Macalintal v. PET (G.R. No. 191618) November 23, 2010 | G.R. No. 191618

Ratio Legis et Anima

A look at the deliberations of the framers reveals that the exclusive authority granted to the SC in judging cases relating to the elections of President and Vice-President does not impinge on the supposed separation of power between the judiciary and the executive departments, even if the said provision can be found in Art. VII.

Macalintal v. PET (G.R. No. 191618)

November 23, 2010 | G.R. No. 191618

 

Atty. Romulo Macalintal, petitioner

Presidential Electoral Tribunal, respondent

 

FACTS:

 

Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the previous ruling of the SC that found the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal by the SC as constitutional. In his motion, Macalintal contended that the creation of the PET by the SC did not fall within the ambit of the last paragraph of Section  4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. He also contended that the PET exercises quasi-judicial power, and thus, its members violate Section 12, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, 

 

ISSUE:

 

Whether or not the PET is constitutional.

 

HELD:

 

Yes, the Court held that PET is constitutional. A look at the deliberations of the framers reveals that the exclusive authority granted to the SC in judging cases relating to the elections of President and Vice-President does not impinge on the supposed separation of power between the judiciary and the executive departments, even if the said provision can be found in Art. VII.

The Court held that election issues are adversarial and judicial proceedings, and are essentially justiciable questions.

 

Similarly, the Court held that in creating PET, it merely constitutionalized what was statutory. The last paragraph of Section 4, Art. VII bestows upon the SC the power to hear questions relating to the election of the President and Vice-President. Following the doctrine of necessary implication, the creation of PET should be seen as the means necessary to carry said constitutional mandate into effect.

 

Motion for reconsideration denied.

http://lawschoolnoob.blogspot.com/2018/08/case-digest-macalintal-v-pet-gr-no.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more