- POLITICAL QUESTIONS- are concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.
QUESTIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE
ISSUANCES will not preclude the SUPREME COURT from exercising its power of judicial review to determine whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of issuing authority under its
EXPANDED JURISDICTION- BRILLANTES VS.
COMELEC, 432 SCRA 269, June 15 2004.
- KILOSBAYAN VS. ERMITA, GR No. 177721, July 3, 2007 -
Petitioners have standing to file the suit simply as people’s organizations and taxpayers since the matter involves an issue of utmost and far-reaching Constitutional importance, namely, the qualification – nay, the citizenship – of a person to be appointed a member of this Court. xxxx This case is a matter of primordial importance involving compliance with a Constitutional mandate. As the body tasked with the determination of the merits of conflicting claims under the Constitution, the
Supreme Court is the proper forum for resolving the issue, even as the JBC has the initial competence to do so. xxx It is clear, therefore, that from the records of this Court, respondent
Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.
- FISCAL AUTONOMY- Bengzon vs. Drilon- The Chief
Justice must be given a free hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed.
- PP VS. DY, 395 SCRA 256- Under Article VIII, Section 4(1)
of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven members.
- IBP vs. Zamora, deployment of marines – is justiciable- the
problem being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom.
- FARIÑAS VS. EXEC. SEC., 417 SCRA 503- Policy matters
are not the concern of the Supreme Court- government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government.
- CHANGE OF VENUE-Larranaga vs. CA, 287 SCRA 581, A
motion to change the venue of (and authority to conduct) preliminary investigation cannot be taken cognizance by the courts for lack of jurisdiction. The holding of a preliminary investigation is a function of the Executive department and not of the judiciary.
- PP vs. Sola, 103 SCRA 393 (1981)- In case of doubt, it should
be resolved in favor of change of venue.
- PP VS. TUBONGBANUA, GR No. 171271- August 31, 2006-
In view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty on June 24, 2006, the penalty that should be meted is reclusion perpetua, thus:
- SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby
prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law and all other laws, executive orders and decrees insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
- SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
- PROMULGATE RULES concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all court, the admission to the practice of law, the IBP, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
NOTE: Limitations: simplified and inexpensive procedure; uniform; not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
WRIT OF AMPARO – The right to enforce and protect a
person’s rights guaranteed and recognized by the bill of rights. It is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. “ The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of the Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved. The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue. The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. ” The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. “ The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which
constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. “ The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA- It is a remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
- Masangkay vs. del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, June 17,
2008- To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was
originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to
protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Where, as in this case, there is an ongoing
civil process dealing directly with the possessory dispute and the reported acts of violence and harassment, we see no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of
amparo in the absence of any clear prima facie showing that the right to life, liberty or security – the personal concern that the writ is intended to protect - is immediately in danger or threatened, or that the danger or threat is
continuing. We see no legal bar, however, to an application
for the issuance of the writ, in a proper case, by motion in a pending case on appeal or on certiorari, applying by analogy the provisions on the co-existence of the writ with a separately filed criminal case.
- Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires
the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
- (a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
- (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
- (d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
- (e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent.
Aruelo vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 475- The COMELEC
cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court.
Republic vs. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 16429, December 19, 2005-
Congress has the plenary legislative power. The silence of the Constitution on the subject can only be interpreted as meaning there is no intention to diminish that plenary power. RA 8974 which requires full payment before the State may exercise proprietary rights, contrary to Rule 67 which requires only a deposit was recognized by the Supreme Court.
PEOPLE VS. MATEO, July 7, 2004 – While the fundamental
law requires mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere however, has it proscribed an intermediate
review. The Supreme Court deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
Procedural matters, first and foremost, fall more squarely within the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court than the law making power of Congress. The rule allowing an
intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a subordinate appellate court, before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review, is such a procedural matter.
- MINUTE RESOLUTION- Komatsu vs. CA, 289 SCRA 604-
does not violate Section 14. Resolutions are not decisions within the constitutional requirement; they merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained and the petition to review decision of the CA is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, hence, there is no need to fully explain the Court’s denial since, for one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the CA decision.
- German Machineries Corporation vs. Endaya, 444 SCRA 329- The mandate under Section 14, Article VIII of the
constitution is applicable only in cases “submitted for decision”, i.e, given due course and after the filing of the briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but not where a resolution is issued denying due course to a petition and stating the legal basis thereof.
- Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Laserna, 550 SCRA 613- The
constitutional mandate that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is bases”, does not preclude the validity of “memorandum decisions”, which adopt by reference the finding of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
- Joaquin-Agregado v. Yama, March 20, 2009, GR No. 181107- The Supreme Court stressed that it has the discretion to
decide whether a “minute resolution” should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case. Further, the Supreme Court explained that the grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. When it fails to find any reversible error committed by the CA, there is no need to fully explain the Court’s denial as it means that the Supreme Court agrees with or adopts the findings and
conclusions of the CA. “There is no point in reproducing or restating in the resolution of denial the conclusions of the appellate court affirmed”.The constitutional requirement of
sec. 14, Art. VIII of a clear presentation of facts and laws applies to decisions, where the petition is given due course, but not where the petition is denied due course, with the resolution stating the legal basis for the dismissal.
- Oil & National Gas Com. vs. CA, 293 SCRA 26- Section 14
does not preclude the validity of “Memorandum Decision” which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. It is intended to avoid cumbersome reproduction of the decision (or portions thereof) of the lower court.