Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Also Couldnt Find The Re: Letters of Vitug Online Huhu

    Uploaded by

    Jlyne Trls
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition challenging the nomination of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations due to lack of standing and mootness. The petitioner, a suspended lawyer, argued that Davide's age at nomination violated a law setting the retirement age for foreign service officers at 65. However, the Court found that the petitioner did not have capacity to sue, as his suspension barred him from legal activities. Additionally, the issue was moot as Davide had since resigned from his post. As there was no active case or controversy, the Court dismissed the petition without ruling on the underlying constitutional question of legislative restrictions on presidential ambassador nominations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Also Couldnt Find The Re: Letters of Vitug Online Huhu

    Uploaded by

    Jlyne Trls
    40 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition challenging the nomination of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations due to lack of standing and mootness. The petitioner, a suspended lawyer, argued that Davide's age at nomination violated a law setting the retirement age for foreign service officers at 65. However, the Court found that the petitioner did not have capacity to sue, as his suspension barred him from legal activities. Additionally, the issue was moot as Davide had since resigned from his post. As there was no active case or controversy, the Court dismissed the petition without ruling on the underlying constitutional question of legislative restrictions on presidential ambassador nominations.

    Original Description:

    pro

    Original Title

    pro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition challenging the nomination of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations due to lack of standing and mootness. The petitioner, a suspended lawyer, argued that Davide's age at nomination violated a law setting the retirement age for foreign service officers at 65. However, the Court found that the petitioner did not have capacity to sue, as his suspension barred him from legal activities. Additionally, the issue was moot as Davide had since resigned from his post. As there was no active case or controversy, the Court dismissed the petition without ruling on the underlying constitutional question of legislative restrictions on presidential ambassador nominations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views4 pages

    Also Couldnt Find The Re: Letters of Vitug Online Huhu

    Uploaded by

    Jlyne Trls
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed a petition challenging the nomination of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the Permanent Representative to the United Nations due to lack of standing and mootness. The petitioner, a suspended lawyer, argued that Davide's age at nomination violated a law setting the retirement age for foreign service officers at 65. However, the Court found that the petitioner did not have capacity to sue, as his suspension barred him from legal activities. Additionally, the issue was moot as Davide had since resigned from his post. As there was no active case or controversy, the Court dismissed the petition without ruling on the underlying constitutional question of legislative restrictions on presidential ambassador nominations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Also couldnt find the Re: Letters of Vitug online huhu.

    Pauline

    The In Re: Letters of Justice Vitug was just mentioned in OCA Circular 75-2016 so do
    we just use that?

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 176278 June 25, 2010

    ALAN F. PAGUIA, Petitioner,


    vs.
    OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, and HON. HILARIO
    DAVIDE, JR. in his capacity as Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United
    Nations, Respondents.

    RESOLUTION

    CARPIO, J.:

    At issue is the power of Congress to limit the Presidents prerogative to nominate ambassadors by
    legislating age qualifications despite the constitutional rule limiting Congress role in the appointment
    of ambassadors to the Commission on Appointments confirmation of nominees.1 However, for lack
    of a case or controversy grounded on petitioners lack of capacity to sue and mootness, 2 we dismiss
    the petition without reaching the merits, deferring for another day the resolution of the question
    raised, novel and fundamental it may be.

    Petitioner Alan F. Paguia (petitioner), as citizen and taxpayer, filed this original action for the writ of
    certiorari to invalidate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyos nomination of respondent former Chief
    Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (respondent Davide) as Permanent Representative to the United
    Nations (UN) for violation of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7157 (RA 7157), the Philippine Foreign
    Service Act of 1991. Petitioner argues that respondent Davides age at that time of his nomination in
    March 2006, 70, disqualifies him from holding his post. Petitioner grounds his argument on Section
    23 of RA 7157 pegging the mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the
    Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at 65.3 Petitioner theorizes that Section 23 imposes an absolute
    rule for all DFA employees, career or non-career; thus, respondent Davides entry into the DFA ranks
    discriminates against the rest of the DFA officials and employees.

