Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: David v COMELEC (G.R. No. 127116, G.R. No. 128039)

David v COMELEC | G.R. No. 127116, G.R. No. 128039 | April 8, 1997 | Panginiban, J. | Topic: Article X |

FACTS:

  • David, in his capacity as barangay chairman and as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, filed a petition to prohibit the holding of the barangay election scheduled on the second Monday of May 1997. Meanwhile, Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter also filed a petition to seek a judicial review by certiorari to declare as unconstitutional: (1) Section 43(c) of R.A. 7160; (2) COMELEC Resolution Nos. 2880 and 2887 fixing the date of the holding of the barangay elections on May 12, 1997 and other activities related thereto; and, (3) The budgetary appropriation of P400 million contained in Republic Act No. 8250 (General Appropriations Act of 1997) intended to defray the costs and expenses in holding the 1997 barangay elections.
  • Petitioners contend that under RA 6679, the term of office of barangay officials is 5 years. Although the LGC reduced the term of office of all local elective officials to three years, such reduction does not apply to barangay officials.
  • As amicus curiae, former Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. urges the Court to deny the petitions.


ISSUES:
1. Which law governs the term of office of barangay officials: RA 7160 or RA 6679? (RA 7160 – 3 years)
2. Is RA 7160 insofar as it shortened such term to only three years constitutional? (YES)
3.Are petitioners estopped from claiming a term other than that provided under RA 7160? (YES)

HELD:
Clear Legislative Intent and Design to Limit Term to Three Years

  • RA 7160 was enacted later than RA 6679. It is basic that in case of an irreconciliable conflict between two laws, the later enactment prevails. (Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.)
  • During the barangay elections held on May 9, 1994 (second Monday), the voters actually and directly elected one punong barangay and seven kagawads (as in the Code).
  • In enacting the general appropriations act of 1997, Congress appropriated the amount of P400 million to cover expenses for the holding of barangay elections this year. Likewise, under Sec. 7 of RA 8189, Congress ordained that a general registration of voters shall be held “immediately after the barangay elections in 1997.” These are clear and express contemporaneous statements of Congress that barangay officials shall be elected this May, in accordance with Sec. 43-c of RA 7160.
  • In Paras vs. Comelec, this Court said that “the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely 7 months away, the same having been scheduled in May, 1997.” This judicial decision is “part of the legal system of the Philippines (NCC 8).”
  • RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. It specifically and definitively provides in its Sec. 43-c that “the term of office of barangay officials shall be for three years.” It is a special provision that applies only to the term of barangay officials who were elected on the second Monday of May 1994. With such particularity, the provision cannot be deemed a general law.


Three-Year Term Not Repugnant to Constitution

  • The Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term of office for barangay officials. It merely left the determination of such term to the lawmaking body, without any specific limitation or prohibition, thereby leaving to the lawmakers full discretion to fix such term in accordance with the exigencies of public service. It must be remembered that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge this burden and to show clearly the unconstitutionality they aver.
  • Constitutional Commission on how long the term of barangay officials is: “As may be determined by law”; more precisely, “as provided for in the Local Autonomy Code (Sec 43-c limits their term to 3 years).”


Petitioners Estopped From Challenging Their Three-Year Terms

  • Barangay officials are estopped from asking for any term other than that which they ran for and were elected to, under the law governing their very claim to such offices: namely, the LGC. Petitioners’ belated claim of ignorance as to what law governed their election to office in 1994 is unacceptable because under NCC 3, “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more