Rodolfo Farinas vs Executive Secretary [g.r. No. 147387. December

0

Higit Pa

Susunod na Blog»

Bumuo ng Blog

Philippine Case Digests Databank  HOM HOME PAGE AGE

LAWY LAWYER ERS S OATH OATH

JUR JURISDI ISDICT CTIION OF COUR COURTS TS

COD CODE OF PROF PROFES ESSI SION ONAL AL RES RESPONS PONSIB IBIL ILIITY

FAVORIT ORITEE QUO QUOTE TES S FR FROM SC DEC DECIISION SIONS S

NEW NEW COD CODE OF JUD JUDICIA ICIALL COND CONDUC UCT T

LATI LATIN N MAX MAXIIMS (A to to Z) Z)

LEG AL LEG AL FORM FORMS

ABOUT US

ECUM ECUMEN ENIC ICA AL PR PRAYER FOR THE COURTS

BAR EXAM QUESTIONS ARCHIVE

Tuesday, Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Our Sponsors

RODOLFO FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [G.R. No. 147387. December 10, 2003]

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to declare as unconstitutional Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), insofar as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg . 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) which provides:

GRAB OUR BADGE

SEC. 67. Candidates holding elective office . – Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and VicePresident, shall be considered ipso facto  resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of  candidacy.

FACTS:

The petitioners now come to the Court alleging in the main that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title.  According to the petitioners, petitioners, the inclusion of Section 14 repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in Rep. Act No. 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider. They point out the dissimilarity in the subject matter matte r of Rep. Act No. 9006, on the one hand, and Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, on the other. Rep. Act No. 9006 primarily deals with the lifting 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 other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto  resigned therefrom upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of  Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is thus not embraced in the title, nor germane to the subject matter of Rep. Act No. 9006.



Search Philippine Case Digests Databank Databank Search

ALL CASES Archived !

2013 (5) 2013  (5)

"

2012 (3) 2012  (3)

The petitioners also assert t hat Sectio Section n 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitut ion because it repeals Section 67 only of the Omnibus Election  Election   Code, leaving intact Section 66  thereof which imposes a similar limitation  to appointive officials, thu s:

"

SEC. 66. C andidates holding a public appointive office andidates holding ap pointive ap pointive office or position . – Any person holding or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned government-owned or controlled corporations, corporations, shall be considered ipso facto  resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

They contend that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 discriminates against appointive officials. By the repeal of Section 67, an elective official who runs for office other than the one which he is

 April (1)  April  (1) RODOLFO FARINAS FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [G.R. [G.R. No. 1...

!

!

March (1) March  (1)

!

January (1) January  (1)

2010 (65) 2010  (65)

Mag-sign in

offices upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. The petitioners assert that Rep. Act No. 9006 is null and void in its entirety as irregularities attended its enactment into law. The law, not only Section 14 thereof, should be declared null and void. Even Section 16 of the law which provides that “[t]his Act shall take effect upon its approval” is a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as jurisprudence, which require publication of the law before it becomes effective. Finally, the petitioners maintain that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is a good law; hence, should not have been repealed. The petitioners cited the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. ,[13] that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is based on the constitutional mandate on the “Accountability of Public Officers:” Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and  justice, and lead modest lives.

Consequently, the respondents Speaker and Secretary General of the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction for not considering those members of the House who ran for a seat in the Senate during the May 14, 2001 elections as ipso facto resigned therefrom, upon the filing of their respective certificates of candidacy.

ISSUES:

W/N Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 Is a Rider. W/N Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 Is Violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. W/N Section 16 of the law which provides that “[t]his Act shall take effect upon its approval” is a violation of the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as jurisprudence, which require publication of the law before it becomes effective.

Our Guestbook: c'mon, exercise your right under sec.(4) Art. III of the 1987 constitution 7 Aug 14, 07:42 AM niche: blogwalk, to be or not to be 5 Jul 14, 03:40 PM abraham olaguera: can you refer a

form I can use to give otice to a squatter to vacate the property?

1 Dec 13, 12:37 PM SyamStyles: hak blogwalk, hak kami,

haha

HELD:

To determine whether there has been compliance with the constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title, the Court laid down the rule that – Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act. The title of Rep. Act No. 9006 reads: “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices.” The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of Rep. Act No. 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. To require that the said repeal of Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its content. The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding, to the other  provisions of Rep. Act No. 9006, which deal with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for  election propaganda, does not violate the “one subject-one title” rule. This Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject. The legislators considered Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code as a form of harassment or  discrimination that had to be done away with and repealed. The executive department found cause with Congress when the President of the Philippines signed the measure into law. For sure, some sectors of society and in government may believe that the repeal of Section 67 is bad policy as it would encourage political adventurism. But policy matters are not the concern of the Court.

27 Sep 13, 08:54 AM getsugaa: bab tarian mmg asia nmber 

1...

