This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Re: Petition for radio and television coverage of the multiple murder cases against Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, et al., A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC/A.M. No. 10-11-6SC/A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC. June 14, 2011. Right to fair trial v. freedom of the press. Right to fair trial v. freedom of the press. Prejudicial publicity insofar as it undermines the right to a fair trial must pass the ³totality of circumstances´ test that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. FACTS: On November 23, 2009, 57 people including 32 journalists and media practitioners were killed on their way to Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao. This tragic incident came to be known as ³Maguindanao massacre´ spawned charges for 57 counts of murder and additional charges of rebellion against 197 accused. Almost a year later on November 19 2010, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GMA Network Inc., relatives of the victims, individual journalists from various media entities and members of the academe filed a petition before this court praying that live television and radio coverage of the trial in this criminal cases be allowed, recording devises be permitted inside the court room to assist the working journalists, and reasonable guidelines be formulated to govern the broadcast coverage and the use of devices. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for radio and television coverage of the Maguindanao Massacre should be allowed. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Court partially grants pro hac vice petitioners¶ prayer for a live broadcast of the trial court proceedings, subject to certain guidelines as enumerated. The present petition which asserts the exercise of the freedom of the press, right to information, right to a fair and public trial, right to assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances, right of free access to courts, and freedom of association, subject to regulations to be issued by the Court. Respecting the possible influence of media coverage on the impartiality of trial court judges, petitioners correctly explain that prejudicial publicity insofar as it undermines the right to a fair trial must pass the ³totality of circumstances´ test, applied in People v. Teehankee, Jr. and Estrada v. Desierto, that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial.
petitioner Sahali- . protested the pronouncement that held the provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotobato under state of emergency and the delegations of supervision of ARMM to the DILG. June 7. Article V of the Expanded ARMM Organic Act HELD: NEGATIVE. principle of local autonomy. sacrifice press freedom and allied rights. along with Ansarudidn Adiong. Law and technology can work to the advantage and furtherance of the various rights involved. Technology per se has always been neutral. et al. and the Philippine National Police. the Armed Forces of the Philippines. They pointed out that the delegation gave the DILG secretary. Regie. FACTS: Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan. Hon. Furthermore. The Supreme Court observed that after law enforcement agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre. assumed the vacated post pursuant to the rule on succession found in Article VII. In turn. Section 12. however. The petitioners.In this day and age. of RA 9054. the ARMM Vice-Governor. Article X of the Constitution. the citizens will have confidence upon the government. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan. The President did not declare and put the province under the authority of the DILG. petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong. within the guidelines. the Court cannot gloss over what advances technology has to offer in distilling the abstract discussion of key constitutional precept into the workable context. This action was prompted by the gruesome massacre of 57 in the said area. No. Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM Regional Assembly. The action was merely done so that after the massacre. Ronaldo Puno. v. After law enforcement agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre.R. ISSUE: Whether or not Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A violated the principle of local autonomy under Section 16. the ARMM Vice-Governor. 190259. the power to take over and seize the operations and governmental powers. assumed the vacated post pursuant to the rule on succession found in Article VII. Indeed. and Section 1. 2. sought the prohibition and declaration of unconstitutionality of such delegation (AO 273 and 273-A) for it violated the principle of local autonomy. 2011 Local governments. they contested that the President did not have any factual basis for declaring the state under emergency status. Sahali-Generale. Section 12. It is the use and regulation thereof that need fine-tuning. Ronaldo Puno. et al. petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong. G. of RA 9054. dignity and solemnity of judicial proceedings. and interfere with the integrity. it is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal administration of justice.
