inisters of the rown.1#NG$ The 4upreme ourt ac%uitted him. +or the to overturn the ()ecutive 1epartment*s determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy 'udgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to ma"e that 'udgment has been constitutionally committed. People vs. discovered that certain documents. and the propriety of what may be done in the e)ercise of this political power is not sub'ect to 'udicial in%uiry or decision. Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated 'us cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed.I are delicate. #SS. 698 the ()ecutive 1epartment committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners* claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan. the ()ecutive 1epartment has the e)clusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners* claims against Japan. Article 2?6 of the Penal ode is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. in the person of its sub'ects. !t is well:established that Hthe conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the onstitution to the e)ecutive and legislativeK*the political*Kdepartments of the government. traditionally. comple). 2?6 of the Penal ode. holding that the particular article. the ()ecutive 1epartment has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of -. 6ithin the limits prescribed by international law./. a 4tate is in reality asserting its own right to ensure. or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of 'us cogens.?-. Page 2 of 4 . has the better opportunity of "nowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries. the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individual*s behalf. under the onstitution. and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient. had disappeared from his office. +rom a 1omestic >aw Perspective. which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remar"s. =e has his confidential sources of information. !n the international sphere. The gulf which separates this article from this spirit which inspires all penal legislation of American origin. (ven the invocation of 'us cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. =owever. not ongress. Punishment for contempt of non:'udicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. 5 he vi e) of th e Chi ef Ju st i( e is tha t the a (( us e* sho ul* &e a (<ui tt e* for the re as on tha t th e fa (t s al leg e* in th ei nfo rmat ion *o not (on st itu te a violat ion of a rti (l e !58 of the Pe nal Co *e . but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo. is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from a democratic republic li"e that of the &nite 4tates. the %uestion whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter. and involve large elements of prophecy. they have no remedy in international law. +ernando @.#SS. R. The term erga omnes 2>atin."C5S$ The 4ecretary of the Philippine 4enate.

with the modification that the closing of . Petitioner assailed the amount of compensation up to the 4 but did not succeed. on -8 July -. Calalang vs. a levy was imposed on the funds and personal properties of 8=A. . addressed for =enrietta 4. and from -. resolved to recommend to the 1irector of Public 6or"s and to the 4ecretary of Public 6or"s and ommunications that animal:drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along .. brought before the 4upreme court the petition for a writ of prohibition Page 3 of 4 . tapes of its TF program 4eries 8os. !t cited its TF Program 4eries 8os. 2//5 +A T4.#2/16N-6 June -. and the causal connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established. funds and properties of the government cannot be ob'ect of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability ad'udged. from 7. The !glesia ni risto insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our 2 atholic3 veneration of the Firgin @ary is not to be condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible.</.N N0" 2S 0/#RS 6.. <-6 endows the Philippine 8ormal ollege with the Ngeneral powers set outN in 4ection -5 of the orporation >aw# and one of the powers enumerated in the said section is the power Nto sue and be sued in any court.year from the date of the opening of the olgante Dridge to traffic. =(>1.in relation to Article 2/. Held: 9rder appealed from reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The hairman of the 8ational Traffic ommission. Prior restraint on speech. !n their Answer.a(ts$ Petitioner has a television program entitled NAng !glesia ni ristoN aired on hannel 2 every 4aturday and on hannel -5 every 4unday. #ssue$ 6hether or 8ot the Nang iglesia ni cristoN program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious e)ercise and e)pression. Any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. 9n -/ August -.eligious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers. . to -. in his second indorsement addressed to the 1irector of Public 6or"s. @ende0 reversing the decision of the respondent Doard. !f it fails to discharge this burden. !t is inappropriate to apply the clear and present danger test to the case at bar because the issue involves the content of speech and not the time. cannot be 'ustified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. This is true in this case.Issue: 6hether or not the P8 is immune from suit by the principle of non:suability of the state. for a period of . @eanwhile.2.</. the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the 4tate from leaning towards any religion. --.::. respondent Doard invo"ed its power under P1 8o. 998 . 6hether or not the funds and assets of the petitioner 8=A are e)empt from levy and garnishment. Hattac"I is different from HoffendI any race or religion. 