SHERRY MAE ABORDE

JURIS DOCTOR
LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING (JD1103)

Assignment Number 1

1.) What is a Case Digest?

A Case Digest or a case brief is a written summary of the case. A case sometimes
involves several issues. Digesting the same would help the student in separating one
issue from another and understanding how the Court resolved the issues in the case.

2.) What are the essential parts of a Case Digest? Discuss each part briefly.

The essential parts of a Case Digest are Facts, Issues, and Ruling.

I. Facts.
Facts are the brief story of the case. It includes summary of what happened in
the case, who are the petitioner and the respondents, what is the decision of the
Court of Appeals and Lower Courts. Facts should be brief as possible.

As to the Facts – not all dates/circumstances are to be included, but only those
that are necessary and important in the overall appreciation of the case.

II. Issues.
Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes"
or "no," for example, "Is the contract void?" Sometimes, students frame the
question by starting it with the word "whether," for example, "Whether the
contract is void" or "Whether or not the contract is void." The answer to the
question has to be answered in the ruling.

As to the Issue – this must be clear, straight and direct to the point as possible.

III. Ruling/Held.
This usually starts with a "yes" or a "no." This is the answer to the question/s
involving the issue. After the categorical yes/no answer, the reason for the
decision will be explained.

As to the Ruling – only the rulings of the Court related to the topic/subject
matter is to be included.

3.) Make a Case Digest of your favorite landmark case.

AMPATUAN VERSUS PUNO

(June 7, 2011 (G.R. No. 190259)

Petitioners:
DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE
Respondents:
HON. RONALDO PUNO, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

1
SHERRY MAE ABORDE
JURIS DOCTOR
LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING (JD1103)

FACTS:
On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre of 57 men and women,
then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946, placing “the
Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato under a state of
emergency.” She directed the AFP and the PNP “to undertake such measures as may be
allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless
violence” in the named places. Under AO 273, she also delegated to the DILG the
supervision of the ARMM.

The petitioners claimed that the President’s issuances encroached the ARMM’s
autonomy, that it constitutes an invalid exercise of emergency powers, and that the
President had no factual basis for declaring a state of emergency, especially in the
Province of Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato, where no critical violent incidents
occurred. They want Proc. 1946 and AO 273 be declared unconstitutional.

The respondents, however, said that its purpose was not to deprive the ARMM of its
autonomy, but to restore peace and order in subject places. It is pursuant to her “calling
out” power as Commander-in-Chief. The determination of the need to exercise this
power rests solely on her wisdom.

The President merely delegated her supervisory powers over the ARMM to the DILG
Secretary who was her alter ego any way. The delegation was necessary to facilitate the
investigation of the mass killings

ISSUE:
WON President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called out the
AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City

HELD: NO. The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of
emergency in the three places mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law
enacted by Congress that authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers. The calling
out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a
power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a
congressional authority to exercise the same.

ISSUE (2): WON there is factual basis on the calling out of the Armed Forces.

HELD: YES. The President’s call on the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence springs from the power vested in her under Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution. While it is true that the Court may inquire into the factual bases for the
President’s exercise of the above power, unless it is shown that such determination was
attended by grave abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the President’s
judgment.