G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010 ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEÑA, HERMINIHILDA, MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA…Full description
This is a copy of Abakada case and therefore should be accessible to all law students... if there is anything a law student, i think is a case digest for easy understanding of a particular s…Full description
Full description
Digest
GR 176051 11 February 2009Full description
DIGESTFull description
Statutory Construction Case DigestFull description
International Law, Treaties, International Agreement, Constitutional Law
Political Law case digest
sdfghjkl
Rene A.V. Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa G.R. No. 212426 & 212444; January 12, 2016
dfFull description
persons cases
Labor 2 digest
Phil Supreme court digest decisionFull description
-
?Full description
javellana
Garcia vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, July 30, 2012
Digest PubcorpFull description
Administrative Law Case Digests Joson vs Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 Case Digest G.R. No. 131255 May 20, 1998
Search
Home
Saved
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Farinas vs Executive Secretary Et Alcase Digest
Uploaded by Donna Ingusan
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Magazines
News
Documents Sheet Music
Umali vs. Estanislao -
1
Download
453 views
of 2
Dimaporo vs. Mitra Case Digest
Admin Cases
Search document
Farinas v. Executive Secretary et al. 417 SCRA 503
FACTS:
Petition for certiorari and prohibition The petition seeks to declare Section 14 of RA no. 9006 (The Fair Elections Act) Unconstitutional as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code )which provides: Sec. 67 Candidates holding elective office-Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he i s holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Reason for the petition: The unconstitutionality rose upon the violation of Section 26 of article 6 of the constitution requiring every law to have only one subject, which should be expressed in its title.
RA No. 9006 primarily deals with the lifting lift ing of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices, while section 67 of the Omnibus election code imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office rather than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity
Petitioners also asserted that Sec 14 violates equal protection clause because it repeals Section 67 only of the Omnibus Election Code, leaving Section 66 intactwhich imposes similar limitation to appointive individuals.
Sec. 66 Candidates holding appointive office or position- Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including members of the AFP, and officers of government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing his certificate of candidacy. Sign up to vote on this title
Respondents’ defense:
Useful
Not useful
Section 14 of RA No. 9006 as it repeals Section 67 of Omnibus Election Code
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
453 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Farinas vs Executive Secretary Et Alcase Digest
Uploaded by Donna Ingusan
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Umali vs. Estanislao -
1
of 2
Dimaporo vs. Mitra Case Digest
Admin Cases
Search document
ISSUE/S:
The repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is not embraced in the ti tle, nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9006. Whether or not Section 14 of RA 9006 be rendered unconstitutional because it as it expressly repealed Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and violated the “onesubject-one title” rule? Whether Section 14 of RA 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider? *rider- additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature having little connection with the subject matter of the bill . Whether RA 9006 (The Fair Elections Act) null and void in it s entirety which provides “this act shall take effect upon its approval “ is a violation of due process. How is the clause “this law shall take effect immediately upon its approval” be interpreted?
RULING:
You're Reading a Preview Unlock full access with a free trial.
Petition was dismissed.
Download With Free Trial The title and the objectives of RA No. 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. Section 14 of RA 9006 is not a proscribed rider.
There is no dissimilarity between Section 67 (OEC) and RA No. 9006 and does not violate the one-subject-one title rule. - An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may longonasthis they Signbe up so to vote titleare not inconsistent with the general subject. Useful Not useful