4r. -28 which allowed it through a letter of former ()ecutive 4ecretary (delmiro A. ! -e(em&er 94:> .m. the 1irector of Public 6or"s. Amante. %illiams ?GR 47.p. -. -. fi)ed the 'ust compensation for the lands. including religious speech. its impact cannot be measured.T . The Doard classified the series as NON or not for public viewing on the ground that they Noffend and constitute an attac" against other religions which is e)pressly prohibited by law.. if the funds belong to a public corporation or a government Kowned or controlled corporation which is clothed with a personality of its own. recommended to the latter the approval of the recommendation made by the hairman of the 8ational Traffic ommission. 9879> Jul+ !8. in his first indorsement to the 4ecretary of Public 6or"s and ommunications.R. approved the recommendation of the latter that . the 4ecretary of Public 6or"s and ommunications. even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country. 4ubse%uently.5/ p. Aenerally. 9n 2 August -.eview for @oving Pictures and Television the FT. however.m.N 9n 8ovember 28. . with the approval of the 4ecretary of Public 6or"s and ommunications.epublic Act 8o. Petitioner submitted to the respondent Doard of . especially the fanatics. unless the speech is first allowed. The program presents and propagates petitionerMs religious beliefs.m. =owever. According to the letter the episode in is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and e)pression and no indication that the episode poses any clear and present danger. No. !n a complaint for eminent domain filed by the 8=A against the heirs of Auivelondo as owners of lands that were within an urban center intended by the petitioner for sociali0ed housing pro'ect. its act of censorship will be struc" down.a(ts$ The 8ational Traffic ommission. --. Petitioner also filed ivil ase. the .espondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner !glesia ni risto simply because it attac"s other religions. !44&(. to ?.86. Court 6f "ppeals !59 SCR" 5!9 G. !t is the burden of the respondent Doard to overthrow this presumption.i0al Avenue e)tending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo 4treet to (chague 4treet. G. doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm. --?.. The board contended that it outrages atholic and ProtestantMs beliefs.. in an e)propriation proceeding.i0al Avenue to traffic to animal:drawn vehicles be limited to the portion thereof e)tending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo 4treet to A0carraga 4treet.evised Penal ode. -2. A however reversed it hence this petition. from a period of one year from the date of the opening of the olgante Dridge to traffic. Prayer for in'unctive relief against the levy and garnishment is 1(8!(1. !t is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be 'ustified. recommended to the 1irector of Public 6or"s the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution.</.5/ p. #glesia Ni Cristo 2s. it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated li"e any other corporation. -2. unclean they may be.and -28. to -2. 0el*$ Ees.T ruled in favor of petitioners. place or manner of speech.</. then the funds are not e)empt from garnishment. which authori0es said 1irector of Public 6or"s.5/ p.N A system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by 'udges and not left to administrative agencies. This is so because when the government enters into commercial business.osario 4treet and . .m. separate and distinct from that of the government. it filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain alleging that the sociali0ed housing pro'ect was rendered impossible by the unconscionable value of the land sought to be e)propriated. &nder our constitutional scheme. a notice of garnishment was issued against petitioner*s >and Dan" deposits.osario 4treet e)tending from Pla0a alderon de la Darca to 1asmariPas 4treet. it is not the tas" of the 4tate to favor any religion by protecting it against an attac" by another religion.and -28. it appealed to the 9ffice of the President the classification of its TF 4eries 8o.of the .m. to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national roads. 4o:called Nattac"sN are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. e)aggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or e)pression is a 'udicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such as a Doard of ensors. --6.i0al Avenue be closed to traffic of animal:drawn vehicles. >ater. in his capacity as a private citi0en and as a ta)payer of @anila.. tapes of its TF program and in ):rating them. The basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the mar"etplace of dueling ideas. in its resolution of -7 July -.5/ a. Allegedly. and only to the smallest e)tent necessary to avoid the danger. between the points and during the hours as indicated. in pursuance of the provisions of ommonwealth Act ?<8. The respondent Doard may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no e)cuse to interdict such criticisms. Petitioner alleged that the respondent Doard acted without 'urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in re%uiring petitioner to submit the FT. @a)imo alalang. The determination of the %uestion as to whether or not such vilification.T *s ruling clearly suppresses petitionerMs freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free e)ercise of religion. because . The appeal is meritorious. The @ayor of @anila and the Acting hief of Police of @anila have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations thus adopted.# and along . from 7 a. Petition for review is 1(8!(1.m.

