Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716, July 28, 1966

    Uploaded by

    Gil Paterno G. Mendoza
    426 views1 page
    1. Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas contested the 1965 Philippine vice presidential election, with Lopez being proclaimed the winner. Roxas filed an election protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Lopez argued the Tribunal was unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to hear election protests for president and vice president. It also found that the Tribunal did not constitute a separate court but rather conferred functions on the Supreme Court. 3. Additionally, the Act that created the Tribunal did not appoint its members but rather imposed new duties on the Supreme Court, which did not require reappointment of justices. The Tribunal was thus deemed constitutional.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas contested the 1965 Philippine vice presidential election, with Lopez being proclaimed the winner. Roxas filed an election protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Lopez argued the Tribunal was unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to hear election protests for president and vice president. It also found that the Tribunal did not constitute a separate court but rather conferred functions on the Supreme Court. 3. Additionally, the Act that created the Tribunal did not appoint its members but rather imposed new duties on the Supreme Court, which did not require reappointment of justices. The Tribunal was thus deemed constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    426 views1 page

    14 Lopez v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-25716, July 28, 1966

    Uploaded by

    Gil Paterno G. Mendoza
    1. Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas contested the 1965 Philippine vice presidential election, with Lopez being proclaimed the winner. Roxas filed an election protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. Lopez argued the Tribunal was unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to hear election protests for president and vice president. It also found that the Tribunal did not constitute a separate court but rather conferred functions on the Supreme Court. 3. Additionally, the Act that created the Tribunal did not appoint its members but rather imposed new duties on the Supreme Court, which did not require reappointment of justices. The Tribunal was thus deemed constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    LOPEZ VS ROXAS AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

    G.R NO. L-25716


    CONCEPCION, C.J
    FACTS:
    Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas were the main contenders for the
    Office of Vice President of the Philippines in the general elections held on November 9, 1965.
    The petitioner was proclaimed as the Vice President by virtue of electoral victory. Respondent
    then filed a protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, alleging that it was he and not the
    petitioner who had won the election. In response, the petitioner filed a motion before the
    Supreme Court to prohibit the Presidential Electoral Tribunal from hearing and deciding the
    aforementioned election contest, on the ground that the Republic Act No. 1793 creating the said
    Tribunal is "unconstitutional" and that therefore, all proceedings taken by it are a nullity.
    ISSUES:
    1. Whether or Not the R.A No. 1793 is unconstutional on the ground that the Constitution does
    notprovide for an election protest for the position of President and Vice-President
    2. Whether or Not the Act has created a separate court
    3. Whether or Not the Congress has appointed the members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
    RULING:
    1. No. Instead of indicating that Congress may not enact Republic Act No. 1793, the
    aforementioned provision of the Constitution, establishing said Electoral Tribunals for Members
    of Congress only, proves the exact opposite, namely: that the Constitution intended to vest
    Congress with discretion (Section 1 of Art. VIII of the 1935 Constitution)
    2. No. Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred
    upon the Supreme Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. (Section 2 of the Art.
    VIII of the 1935 Constitution).
    3. No. The Act only imposed new duties, the imposition of duties; it neither created a new office
    nor it appointed members of the said tribunal through legislation. Imposition of new duties upon
    an officer already elected or appointed does not constitute the creation of an office or the
    appointment of an officer. When new duties are thus attached to an office, a reappointment of the
    officer need not be made." (42 Am. Jur., Public Officers, Sec. 90, p. 949).

    You might also like