Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases Article Vii (Recovered)
Cases Article Vii (Recovered)
1.SOLIVEN VS MAKASIAR
Facts:
Pres. Cory Aquino filed a criminal
complaint for libel against Beltran
Petitioner Beltran argues
reasons which necessitate
that
"the
2
petitioner refused to answer, invoking
executive privilege. In particular, he
refused to answer the questions on:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo
followed
up
the
NBN
Project,
(b) whether or not she directed him to
prioritize
it,
and
(c) whether or not she directed him to
approve.
He later refused to attend the other
hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the
senate averring that the communications
between GMA and Neri are privileged and
that the jurisprudence laid down in
Senate vs Ermita be applied. He was cited
in contempt of respondent committees
and an order for his arrest and detention
until such time that he would appear and
give his testimony.
ISSUE:
The communications
executive privilege
are
covered
by
3
President.
Under
the
operational
proximity test, petitioner can be
considered a close advisor, being a
member of President Arroyos cabinet.
And third, there is no adequate showing
of a compelling need that would justify
the limitation of the privilege and of the
unavailability
of
the
information
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority.
Respondent Committees further contend
that the grant of petitioners claim of
executive
privilege
violates
the
constitutional provisions on the right of
the people to information on matters of
public concern.50 We might have agreed
with such contention if petitioner did not
appear before them at all. But petitioner
made himself available to them during
the September 26 hearing, where he was
questioned for eleven (11) hours. Not only
that, he expressly manifested his
willingness to answer more questions
from the Senators, with the exception
only of those covered by his claim of
executive privilege.
The right to public information, like any
other right, is subject to limitation.
Section 7 of Article III provides:
The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and
to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
Issues:
Facts:
Held:
Loren B. Legarda filed an election protest
against Noli L. de Castro before the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). De
4
judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualification of the
President and Vice-President is expressly
vested in the PET, in Section 4, Article VII
of the Constitution. Included therein is the
duty to correct manifest errors in the
SOVs and COCs.
Arguments of COA:
GR No. 14732
March 12, 2004
Instant petition filed under Rule 64 of the
Revised Rules of Court seeks the
annulment of the decision of COA denying
the
petitioners
motion
for
reconsideration of the COA Notices of
Disallowance.
Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr was
appointed Director IV of the Bureau of
Labor Relations in the DOLE. Acting
Secretary Jose S. Brillantes of DOLE
designated Bitonio to be the DOLE
representative to the Boiard directors of
PEZA. After post audit of PEZAs
disbursement
transactions,
COA
disallowed the per diem of Bitonio.
5
4.
RA No. 7916 is more superior than
COA Memorandum No. 97-038. (Statute
vs Administrative directive)
Ruling of the Court:
1.
Article VII
Constitution
Section
13
of
1987
6
and when the former deems it to be
appropriate. The Pres. has the power to
assume directly the functions of an
executive department, bureau and office.
It can therefore be inferred that the Pres.
can interfere in the exercise of discretion
of officials under him or altogether ignore
their
recommendations.
The phrase upon recommendation of the
Secretary found in Sec. 9, Chap. II, Title
III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative
Code should be interpreted to be a mere
advice, exhortation or indorsement, which
is essentially persuasive in character and
not binding or obligatory upon the party
to whom it is made. The recommendation
is here nothing really more than advisory
in nature. The Pres., being the head of the
Executive Department, could very well
disregard or do away with the action of
the departments, bureaus or offices even
in the exercise of discretionary authority,
and in so opting, he cannot be said as
having acted beyond the scope of his
authority.
Rufino vs Endriga
1. Armita B. Rufino
vice Baltazar
President,
N. Endriga
2. Zenaida R. Tantoco
vice Doreen Fernandez
Member,
FACTS:
On 25 June 1966, then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive
Order No. 30 (EO 30) creating the Cultural
Center of the Philippines as a trust
governed by a Board of Trustees of seven
members to preserve and promote
Philippine culture.
3. Federico Pascual
vice Lenora A. Cabili
4. Rafael Buenaventura
vice Manuel T. Maosa
Member,
Member,
7
5. Lorenzo Calma
Ma. Paz D. Lagdameo
Member, vice
Member, vice
7.