72.The conflic t that the cha llenged rule viola te s the e%ual protec tion clause is not we ll:ta "en. for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation re%uired under the law. as Acting 4ecretary of Public 6or"s and ommunications# (ulogio . The 4tate ensures that medical profession is not permeated by incompetents to whom patientsmay unwarily hand over their lives and health.-. =owever. Court of "ppeals G. ommonwealth Act ?<8 does not confer legislative powers to the 1irector of Public 6or"s. a student shall not be allowed to ta"e the 8@AT again after three successive failures. contending that its funds at the P8D could neither be garnished nor levied upon e)ecution. Palacio. and which are intended primarily and e)clusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality.ey 4an 1iego. -.7<5. !t must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion e)ists for e)ecuting the law. After proceedings. to wit.The private respondent cannot ta"e the 8@AT again and pursue his medical profession because of thefollowing grounds.<. roads and streets designated as national roads by acts of the 8ational Assembly or by e)ecutive orders of the President of the PhilippinesI and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic Hwhenever the condition of the road or the traffic ma"es such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest. 4ection . is not the determination of what the law shall be. !n this 'urisdiction. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic. . -/CS v San -iego +A T4. such order was opposed by petitioner through a motion for reconsideration. wherein the funds garnished by respondent sheriff are in e)cess of P..<?. Dut it cannot be said that the e)ercise of such discretion is the ma"ing of the law. The petitioner claims that he too" the 8@AT three times and flun"ed itas many times. which are public fund and thereby are e)empted from e)ecution without the proper appropriation re%uired under the law. =owever. this court orders petitioner to pay for the said land which has been in their use already.T dismissed such motion.R. -2.?/6. 1.. therefore. Nos.9.!t is not enough to simply invo"e the right to %uality education as a guarantee of the onstitution. unless otherwise provided for by statute. The authority conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the 8ational Assembly in said Act. as Acting hief of Police of @anila #ssues$ 6hether or not there is a undue delegation of legislative powerQ Ruling$ There is no undue deleagation of legislative power.T of @a"ati determined the cost of the said land which the petitioner must pay to the private respondents amounting to P?. as 1irector of Public 6or"s# 4ergio Dayan. licenses and mar"et fees..666.// minus the advanced payment of P558. !t issued the corresponding writ of e)ecution accompanied with a writ of garnishment of funds of the petitioner which was deposited in P8D. 2. citing the case of . 4eries of -. !44&(. There is merit in this contention. 7uni(ipalit+ of 7a@ati vs.. 6illiams.9. the . but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. if at all.Petition whether the private respondent who has thrice failed the 8ational @edical Admission Test28@AT3 is entitled to ta"e it again as it is a re%uirement for admission to any @edical 4chool in thePhilippines. 5.odrigue0.<. onformable to Article !!!.epublic of the Philippines v. as @ayor of the ity of @anila# and Juan 1omingue0. Absent a showing that the municipal council of @a"ati has passed an ordinance appropriating the said amount from its public funds deposited in their P8D account. s%uarelychallenging the constitutionality of @( 4 9rder 8o. !nc.//. as hairman of the 8ational Traffic ommission# Ficente +ragante. 0el*$ !t is petitionerMs main contention that the orders of respondent . well:settled is the rule that public funds are not sub'ect to levy and e)ecution. is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the 8ational Assembly. =e invo"ed of his constitutional rights to academic freedom and %uality education. =(>1.I The delegated power.The . #ssue.oberto ..a(ts$ Petitioner @unicipality of @a"ati e)propriated a portion of land owned by private respondents.6?. the private respondent is a graduate of the &niversity of the (ast with a degree of Dachelor of 4cience in Goology. 99: . are e)empt from e)ecution. he does not have the constitutional right to be adoctor# one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. @unicipal revenues derived from ta)es. which was appealed to the ourt of Appeals# the latter affirmed said dismissal and petitioner now filed this petition for review. This ourt will not condone petitionerMs blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising from e)propriation of land they are already en'oying. a law does not have to operate withe%ual force on all person or things Page 4 of 4 . The 4tateMs power of eminent domain should be e)ercised within the bounds of fair play and 'ustice.-99 6(to&er .2.+or the purpose of gauging a t least initially by the admission te st and by the three:f lun" rule .T 'udge involved the net amount of P<. Admiral +inance reditors onsortium. in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the re%uirements of public convenience and interest.-6/.against A. 6hether or not funds of the @unicipality of @a"ati are e)empt from garnishment and levy upon e)ecution.of the onstitution. no levy under e)ecution may be validly effected.while one has the right to aspire to be a doctor. Hto promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful