Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Case Digest - GR No. - 147387

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dana Brillantes
    The petitioners argued that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was unconstitutional. They also contended that the entire law should be invalidated due to irregularities in its passage. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the effectivity clause in Section 16 was defective, it did not render the entire law invalid. The Court held that publication is always required before a law takes effect, but the legislature may shorten or lengthen the default 15-day period before the law's effectivity. In this case, RA 9006 became effective 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Case Digest - GR No. - 147387

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dana Brillantes
    30 views2 pages
    The petitioners argued that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was unconstitutional. They also contended that the entire law should be invalidated due to irregularities in its passage. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the effectivity clause in Section 16 was defective, it did not render the entire law invalid. The Court held that publication is always required before a law takes effect, but the legislature may shorten or lengthen the default 15-day period before the law's effectivity. In this case, RA 9006 became effective 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Case Digest - GR No. -147387

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners argued that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was unconstitutional. They also contended that the entire law should be invalidated due to irregularities in its passage. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the effectivity clause in Section 16 was defective, it did not render the entire law invalid. The Court held that publication is always required before a law takes effect, but the legislature may shorten or lengthen the default 15-day period before the law's effectivity. In this case, RA 9006 became effective 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Case Digest - GR No. - 147387

    Uploaded by

    Maria Dana Brillantes
    The petitioners argued that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was unconstitutional. They also contended that the entire law should be invalidated due to irregularities in its passage. However, the Supreme Court ruled that while the effectivity clause in Section 16 was defective, it did not render the entire law invalid. The Court held that publication is always required before a law takes effect, but the legislature may shorten or lengthen the default 15-day period before the law's effectivity. In this case, RA 9006 became effective 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    I.

    Reference
    a. Subject
    7126 - JD 114 | Legal Research and Writing

    b. Topic
    Article 2, Civil Code of the Philippines

    c. Title
    RODOLFO C. FARIÑAS, MANUEL M. GARCIA, FRANCIS G. ESCUDERO, and
    AGAPITO A. AQUINO, AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
    ALSO AS TAXPAYERS, IN THEIR OWN BEHALF AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE
    MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, petitioners,
    vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. FELICIANO
    R. BELMONTE, JR., SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
    SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, AND SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF
    REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.

    d. Citation
    G.R. No. 147387. December 10, 2003

    II. Body
    a. Facts
    The petitioners have now presented their case to the Supreme Court, alleging in
    the main that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, in so far as it repeals Section 67 of
    the Omnibus Election Code, is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section
    26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which requires every law to have only one
    subject, which should be expressed in its title. The petitioners are arguing that
    Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, in so far as it repeals Section 67.

    Petitioners contend that the entirety of Rep. Act No. 9006 should not be
    considered legal because of the irregularities that occurred during its passage
    into law. It is recommended that the entire law, not just Section 14, be declared
    invalid and unenforceable. Even Section 16 of the law, which states that "[t]his Act
    shall take effect upon its approval," is a violation of the due process clause of the
    Constitution and jurisprudence, both of which demand that a law be published
    before it can go into effect.

    b. Issues
    Whether or not Section 16 of the law which provides that “[t]his Act shall take
    effect upon its approval” is a violation of the due process clause of the
    Constitution, as well as jurisprudence, which require publication of the law before
    it becomes effective

    c. Ruling
    The effectivity clause stated in section 16 is defective but does not render the law
    invalid.
    The Tañada v. Tuvera held that “the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers
    to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which
    cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator
    may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date
    without its previous publication.

    Therefore, publication is indispensable in every case but the legislature may, in


    their discretion, provide to shorten or lengthen the 15-day period stated in
    Article 2 of the New Civil Code. In the case at bar, RA 9006 was effective fifteen
    (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general
    circulation.

    You might also like