Freddie Garcia
Irma Ponce-Enrile
Member, vice
Potenciano
Except
for
Tantoco, the
Rufino
group took their respective
oaths of
office and assumed the performance of
their duties in early January 1999.
Hence,
the
petitions.
instant
consolidated
ISSUE:
8
authority to appoint and elect their fellow
trustees when there is vacancy.
RULING:
7. Drilon vs Lim
GR No. 112497
August 4, 1994
The principal issue in this case is the
constitutionality of Section 187 of the
Local Government Code. The Secretary of
Justice (on appeal to him of four oil
companies and a taxpayer) declared
Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue
Code) null and void for non-compliance
with the procedure in the enactment of
tax ordinances and for containing certain
provisions contrary to law and public
policy.
RTCs Ruling:
1.
The RTC revoked the Secretarys
resolution and sustained the ordinance. It
declared Sec 187 of the LGC as
unconstitutional because it vests on the
Secretary the power of control over
LGUs in violation of the policy of local
autonomy mandated in the Constitution.
Petitioners Argument:
1.
The annulled Section 187 is
constitutional and that the procedural
requirements for the enactment of tax
ordinances as specified in the Local
Government Code had indeed not been
observed. (Petition originally dismissed by
the Court due to failure to submit certified
true copy of the decision, but reinstated it
anyway.)
9
2.
Grounds
procedure
of
non-compliance
of
Not published
c.
ISSUE
Is the decision of the BOI denying the ITH
appealable to the Office of the President
or to the Court of Appeals?
HELD
It is to the latter.
[P]etitioner should have immediately
elevated to the Court of Appeals the
denial by respondent BOI of its
application for an ITH. From the letter
dated 09 October 2003 of respondent
BOI, which informed petitioner that its ITH
would be extended only from 13 August
1999 to 21 October 1999, petitioner
appealed to the Office of the President, a
recourse that is not sanctioned by either
the Rules of Civil Procedure or by the
Omnibus Investments Code of 1987
9. ABERCA v. VER
FACTS
10
1983. He later inhibited himself and was
replaced Judge Lising, who denied the MR
for being filed out of time. Another MR
was filed, and was only modified to
include Maj. Aguinaldo and MSgt. Balaba
for officers accountable in the said
complaint.
ISSUES
ones
who
directly
and
indirectly
participated in those acts. By filing a
motion to dismiss, they admitted all the
facts stated in the complaint.
versus
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS DELIA
DOMINGO-ALBERT,
THE
HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N.
GUTIERREZ,
and
THE
HONORABLE
SOLICITOR
GENERAL
ALFREDO
L.
BENIPAYO
G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010
FACTS:
11
established for the purpose of providing
aid to the victims of rape by Japanese
military forces in the Philippines during
the Second World War.
WON
the
Executive
Department
committed grave abuse of discretion in
not espousing petitioners claims for
forms
of
RULING:
12
of such decision is not for the courts to
question.
The President, not Congress, has the
better opportunity of knowing the
conditions which prevail in foreign
countries, and especially is this true in
time of war. He has his confidential
sources of information. He has his agents
in the form of diplomatic, consular and
other officials.
The
Executive
Department
has
determined that taking up petitioners
cause would be inimical to our countrys
foreign policy interests, and could disrupt
our relations with Japan, thereby creating
serious implications for stability in this
region. For the to overturn the Executive
Departments determination would mean
an assessment of the foreign policy
judgments by a coordinate political
branch to which authority to make that
judgment
has
been
constitutionally
committed.
From a municipal law perspective,
certiorari will not lie. As a general
principle, where such an extraordinary
length of time has lapsed between the
treatys conclusion and our consideration
the Executive must be given ample
discretion to assess the foreign policy
considerations of espousing a claim
against Japan, from the standpoint of both
the interests of the petitioners and those
of the Republic, and decide on that basis
if apologies are sufficient, and whether
further
steps
are
appropriate
or
necessary.
In the international sphere, traditionally,
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
individuals behalf. By taking up the case
of one of its subjects and by resorting to
diplomatic action or international judicial
proceedings on his behalf, a State is in
reality asserting its own right to ensure, in
the person of its subjects, respect for the
rules of international law.
Within
the
limits
prescribed
by
international law, a State may exercise
diplomatic protection by whatever means
and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it
is its own right that the State is asserting.
