In Re: Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988

 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE.

A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988

EN BANC; Justice Padilla

Facts:

On July 4, 1988, Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, Executive Judge, RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Branch 19, sent a letter of request to the Supreme Court in issuance of a resolution, (1) authorizing him to accept the appointment and to assume and discharge the powers and duties as a member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice; ( 2) considering his membership in the Committee as neither violative of the independence of the Judiciary nor a violation of Sec. 12, Article VIII, or of the second paragraph of Sec. 7, Article IX (B), both of the Constitution, and will not in any way amoun t to an abandonment of his present position as aforementioned, and as a member of Judiciary; and (3) considering his membership in the said committee as part of the primary functions of an executive Judge.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the membership in the committee is neither violative of the independence of the Judiciary; Sec. 12, Article VIII, and the second paragraph of Sec. 7, Art. IX (B).

(2) Whether or not being a member of the said committee, at the same time being an Executive Judge is constitutional.

Ruling:

Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi judicial or administrative functions (Sec. 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution, the court is constrained to deny his request.

Accordingly, the aforesaid request of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano is denied.

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

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more