However. They have demonstrated their viability as component cities of their respective provinces and are developing continuously. and 9491 ² constitutional. . No. COMELEC. The share of local government units is a matter of percentage under Section 285 of the Local Government Code (LGC). 9436. 3. 9393. With their conversion into component cities. and equal sharing (25%). et al./League of Cities of the Philippines etc. The share of local government units is a matter of percentage under Section 285 of the LGC. With every newly converted city becoming entitled to share the allocation for cities. 2011. et al. v. 9389. 2011. reversed the Resolution dated August 24. 178056. and can either increase or decrease. land area (25%). 9405.R.Generale. et al. and declared the 16 Cityhood Laws ² Republic Acts Nos.. determined on the basis of population (50%). Acting ARMM Vice-Governor. not a specific amount. albeit slowly. because they had previously to share the IRA with about 1. Just share in national taxes. not a specific amount./League of Cities of the Philippines etc. As elaborated here and in the assailed February 15. 9434. That is a necessary consequence of Section 285 and Section 286 of the LGC. Specifically. 9404. 9392. 9390. 9407. 9398. they will have to share with only around 120 cities. Now. The respondents are thus also entitled to their just share in the IRA allocation for cities. determined on the basis of population (50%). League of Cities of the Philippines etc. such that when the number of cities increases. although the actual amount received may be more than that received in the preceding year. 2011 Resolution.. In short. No. v. No.500 municipalities. the DILG Secretary did not take over the administration or operations of the ARMM.. 2011 granted the Motion for Reconsideration of the respondents presented against the Resolution dated August 24. This share is also dependent on the number of existing cities. They submit that the Cityhood Laws violated Section 6 and Section 10 of Article X of the Constitution. 9409.. The Resolution promulgated on February 15. the allocation by the National Government is not a constant. 9391. the petitioners anchor their Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration upon the primordial ground that the Court could no longer modify. 2010. or amend its judgment declaring the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional due to such judgment having long become final and executory. as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically. COMELEC. the percentage of internal revenue allotment (IRA) entitlement of each city will decrease. 9435. the share of the cities is 23%. the share of the cities is 23%. v. G. land area (25%). et al.R. 176951/G.R. 2010. the Cityhood Laws were not violative of the Constitution and the LGC. et al. April 12. Cityhood Laws. 9408. then more will divide and share the allocation for cities. alter. and equal sharing (25%). 9394. ISSUE: Whether or not the Cityhood Laws are violative of the right of local governments to a just share in the national taxes HELD: NEGATIVE. COMELEC. et al. 177499/G. FACTS: This petition involves the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners vis-à-vis the Resolution promulgated on February 15.
No. but also depend on the IRA to support their development. 2007. Inevitably.12 square kilometers. Requisites for creation of province. Vs. if uncorrected. Hence. petitioners Rodolfo G. 2006. Moreover. 9355. 2011. otherwise known as An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands was held unconstitutional and the provision in Article 9 (2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 stating that "The land . although it is expressly stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR. The said number is therefore insufficient because the law requires 250. 175158) challenging the constitutionality of R. Facts: On the time that the Dinagat Islands was proclaimed as a new province on December 3. et al. Local Government. No. With the approval of the people from both the mother province of Surigao del Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat). G. the land area failed to comply with the required 2. Meanwhile. km. the Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1. and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the provincial territory. No.Local government units do not subsist only on locally generated income. 2007 synchronized elections. it is exempt from the land area requirement as expressly provided in Section 442 and Section 450 of the LGC. et al. respectively. Navarro and other former political leaders of Surigao del Norte. 180050.R. and rich resources from the area. 9355 specifically states that the Province of Dinagat Islands contains an approximate land area of 802. No.502 negative votes.A. would perpetuate an illegal act of Congress.000 sq. Later.951 constituents based on the 2000 Census of Population conducted by the National Statistics Office (NSO). 2010. Navarro. on November 10. 2007.000 inhabitants. Yet their potential will effectively be stunted if those already earning more will still receive a bigger share from the national coffers. April 12. 2006. 4. on February 10. it had an official population of only 106. Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA). Rodolfo G. filed before the SC a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G. and if commercial activity will be more or less concentrated only in and near Metro Manila. if the local government unit to be created is a municipality or a component city. 2006. the President appointed the interim set of provincial officials who took their oath of office on January 26. R. The Supreme Court found no reason why this exemption should not apply also to provinces. This exemption is absent in the enumeration of the requisites for the creation of a province under Section 461 of the LGC.. 9355 alleging that that the creation of Dinagat as a new province. on December 3. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. Republic Act No.R. the COMELEC conducted the mandatory plebiscite for the ratification of the creation of the province under the LGC which yielded 69. during the May 14.943 affirmative votes and 63.A. They can spur their own developments and thereby realize their great potential of encouraging trade and commerce in the far-flung regions of the country. When the local government unit to be created consists of one (1) or more islands.
