Lawren

It is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As such, it can be clearly and unambiguously discerned from Paragraph 1, Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution that in the phrase, “a representative of Congress,” the use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1) representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided. G.R. No. 202242  July 17, 2012 FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,  Petitioner, vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, SEN. FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO and REP. NIEL C. TUPAS, JR.,  Respo...

  SARMIENTO v. MISON (G.R. No. 79974) December 17, 1987 | 156 SCRA 549   Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III and Juanito G. Arcilla, petitioners Salvador Mison, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, and Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget, respondents Commission on Appointments, intervenor   FACTS:    In 1987, then President Corazon Aquino appointed Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments. Herein petitioners, both of whom happened to be lawyers and professors of constitutional law, filed the instant petition for prohibition on the ground that the aforementioned appointment violated Section 16, Art. VII of the1987 Constitution. Petitioners argued that the appointment of a bureau head should be subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments.    ISSUE:   Whether or not the appointmen...

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 ...

    PARAS v COMELEC G.R. No. 123169 Facts: Petitioner is an elected barangay chairman of Pula, Cabanatuan City in 1994. Sometime in October 1995, a petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by his constituents. Public respondent COMELEC resolved to approve the petition and set the recall election on November 13. In view of the petitioner’s opposition, COMELEC deferred the election and rescheduled it on December 16, 1995. To prevent the recall election from taking place, the petitioner filed a petition for injunction before the RTC. The trial court issued a TRO. After conducting a summary hearing, the court dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order. The public respondent on a resolution date January 5, 1996, rescheduled the recall election to be held January 13, 1996. Hence, this petition for certiorari. The petitioner argues the pursuant to Section 74b of the Local Government code: “no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date...

  General Milling Corporation and Earl Timothy Cone vs. Honorable Ruben D. Torres et. al., G.R. No. 93666, April 22, 1991.   Management prerogative is an inherent right of the employer to regulate all aspects of employment. However, there are instances where a particular work can only be done by a person with special skills or expertise. It is a good thing if the employer could hire a local who fits perfectly with the job description. But what if the employer, despite efforts in trying to hire the prospective employee failed to locate a qualified person in the country? Or, what if a qualified person is available in the country but is not willing to be employed? Is there a remedy for such employer? May an employer hire a foreign national? The law says: Yes. Employing a foreign national or a non-resident alien is allowed. However, before resorting to employing a foreign national, the employer must first determine the non-availability of a person in the Philippines ...

  U.S. v. HART, et al., 26 PHIL. 149 In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that construction should be based upon something more substantial than mere punctuation found in the printed act. Argument based upon punctuation is not conclusive, and the courts will not hesitate to change the punctuation when necessary, to give the act the effect intended by the legislature. FACTS: Accused-appellants were charged with vagrancy under Section 1 of RA No. 519. This section enumerates certain classes of persons who are to be considered as vagrants such as those "found loitering about saloons or dram shops or gambling houses, or tramping or straying through the country without visible means of support." Accused-appellants were prosecuted and convicted for "loitering about saloons or dram shops or gambling houses" the first part of Section 1. The second part, it will be noticed is worded as follows: "or tramping or straying through the country without visible means of...

  PEOPLE v. HON. A. PURISIMA, et al., G.R. Nos. 1-420050-66, November 20, 1978 In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the intent and spirit of Presidential Decree No. 9 can be found in the preamble or "whereas" clauses, which enumerate the facts, or events that justify the promulgation of the decrees and the stiff sanctions stated therein. FACTS: Information for violation of PD No. 9 was ordered quashed by Judge Purisima. The latter reasoned out that the information failed to allege an essential element of the offense; thus: That the carrying outside of the accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder. On appeal, the Solicitor General raised the argument that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversion activities and that the preamble of the statute or that expressed in the "whereas" c...

  RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and KATHERINE L. GUY v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ASIA UNITED BANK G.R. No. 187919 ASIA UNITED BANK v. GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, KATHERINE L. GUY, RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR. G.R. No. 187979 GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR. v. ASIA UNITED BANK G.R. No. 188030 April 25, 2012 In this case, the Court holds that AUB, being a commercial bank, is not beyond the coverage of PD No. 1689. The Court asserts that a bank is a corporation whose fund comes from the general public and PD No. 1689 does not distinguish the nature of the corporation. It requires, rather, that the funds of such corporation should come from the general public. This was highlighted by the third "whereas clause" of the quoted law which states that the same also applies to other "corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public." FACTS: In 1999, Radio Marine Network (Smartnet) Inc. (RMSI) claiming to do busines...