Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cordero vs. Hon. Cabatuando Digest

    Uploaded by

    AJ Aslarona
    582 views1 page
    Sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2263, which amended the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, were challenged as unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule. The Supreme Court held that the sections were constitutional because they pertained to the general subject of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, despite addressing different specific matters, as the amendments were not inconsistent with the general topic. As long as legislation addresses a single general subject, provisions on related matters will be valid even if diverse, and the constitutional rules on subject matter should not be interpreted so strictly as to hamper proper lawmaking.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2263, which amended the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, were challenged as unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule. The Supreme Court held that the sections were constitutional because they pertained to the general subject of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, despite addressing different specific matters, as the amendments were not inconsistent with the general topic. As long as legislation addresses a single general subject, provisions on related matters will be valid even if diverse, and the constitutional rules on subject matter should not be interpreted so strictly as to hamper proper lawmaking.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    582 views1 page

    Cordero vs. Hon. Cabatuando Digest

    Uploaded by

    AJ Aslarona
    Sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2263, which amended the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, were challenged as unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule. The Supreme Court held that the sections were constitutional because they pertained to the general subject of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, despite addressing different specific matters, as the amendments were not inconsistent with the general topic. As long as legislation addresses a single general subject, provisions on related matters will be valid even if diverse, and the constitutional rules on subject matter should not be interpreted so strictly as to hamper proper lawmaking.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cordero v. Hon. Cabatuando Case No. 81 G.R. No.

    L-14542 (October 31, 1962) Chapter I, Page 12, Footnote No.47 FACTS: Republic Act No. 1199 is the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines. Section 54 of this act expressed that indigent tenants should be represented by Public Defendant of Department of Labor. Congress then amended this in Republic Act No. 2263: An Act Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 1199. Section 19 of the amendatory act says that mediation of tenancy disputes falls under authority of Secretary of Justice. Section 20 also provides that indigent tenants shall be represented by trial attorney of the Tenancy Mediation Commission. ISSUE: W/N Sections 19 and 20 of Rep. Act No. 2263 is unconstitutional because of the constitutional provision that No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill. HELD: Sections 19 and 20 are constitutional. The constitutional requirement is complied with as long the law has a single general subject, which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and the amendatory provisions no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, will be regarded as valid. Constitutional provisions relating to subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede proper legislation.

    You might also like