³with respect to the creation of barangays. therefore. The SC ruled that the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 stating. i. although it is expressly stated under Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.´ is declared VALID. specifically paragraph 2 of Article 9 which states that "the land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands. respectively. and provinces. and impractical. Thus. and land area. However. is exempted from the land area requirement based on the provision in the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (IRR). It is. 9355 is constitutional. contiguity and minimum land area requirements for prospective local government units should be liberally construed in order to achieve the desired results. ³The land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands. if not outright absurd. land area is not a requisite indicator of viability. be in order for the Court to uphold the validity of Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR.e. The strict interpretation adopted by the February 10. The component cities and municipalities which consist of islands are exempt from the minimum land . when the exemption was expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR. 2010 Decision could prove to be counter-productive. awkward. According to the SC. A. logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision was expressed in Section 442 (for municipalities) and Section 450 (for component cities) of the LGC. the three (3) indicators of viability and projected capacity to provide services. but was inadvertently omitted in Section 461 (for provinces). Consistent with the declared policy to provide local government units genuine and meaningful local autonomy. there is a greater likelihood that islands or group of islands would form part of the land area of a newly-created province than in most cities or municipalities. it is exempt from the land area requirement as expressly provided in Section 442 and Section 450 of the LGC if the local government unit to be created is a municipality or a component city. which is composed of more than one island.area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands. Held: AFFIRMATIVE. No. then.. in themselves. Respondents instead asserted that the province. This exemption is absent in the enumeration of the requisites for the creation of a province under Section 461 of the LGC.´ ³But it must be pointed out that when the local government unit to be created consists of one (1) or more islands. the inclusion was intended to correct the congressional oversight in Section 461 of the LGC ± and to reflect the true legislative intent. are provided for. It would. In fact. considering the physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago. income. component cities. with respect to the creation of municipalities. also consist of islands." Issue: Whether or not the R. Picture an intended province that consists of several municipalities and component cities which. population.´ There appears neither rhyme nor reason why this exemption should apply to cities and municipalities. but not to provinces." was declared NULL and VOID.
The delivery of basic services to its constituents has been proven possible and sustainable. 2010 elections as mere fait accompli circumstances which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat¶s existence as a province. of the LGC. while considered as an indicator of viability of a local government unit. Jose Deleste v. as compared to one with a contiguous land mass. Administrative cases.23 at the time of its creation. 169913. 2011.. the province would be made to comply with the minimum land area criterion of 2. Iligan City from the heirs of Gregorio Nanaman. respectively. et al. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated. Heirs of Dr. rural progress. June 8. G. DARAB. Yet. and the delivery of basic services to the constituency.00 for the creation of a province. they must be seen from the perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming a province. No. is not conclusive in showing that Dinagat cannot become a province. as non-compliance with it violates the essential requirements of administrative due process of law. Land Bank of the Philippines.000. However. were issued in favor of private respondents who were tenants and cultivators of the property.area requirement.000-square-kilometer territory of a province is scattered because the islands are separated by bodies of water. When Nanaman¶s wife died. even if it consists of several islands. due process. due process. Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the May 10. Facts: Dr. taking into account its average annual income of P82. the Department of Agrarian Reform notified only the heirs of Nanaman regarding the procedures of the program. nullified the Order which granted the writ of execution prayed . The case reached the Supreme Court in 1995 and it was held that Deleste and Nanaman were co-owners of the subject land.R. What is more. 5.000 square kilometers. as certified by the Bureau of Local Government Finance.000. This would mean that Congress has opted to assign a distinctive preference to create a province with contiguous land area over one composed of islands ² and negate the greater imperative of development of self-reliant communities.696. the land area. Jose Deleste bought a parcel of land in Tambo. Private respondents filed their Notice of Appeal immediately. as well as Emancipation Patents and Original Certificates of Titles. The heirs of Deleste filed a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board seeking to nullify the Emancipation Patents. Administrative cases. however. When the aforementioned civil case was still pending before the Court of First Instance. Certificates of Land Transfer. an action was filed against Deleste alleging that the subject property was a conjugal property of the deceased spouses and that the wife could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. PD 27 was issued which mandated that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. which is four times more than the minimum requirement of P20. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator declared the Emancipation Patents null and void. This preferential option would prove more difficult and burdensome if the 2.433. pursuant to Sections 450 and 442.
By failing to notify the petitioners of the fact that the subject land is being covered by the agrarian reform program.´ It informs the landowners of the intention of the state to acquire the land for the program and also provides opportunity for the landowner to prove that such land is excused from the coverage of the agrarian reform program. is an essential requirement of administrative due process. Petitioners filed petition for review with the Court of Appeals and eventually with the Supreme Court. The actual notice.for by the petitioners. DAR. DAR violated the right of the former to due process of the law. The case of De Chavez vs. as well as conducting as ocular inspection. the court held that in the implementation of agrarian reform. Failure to notify the proper party. deprives involved parties of their right to property through the denial of due process. the deed of sale executed between Deleste and the wife of Nanaman in 1954 serves as ³constructive notice´ that such property is owned by Deleste. Issue: Whether or not The Department of Agriculture violated the rights of the petitioners to procedural due process. Also. Monica Industrial & Dev¶t Corp vs. Furthermore. . however. ³notice is part of the constitutional right to due process of law. Held: Affirmative. in Sta. DARAB further claimed that the Emancipation Patents were valid since it was the petitioners who should have informed the DAR of the pending Civil Case which involved the subject property. Zobel held that the enactment of PD 27 is in itself a statutory notification to landowners of the agrarian reform program.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.