Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2013-0011: SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, ROMEO R.  ROBISO, PEDRO T. DABU, JR., LOPE E. FEBLE, NOEL T. TIAMPONG and JOSE FLORO CRISOLOGO -versus- COMMISSION ON  LECTIONS, JONATHAN DE LA CRUZ, ED VINCENT ALBANO and BENEDICT KATO (G.R. NO. 203646, 16 APRIL 2013, BRION, J.) SUBJECT/S: MEMBERSHIP IN PARTY LIST (BRIEF TITLE: ALCANTARA VS. COMELEC)

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the petition.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE?

 

 WAS THERE A VALID REASON FOR THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER ALCANTARA AS A PARTY PRESIDENT AND AS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY WHEN HE QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME ASSEMBLY?

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHO HAS THE POWER TO REGISTER NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS OR COALITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?

 

 THE COMELEC.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 WHAT CONFERS LEGAL JURIDICAL PERSONALITY ON THE PARTY-LIST GROUP  FOR ELECTION PURPOSES?

 

THE REGISTRATION WITH COMELEC.

 

 Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is empowered to register political parties.12 More specifically, as part of its power to enforce and administer laws relative to the conduct of an election, the COMELEC possesses the power to register national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions for purposes of the party-list system of elections.13 It is the party-list group’s registration under the party-list system that confers juridical personality on the party-list group for election related purposes.

 

As a juridical entity, a party-list group can only validly act through its duly authorized representative/s. In the exercise of its power to register parties, the COMELEC necessarily possesses the power to pass upon the question of who, among the legitimate officers of the party-list group, are entitled to exercise the rights and privileges granted to a party-list group under the law. The COMELEC’s jurisdiction on this point is well settled and is not here disputed.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

CAN THE COURT INTERFERE WITH THE COMELEC’S ACTION ON PARTY LIST MATTERS?

 

ONLY IF THE PETITIONERS CAN ESTABLISH THAT THE COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT IS MEANT BY GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

 

BY GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS GENERALLY MEANT THE CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT EQUIVALENT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. MERE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS NOT ENOUGH. IT MUST BE GRAVE, AS WHEN IT IS EXERCISED ARBITRARILY OR DESPOTICALLY BY REASON OF PASSION OR PERSONAL HOSTILITY. SUCH ABUSE MUST BE SO PATENT AND SO GROSS AS TO AMOUNT TO AN EVASION OF A POSITIVE DUTY OR TO A VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE DUTY ENJOINED OR TO ACT AT ALL IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW.15

 

With clear jurisdictional authority to resolve the issue of party leadership and party identity, this Court will only be justified in interfering with the COMELEC’s action under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court if the petitioners can establish that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. By grave abuse of discretion is generally meant the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion orpersonal hostility. Such abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.15 The petitioners failed to hurdle this barrier.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THOSE WHO ATTENDED THE SUPREME ASSEMBLY ARE NOT REAL MEMBERS.  THEREFORE THEIR ACTS ARE NOT VALID.  WERE THEY CORRECT?

 

NO BECAUSE PETITIONERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH WHO THE MEMBERS ARE AT THE TIME OF THE SUPREME ASSEMBLY.

 

The petitioners opened their petition with the principle that only members of a registered party can chart its destiny to the necessary exclusion of non-members. The COMELEC correctly observed that while this may be true, all that the petitioners established is the group’s membership as of 2003. The petitioners failed to account for the group’s actual membership at least as of 2009, i.e., five (5) years after ABAKADA was accredited and the year immediately prior to the Supreme Assembly held in February 2010 and the party-list elections of May 2010.

 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

ABAKADA IS A SECTORAL PARTY. WILL THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO POLITICAL PARTIES ALSO APPLY TO A SECTORAL PARTY.

 

YES.

 

 While ABAKADA is registered as a sectoral party, the general principles applicable to political parties as a voluntary association apply to it. Political parties constitute a basic element of our democratic institutional apparatus.20 Among others, political parties help stimulate public participation in the political arena and translate the results of this participation into meaningful policies and programs of government offered to the electorate. Once in government, they are able to significantly contribute in forging linkages between the government and the society by adjusting these policies with the varying and often conflicting interests of the different segments of society. Should they belong to the minority, they also provide a check to counterbalance those who are in power.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

CAN COMELEC INTERFERE WITH THE PARTY’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS?

 

NO. PARTIES ARE GENERALLY FREE TO CONDUCT ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS PURSUANT TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT TO FREE ASSOCIATION.

 

For these reasons, particularly, for the role they play in the general political process, political parties are generally free to conduct its internal affairs pursuant to its constitutionally-protected right to free association.21 This includes the determination of the individuals who shall constitute the association and the officials who shall lead the party in attaining its goals.22

 

The political parties, through their members, are free to adopt their own constitution and by-laws that contain the terms governing the group in pursuing its goals. These terms, include the terms in choosing its leaders and members, among others. To the group belongs the power to adopt a constitution; to them likewise belongs the power to amend, modify or altogether scrap it.