23 Sep 13, 05:02 AM kakiku: Football kakis, hanya utk lelaki

aje

4 Sep 13, 07:15 PM aniS: perkara paling BEST dlm hidup

adibah Noor 

27 Aug 13, 10:43 PM keta glamer : jenama tkenal di 25

negara, mesti pilih

27 Jun 13, 01:55 AM syamStyles: Hppy blogging tuan

empunya blog, ahaks [Get a Cbox] refresh name e-mail / url message Go

help # smilies # cbox

Our Readers

Join this site with Google Friend Connect

Members (16)

 Already a member? Sign in

Was this site helpful? Pls. feel free to show your support to

prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of   judicial cognizance. Congress is not precluded from repealing Section 67 by the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra  upholding the validity of the provision and by its pronouncement in the same case that the provision has a laudable purpose. Over time, Congress may find it imperative to repeal the law on its belief that the election process is thereby enhanced and the paramount objective of election laws – the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of  Congress – is achieved. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former  occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of  tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Finally, the “ Effectivity ” clause (Section 16) of Rep. Act No. 9006 which provides that it “shall take effect immediately upon its approval,” is defective. However, the same does not render the entire law invalid. In Tañada v. Tuvera, this Court laid down the rule:

VISIT THE WEBSITE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Top Online Legal References

 AsianLII - Asian Legal Info Institute Batas Natin Berne Guerrero Case Digests for Law Students Chanrobles Virtual Law Library Coffeeholic Writes Howard's Case Digests In Rebus- Legal Maxims

... the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of  publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date without its previous publication.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-period shall be shortened or extended $. Following Article 2 of the Civil Code and the doctrine enunciated in Tañada, Rep. Act No. 9006, notwithstanding its express statement, took effect fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.

International Court of Justice Decisions JLP Law- Philipine e-Legal Forum LawPH.com LawPhil.Net Legal Friendhood.Net Legal Updates-familymatters.org.ph Lex Discipulus Lexoterica: A Philippine Blawg Pace Lex et Sapientia PhBar.Org Blog

In conclusion, it bears reiterating that one of the firmly entrenched principles in constitutional law is that the courts do not involve themselves with nor delve into the policy or wisdom of a statute. That is the exclusive concern of the legislative branch of the government. When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power. No such transgression has been shown in this case.

PhBar.Org Forum Pinoy Law Student Pinoy Lawyer. Org Scire Licet Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind The Corpus Juris The Digester  The Supreme Court E-Library Uber Digests

 You might also like:

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. 174689 October 22, 2007 ISIDRO CARIÑO vs. COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991 FRANCISCO M. ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC. G.R. No. 130876 January 31, 2002 PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15 2004.

WIP's Blog a Log

blog networks

Linkwithin Law

Posted by Lex at 7:24 PM Recommend this on Google

No comments: Post a Comment Enter your comment...

Comment as:

Publish

Google Account

Preview

Feedjit

Live Traffic Feed

Links to this post Create a Link Newer Post Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Thank you for reading!

 YOU ARE HERE

Home

Older Post

A visitor from Pasig, Pampanga viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: RODOLFO FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [G.R. No. A visitorDecember from Quezon 147387. 10, City 2003]" 3 viewed "Philippine Case Digests mins ago Databank: Guevara vs. Inocentes, G. R. No. L-25577, 16visitor A SCRAfrom 379, Quezon March 15, City 1966" 14 mins"Philippine viewed ago Case Digests Databank: PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January A visitor15 from 2004." Philippines 18 mins ago viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: LEGAL FORMS" 22 mins ago from General Santos A visitor City, General Santos viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank" 23 mins A visitor from Pasig,ago Pampanga viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: RODOLFO FARINAS VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY [G.R. No. A visitorDecember from Las Piñas, Rizal 147387. 10, 2003]" viewed "Philippine Case Digests 25 mins ago Databank: Cruz vs DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000" 25visitor A mins ago from San Fernando, Tarlac viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: December 2010" 26 mins ago A visitor from Philippines viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: LEGAL FORMS" 27 mins ago from Philippines A visitor viewed "Philippine Case Digests Databank: December 2010" 39 Real-time view · Menu

Total Pageviews

1 0 9 0 7 5 1 0 9 0 7 6 Visitors

Hits

HTML Hit Counter

Clixsense

tags

cases, case digest, case digests, law, law school, philippine laws, lawyers, attorney, forms, legal forms, law firms, justice, judges, courts, supreme court, regional trial court, court of first instance, court of appeals, intermediate appellate court, court of tax appeals, sandiganbayan, ombudsman, municipal trial court, municipal trial court in cities, municipal circuit trial court, metropolitan trial court, jurisprudence, information, prosecutor, fiscal, complaint, complainant, preliminary investigation, criminal justice, criminal law, criminal procedure, rules of court, philippine jurisprudence, supreme court decisions, prejudicial questions, civil case, civil action, civil procedure, civil law, civil code, official gazette, property, persons and family relations, revised penal code, statutory construction, political law, constitution, 1987 constitution, legislative department, executive department, judiciary, judicial department, checks and balances, constitutional commissions, civil service, civil service rules, commission on audit, commission on election, bill of rights, obligations and contracts, constitutional law, human rights, legal ethics, legal profession, legal research, legal forms, affidavits, land titles and deeds, sales, deed of sale, mortgage, labor laws, labor standards, labor relations, agrarian reform, citizenship, immovable property, movable property, in rem, in persona, law student, cases compedium, bar exams.

Simple template. Template images by duncan1890. Powered by Blogger .