Should the natural or legal person on
whose behalf it is acting consider that
their rights are not adequately protected,
they have no remedy in international law.
All they can do is resort to national law, if
means are available, with a view to
furthering their cause or obtaining
redress. All these questions remain within
the province of municipal law and do not
affect the position internationally.
Even the invocation of jus cogens norms
and erga omnes obligations will not alter
this analysis. Petitioners have not shown
that the crimes committed by the
Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitions at the time the Treaty of
Peace was signed, or that the duty to
prosecute perpetrators of international
crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has
attained the status of jus cogens.
The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to
everyone) in international law has been
used as a legal term describing
obligations owed by States towards the
community of states as a whole. Essential
distinction should be drawn between the
obligations of a State towards the
international community as a whole, and
those arising vis--vis another State in the
field of diplomatic protection. By their
very nature, the former are the concern of
all States. In view of the importance of
the rights involved, all States can be held
to have a legal interest in their protection;
they are obligations erga omnes.
The
term
jus
cogens
(literally,
compelling law) refers to norms that
command
peremptory
authority,
superseding conflicting treaties and
custom. Jus cogens norms are considered
peremptory in the sense that they are
mandatory, do not admit derogation, and
can be modified only by general
international
norms
of
equivalent
authority
13
WHEREFORE,
DISMISSED.
the
Petition
is
hereby
Facts:
Issue:
14
Whether or not a pardon granted to an
accused during the pendency of his
appeal from a judgment of conviction by
the trial court is enforceable.
Held:
WHEREFORE, counsel
for
accusedappellant Ricky Mengote y Cuntado is
hereby given thirty (30) days from notice
hereof within which to secure from the
latter the withdrawal of his appeal and to
submit it to this Court. The conditional
pardon granted the said appellant shall
be deemed to take effect only upon the
grant of such withdrawal. In case of non-
15
compliance with this Resolution, the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections
must exert every possible effort to take
back into his custody the said appellant,
for which purpose he may seek the
assistance of the Philippine National
Police or the National Bureau of
Investigation. (People vs. Francisco Salle,
Jr. and Ricky Mengote, G.R. No. 103567,
December 4, 1995)
FACTS:
Although
it
is
correct
that
the
Constitution, in Article VII, Section 21,
provides for the concurrence of 2/3 of all
members of the Senate for validating a
treaty and is deemed essential to provide
check on the executives foreign relations,
it is not absolute. The power to ratify does
not belong to the Senate.
The
process
of
treaty
making:
negotiation, signature, ratification, and
exchance of th instruments of ratification.
Petitioners arguments equate the signing
of the treaty by the Phil. representative
with ratification. However, it should be
noted that signature and ratification is
two separate steps. Signature is for
authentication, on the other hand,
ratification
is
the
formal
act
of
acceptance. the latter is generally an
executive act undertaken by the head of
the state.
16
Facts:
On December 28, 2000, the Philippines
through the Charge d Affairs Enrique A.
Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the
United Nations, signed the Rome Statute
which
established
the
International
Criminal Court. Thus, herein petitioners
filed the instant petition to compel the
respondents the Office of the Executive
Secretary and the Department of Foreign
Affairs to transmit the signed text of
the treaty to the Senate of the Philippines
for
ratification.
Issue: Whether or not the Executive
Secretary and the Department of Foreign
Affairs have a ministerial duty to transmit
to the Senate for ratification the copy of
the Rome Statute signed by a member of
the Philippine Mission to the United
Nations even without the signature of the
President.
Held:
The Supreme Court rule in the negative.
The President, being the head of state, is
regarded as the sole organ and authority
in external relations and is the countrys
sole representative with foreign nations.
As the chief architect of foreign policy,
the President acts as the countrys
mouthpiece with respect to international
affairs. Hence, the President is vested
with the authority to deal with foreign
states and governments, extend or
withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic
relations,
enter into
treaties,
and
otherwise transact the business of foreign
relations. In the realm of treaty-making,
the President has the sole authority to
negotiate
with
other
states.
It should be emphasized that under the
Constitution, the power to ratify is vested
in the President, subject to the
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the
Senate, however, is limited only to giving
or
withholding
its
consent,
or
concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it
is within the authority of the President to
Facts:
17