Philjas Corp proposed building the Cherry Hills Subdivision but in 1999, the Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman began an investigation into the project. Ignacia Balicas filed a petition against the FFIB questioning whether their investigation was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the investigation was constitutional. As an administrative agency, the FFIB has the authority to investigate projects like the Cherry Hills Subdivision to ensure permits were properly acquired and regulations were followed. The Court denied Balicas' petition.
Philjas Corp proposed building the Cherry Hills Subdivision but in 1999, the Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman began an investigation into the project. Ignacia Balicas filed a petition against the FFIB questioning whether their investigation was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the investigation was constitutional. As an administrative agency, the FFIB has the authority to investigate projects like the Cherry Hills Subdivision to ensure permits were properly acquired and regulations were followed. The Court denied Balicas' petition.
Philjas Corp proposed building the Cherry Hills Subdivision but in 1999, the Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman began an investigation into the project. Ignacia Balicas filed a petition against the FFIB questioning whether their investigation was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the investigation was constitutional. As an administrative agency, the FFIB has the authority to investigate projects like the Cherry Hills Subdivision to ensure permits were properly acquired and regulations were followed. The Court denied Balicas' petition.
IGNACIA BALICAS, petitioner, vs. FACT-FINDING & INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents. QUISIBING, J. FACTS: Philjas Corp. proposed the building of Cherry Hills Subdivision (CHS) and was endorsed to the HLURB. All proper certification and permits were acquired. However, in 1999, ISSUE: Whether Exec Judge Manzano’s membership is unconstitutional. HELD: Yes. It is unconstitutional because Provincial/City Committees of Justice perform administrative functions. Provincial/City Committees on Justice are created to ensure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees to alleviate jail congestion and improve local jail conditions, which are evidently administrative functions. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for; their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Considering that membership of Exec Judge Manzano discharges administrative functions and will violate the Constitution, the Court is constrained to deny his request. Request is DENIED.
Remarks of Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina on the bill to prevent the interference of certain federal officers in elections: delivered in the Senate of the United States February 22, 1839