Drilon vs Lim Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

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.

RTC’s Ruling:

1.    The RTC revoked the Secretary’s 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.

Petitioner’s 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.)

2.    Grounds of non-compliance of procedure

a.    No written notices as required by Art 276 of Rules of Local Government Code

b.    Not published

c.    Not translated to tagalog

Supreme Court’s Argument:

1.    Section 187 authorizes the petitioner to review only the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinance. What he found only was that it was illegal. That act is not control but supervision.

2.    Control lays down the rules in the doing of act and if not followed order the act undone or re-done. Supervision sees to it that the rules are followed.

3.    Two grounds of declaring Manila Revenue Code null and void (1) inclusion of certain ultra vires provisions (2) non-compliance with prescribed procedure in its enactment but were followed.

The requirements are upon approval of local development plans and public investment programs of LGU not to tax ordinances.

Manolo vs Sistoza Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

Manolo vs Sistoza

GR No. 107369

August 11, 1999

Petitioners question the legality of the permanent appointments issued by former President Aquino to senior officers of PNP who were promoted to the ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director without appointments submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.

Republic Act 6975 created the DILG and in Sec26 it states that Chief of PNP shall be appointed by President from among senior officers down to the rank of the chief superintendent are subject for confirmation.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1.    Respondent officers acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction considering Republic Act 6975 and PNP akin to the AFP requires consent.

2.    Respondent secretary effected disbursement acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction.

Rules of Court:

1.    RA 6975 enjoys presumption of constitutionality however the court must see to it that every law passed by Congress is not repugnant to the organic law.

2.    Establishing of middle ground to avoid horse trading in Commission on Appointments (when almost all appointments needs consent)

3.    Mison Doctrine, only the first group requires consent

4.    Republic Act 6795 is unconstitutional

PNP is distinct from AFP, Sec 4 Article XVI of Constitution. Sec 6 Article XVI of the Constitution (police officers defn)

Calderon vs Carale Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

Calderon vs Carale

GR No. 91636

April 23, 1992

This is a petition for prohibition questions the constitutionality and legality of permanent appointments extended by President to Chairman and Members of NLRC without submitting the same to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715.

Arguments of Calderon:

1.    Mandatory compliance of RA 6715

2.    Mison and Bautista rulings are not decisive to the issue because President issued permanent appointments.

Arguments of Carale:

1.    If confirmation is required, three stage process of nomination, confirmation and appointment operates (Sub section 3 Section 10 of Article VII). The word nominate does not any more appear in 2^nd and 3^rd sentences of Section 16 Article VII.

Argument of Solicitor General:

1.    RA 6715 transgresses Sec 16 Art VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments without constitutional basis.

Rules of Court:

1.    Four groups of officers whom the President shall appoint (Mison Doctrine)

2.    2 major changes (Mison Doctrine)

3.    NLRC Chairman falls in the third group.

4.    RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is unconstitutional because

a.    It amends by legislation in 1^st and 2^nd sentence of Sec 16 Art VII

5.    The court respects the laudible intention of legislative intent. Sec 13 RA 6715 amending Art 215 of the Labor Code requires consent is beyond redemption. Follow Judicial decisions, Mison, Bautista, Salonga jurisprudence

Separation of Powers

Quintos-Deles vs CA Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

Quintos-Deles vs Commission on Appointments

GR No. 83216

September 4, 1989

This is a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with injuction to cempel Commission on Appointments to allow Teresita Quintos-Deles to perform and discharge her duties as a member of HR representing the Women’s Sector.

Quintos-Deles, Lopez (Youth), Arteche (Peasant) and Teves (Urban Poor) have not taken their oaths due to the opposition of some congressmen members of Commission on Appointments.

Arguments of Commission on Appointments:

1.    Sectoral representatives must be first confirmed by Commission on Appointments

Solicitor General’s Argument:

1.    Since the President included a letter to the Commission on Appointments upon submission of the four sectoral representatives, thus confirmation is required.

2.    The appointment was acted during session

Arguments of Petitioners:

1.    Sec 7, Article XVIII does not require confirmation

2.    It’s nowhere in the constitution nor in EO No. 198 is mention the need for confirmation

Rules of Court:

1.    Sectoral representatives are referred to the first sentence of Sec 16 Art VII

2.    Provisions of EO No. 198 do not deal with the manner of appointment of sectoral representatives. It just specify the sectors to be presented.

3.    Deles appointment was issued not by virtue of EO No. 198 but pursuant to Art VII Sec 16 par 2 and Art XVIII Sec 7.

Bautista vs Salonga Case Digest

Here are some digested cases from the Jurisprudence regarding issues related to the Executive Department. I know, I digested it differently but this is how I remember things easily. You still have to read the whole Jurisprudence. You will never understand the things I wrote below, maybe some but perhaps most of the things I jot down are only the important ones and I might even forgot some important key factors, unless you have read the original text. Do not rely too much ion this. These digested cases will just help you remember things out during oral recitations. God bless future lawyers!

Bautista vs Salonga

GR No. 86439

April 13, 1989

Whether or not the appointment of Mary Concepcion Bautista as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (independent office) with no consent by the Commission of Appointments.

The president, realizing the need for a permanent chairman and members of CHR appointed Bautista. Bautista received a letter for submission in connection with the confirmation of her appointment.

Arguments of Bautista:

1.    Not subject to confirmation since it is an independent office

Arguments of Commission on Appointments:

1.    Disapproved Bautista as ad interim because of the refusal to submit to the jurisdiction

2.    Sec 6 Chapter II of Rules of Commission on Appointments – the denial for submission denied the motion for reconsideration

Rule of Court:

1.    CHR position of chairman not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16 Art VII

2.    Constitutional law is concerned with power not political convenience.

3.    There was no vacancy~ from temporary to permanent appointment

4.    Executive Order (163-A) only speaks of tenure in office which is at the pleasure of the President. Tenure means not be confused with term of office. Realization of how precious are rights could be. A chairman is not made by statute but by Constitution.

The removal must be for cause and with due process, Government of laws not for men.