 

The petitioners’ argument is contrary to these basic tenets. If the validity of the Supreme Assembly would completely depend on the person who calls the meeting and on the person who sends the notice of the meeting – who are petitioners Alcantara and Dabu themselves – then the petitioners would be able to perpetuate themselves in power in violation of the very constitution whose violation they now cite. This kind of result would strike at the heart of political parties as the “basic element of the democratic institutional apparatus.” This potential irregularity is what the COMELEC correctly prevented in ruling for the dismissal of the petition.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0011-APR 2013 – ALCANTARA

 

 

CASE 2013-0010: EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO VS. EMERSON S. CARLOS (G.R. NO. 194994, 16 APRIL 2013, SERENO J.) BRIEF TITLE: DE CASTRO VS. CARLOS.

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.

 

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0010-APR 2013 – DE CASTRO

 

CASE 2013-0009: LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, -VERSUS- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND HON. ANGELO T. REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DENR (G.R. NO. 175368, 11 APRIL 2013, PERALTA J. SUBJECT/S: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SMALL SCALE MINING ACT  (BRIEF TITLE: LEAGUE OF PROVINCES VS. DENR).

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 

WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. NO COSTS.

 

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES:

 

 

WHAT IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE?

 

 

AT ISSUE IS: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 17 (B )(3)(III) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 AND SECTION 24 ‘OF R.A. NO.7076.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

IF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE IS BEING QUESTIONED, WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION?

 

 

THAT IT IS VALID.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THIS PRESUMPTION?

 

 

THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS WHICH ENJOINS THE COURT TO OBSERVE COURTESY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHEN THEREFORE WILL A COURT DECLARE A STATUTE INVALID?

 

 

WHEN PETITIONER HAS SHOWN A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL BREACH OF THE CONSTITUTION, LEAVING NO DOUBT OR HESITATION IN THE MIND OF THE COURT.

 

 

Before this Court determines the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the Government, it bears emphasis that ingrained in our jurisprudence is the time-honored principle that a statute is presumed to be valid. This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each other’s acts.21 This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution,22 leaving no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Court.23

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

HAS DENR CONTROL OVER SMALL-SCALE MINING IN THE PROVINCES?

 

 

YES.

 

 

IT IS GRANTED UNDER THREE STATUTES: THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE PEOPLE’S SMALL SCALE MINING ACT AND THE PHILIPPINE MINING ACT.

 

 

Control of the DENR/DENR Secretary over small-scale mining in the provinces is granted by three statutes: (1) R.A. No. 7061 or The Local Government Code of 1991; (2) R.A. No. 7076 or the People’s Small Scale Mining Act of 1991; and (3) R.A. No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

THE DENR SECRETARY DECLARED THE APPLICATION FOR EXPLORATION PERMIT OF AMTC VALID AND CANCELLED THE SMALL-SCALE MINING PERMITS GRANTED BY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR. WAS THE DECISION OF THE DENR SECRETARY VALID?

 

 

YES. HIS DECISION EMANATED FROM THE POWER OF REVIEW GRANTED TO THE DENR SECRETARY UNDER R.A. NO. 7076 (PEOPLE’S SMALL SCALE MINING ACT).

 

 

Hence, the decision of the DENR Secretary, declaring that the Application for Exploration Permit of AMTC was valid and may be given due course, and canceling the Small-Scale Mining Permits issued by the Provincial Governor, emanated from the power of review granted to the DENR Secretary under R.A. No. 7076 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE POWER OF THE DENR TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUE CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SMALL-SCALE MINING PERMITS?

 

 

IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION WHICH INVOLVES THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE LAW IS, AND WHAT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE CONTENDING PARTIES ARE, WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY AND, ON THE BASIS THEREOF AND THE FACTS OBTAINING, THE ADJUDICATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS.

 

 

 

The DENR Secretary’s power to review and, therefore, decide, in this case, the issue on the validity of the issuance of the Small-Scale Mining Permits by the Provincial Governor as recommended by the PMRB, is a quasi-judicial function, which involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in controversy and, on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective rights.53

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

THEN, IS THE ACT OF THE DENR SECRETARY A SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGMENT OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OR CONTROL OVER HIM?

 

 

NO. IT IS JUST THE DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF AMTC.

 

 

The DENR Secretary exercises quasi-judicial function under R.A. No. 7076 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations to the extent necessary in settling disputes, conflicts or litigations over conflicting claims. This quasi-judicial function of the DENR Secretary can neither be equated with “substitution of judgment” of the Provincial Governor in issuing Small-Scale Mining Permits nor “control” over the said act of the Provincial Governor as it is a determination of the rights of AMTC over conflicting claims based on the law.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CRITERION IN DETERMINING THE LEGALITY OF A STATUTE?

 

 

THAT ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE.

 

 

In determining whether Section 17 (b)(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 of R.A. No. 7076 are unconstitutional, the Court has been guided by )Jeltran v. The Secretary of Health,  which held:

 

 

The fundamental criterion is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail. 55

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

In this case, the Court finds that the grounds raised by petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of Section 17 (b )(3)(iii) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Section 24 ‘of R.A. No.7076 failed to overcome the constitutionality of the said provisions of law.

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0009-APR 2013 – LEAGUE OF PROVINCES

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers