.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Election Laws Cases Essay

1. Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210FACTS Monsod was nominated by hot seat Aquino as ch advertisewoman of the Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment disdain Cayetanos objection, establish on Monsods alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law perpetrate. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition.ISSUE Whether or non Monsod has been pursue in the practice of law for 10 yearsRULING YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other work where the work through involves the decisiveness of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.)The records of the 1986 constitutional flush show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. The court withal cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays book their get specialized field such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank theme from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, endure be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.2. 18 December 1990G.R. No. 93867FACTSThe suppliant is challenging the denomination by the Preside nt of Associate Commissioner Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC, in place of Chariman Davide. The prayer argues that the choice of the Acting Chairman is an internal matter to the COMELEC. It is also averred that the designation done by the President of the Philippines violates the license of the COMELEC.ISSUEWhether the designation done by the President of the Philippines violates word IX-A, sectionalisation 1 of the Constitution.RULING member IX-A, Section 1 of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not down the stairs the operate of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. Its finishs, orders and rulings are subject sole(prenominal) to review on certiorari by the Court as provided by the Constitution in clause IX-A, Section 7. The choice of temporary chair in the absence of the regular chairman comes under that discretion. That discretion cannot be exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President. The designation by the President of respondent Yorac as Acting Chairman of the COMELEC is declared unconstitutiona2. Sixto Brillantes, Jr. vs. Haydee B. YoracG.R. No. 93867. December 18, 1990. FACTS reticuloendothelial systempondent, as Associate COMELEC Chairman, was appointed by the President as Chairmanthereof, replacing originator Chairman Hilario Davide the former chairman was appointed to thefact-finding commission regarding the December 1989 putsch d etat. Petitioner moved for herremoval, stating that her appointment was contrary to Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the 1987Constitution, where (I)n no case shall both Member (of the Commission on options) beappointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.Issue Is respondents appointment as Chairman in the case at bar unconstitutional.Ruling Yes. Article IX-A Section 1 of the Constitution expressly provides for the independence of th eConstitutional Commissions from the executive department this means that they are governedby the Constitution itself and cannot be under the control of the Pres.3. UNIDO VS. COMELECIn 1981, the BP proposed amendments to the 1973 Constitution. The amendments were to be placed to a plebiscite for the flocks approval. The YES vote was being advanced by KBL profanecos Party. While the NO vote was being advanced by UNIDO. To ensure parity and pertainity, COMELEC issued settlements 1467-1469 w/c basically provided that there be adapted opportunity, equal time and equal space on media use for campaigns for both sides. On 12 Mar 1981, Marcos campaigned for the YES vote via TV and radio from 930pm to 1130pm.The same was broadcasted shake up by 26 TV stations and 248 radio stations nationwide. UNIDO petitioned forward the COMELEC that they be granted the same opportunity as Marcos has pursuant to Resns 1467-69. COMELEC denied the demand. UNIDO assailed the denial as a denial of equ al protection in advance the laws. ISSUE Whether or not UNIDO was denied equal protection by fairness of COMELECs denial of their request.HELDThe SC ruled that UNIDO was not denied due litigate nor were they not afforded equal protection. It is the considered view of the SC that when Marcos conducted his pulong-pulong or consultation with the people on March 12, 1981, he did so in his capacity as President/Prime Minister of the Philippines and not as the foreman of any political companionship. Under the Constitution, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet shall be accountable . . . for the program of government and shall determine the guidelines of national policy. In instances where the head of state is at the same time the president of the political party that is in power, it does not necessarily follow that he speaks with two voices when he dialogues with the governed. The president is accorded certain privileges that the opposition may not have. Further, the SC cannot oblige T V stations and radio stations to give UNIDO free air time as they are not party to this case. UNIDO must sought- later(a) contract with these TV stations and radio stations at their own expense.4. SANIDAD vs. COMELEC181 SCRA 529Facts On 23 October 1989, RA 6766 (Act providing for an organic act for the Cordillera autonomous Region) was enacted into law. The plebiscite was schedule 30 January 1990. The Comelec, by virtue of the power vested by the 1987 Constitution, the motorcoach Election Code (BP 881), RA 6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on the tell Organic Act for theCordillera Autonomous Region. Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist of Overview for the Baguio Midland Courier assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 (Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers) of the said resolution, which provides During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day forward and on plebiscite day, no m ass media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.Issue Whether columnists are prohibited from expressing their opinions, or should be under Comelec regulation, during plebiscite periods.Held Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the Comelec was the power to supervise and learn the use and pastime of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other prevalent utilities, media of communication or information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right hand to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. Neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11-b, 2nd paragraph of RA 6646 (a columnist, commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is required to remove a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period) can be construed to mean that the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.Media practitioners exercising their free SANIDAD vs. COMELEC5. LAZATIN VS. COMELECLazatin filed the flare petition assailing the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to annul his declaration afterward he had interpreted his oath of office, assumed office, and discharged the duties of Congressman of the 1st District of Pampanga. Lazatin claims that the mob of Representatives electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC is the sole judge of all election contests. Buan, Jr., and Timbol (Lazatins opposition), alleged that the instant petition has become moot and academic because the assailed COMELEC Resolution had already become final and executory when the SC issued a TRO on October 6, 1987. In the COMMENT of the Sol-Gen, he alleges that the instan t petition should be assumption due ladder because the proclamation was valid. The Telex Order issued by the COMELEC enjoin the canvassing board to proclaim the winner if warranted under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, was in effect a grant of authority by the COMELEC to the canvassing board, to proclaim the winner.A Separate Comment was filed by the COMELEC, alleging that the proclamation of Lazatin was illegal and void because the board simply corrected the returns contested by Lazatin without waiting for the final resolutions of the petitions of candidates Timbol, Buan, Jr., and Lazatin himself, against certain election returns. ISSUE Whether or not the issue should be placed under the HRETs jurisdiction. HELD The SC in a Resolution dated November 17, 1987 resolved to give due course to the petition.The petition is impressed with merit because petitioner has been proclaimed winner of the congressional elections in the first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath of office as such, and assumed his duties as Congressman. For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral resist against him would be to usurp the functions of the House Electoral Tribunal. The alleged invalidity of the proclamation(which had been previously ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and despite the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound appreciation of the Electoral Tribunal.6. JAVIER VS. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 G.R. NOS. L-68379-81 22 SEPT 1986Facts The petitioner and the sequestered respondent were candidates in oldtimer for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. The former appeared to enjoy more popular represent but the last mentioned had the advantage of being the nominee of the KBL with all its perquisites of power. On May 13, 1984, the eve of the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when seve ral followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by the latters men. Seven suspects, including respondent Pacificador, are now facing essay for these murders. Owing to what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondents proclamation, the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the election returns.His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner thereupon came to this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because made only when by a division and not by the Commission on Elections en banc as required by the Constitution. Meanwhile, on the strength of his proclamation, the private respondent took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa. Issue Whether or not the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its decision of July 23, 1984, proclaiming the private respondent the winner in the elec tion.Held This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as the indispensable shrill of due process. To bolster that requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are go against they can go to a judge who shall give them rightness. They must depone the judge, otherwise they will not go to him at all. They must conceptualise in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not seek his judgment. Without such confidence, there would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect.Due process is intended to insure that confidence by requiring conformism with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair play. Fair play cans for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal hearing. Judicial (and also extra-judicial) proceedings are not orchestrated plays in which the parties are supposed to make the motions and reach the denouement according to a prepared script. There is no writer to foreordain the ending. The judge will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is in and all the arguments are filed, on the behind of the established facts and the pertinent law.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.