    In their separate Comments, respondent Davide, the Office of the President, and the Secretary of
    Foreign Affairs (respondents) raise threshold issues against the petition. First, they question
    petitioners standing to bring this suit because of his indefinite suspension from the practice of
    law.4 Second, the Office of the President and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (public respondents)
    argue that neither petitioners citizenship nor his taxpayer status vests him with standing to question
    respondent Davides appointment because petitioner remains without personal and substantial
    interest in the outcome of a suit which does not involve the taxing power of the state or the illegal
    disbursement of public funds. Third, public respondents question the propriety of this petition,
    contending that this suit is in truth a petition for quo warranto which can only be filed by a contender
    for the office in question.

    On the eligibility of respondent Davide, respondents counter that Section 23s mandated retirement
    age applies only to career diplomats, excluding from its ambit non-career appointees such as
    respondent Davide.

    The petition presents no case or controversy for petitioners lack of capacity to sue and mootness.

    First. Petitioners citizenship and taxpayer status do not clothe him with standing to bring this suit.
    We have granted access to citizens suits on the narrowest of ground: when they raise issues of
    "transcendental" importance calling for urgent resolution.5 Three factors are relevant in our
    determination to allow third party suits so we can reach and resolve the merits of the crucial issues
    raised the character of funds or assets involved in the controversy, a clear disregard of
    constitutional or statutory prohibition, and the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific
    interest to bring the suit.6 None of petitioners allegations comes close to any of these parameters.
    Indeed, implicit in a petition seeking a judicial interpretation of a statutory provision on the retirement
    of government personnel occasioned by its seemingly ambiguous crafting is the admission that a
    "clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition" is absent. Further, the DFA is not devoid of
    personnel with "more direct and specific interest to bring the suit." Career ambassadors forced to
    leave the service at the mandated retirement age unquestionably hold interest far more substantial
    and personal than petitioners generalized interest as a citizen in ensuring enforcement of the law. 1avvphi1

    The same conclusion holds true for petitioners invocation of his taxpayer status. Taxpayers
    contributions to the states coffers entitle them to question appropriations for expenditures which are
    claimed to be unconstitutional or illegal.7 However, the salaries and benefits respondent Davide
    received commensurate to his diplomatic rank are fixed by law and other executive issuances, the
    funding for which was included in the appropriations for the DFAs total expenditures contained in the
    annual budgets Congress passed since respondent Davides nomination. Having assumed office
    under color of authority (appointment), respondent Davide is at least a de facto officer entitled to
    draw salary,8 negating petitioners claim of "illegal expenditure of scarce public funds." 9

    Second. An incapacity to bring legal actions peculiar to petitioner also obtains. Petitioners
    suspension from the practice of law bars him from performing "any activity, in or out of court, which
    requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." 10 Certainly,
    preparing a petition raising carefully crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and employing
    highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse Section 23 of RA 7157 falls within the
    proscribed conduct.

    Third. A supervening event has rendered this case academic and the relief prayed for moot.
    Respondent Davide resigned his post at the UN on 1 April 2010.

    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

    SO ORDERED.

    ANTONIO T. CARPIO
    Associate Justice
    WE CONCUR:

    RENATO C. CORONA
    Chief Justice

    CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE C. MENDOZA


    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    C E R TI F I C ATI O N

    Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
    Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
    opinion of the Court.

    RENATO C. CORONA
    Chief Justice

    Footnotes

    1
    Section 16 (1), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides: "The President shall nominate
    and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint x x x ambassadors, other
    public ministers and consuls x x x." The following comment on the interaction of the
    constitutional spheres of power of the President, Senate (the Commission on Appointments
    in this jurisdiction), and Congress in the nomination and confirmation process under the US
    Constitutions Appointments Clause, the normative model of the first sentence of Section 16
    (1), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, is instructive:

    The Constitution assigns the power of nomination for a confirmation appointment to


    the President alone, and it allocates the power of confirmation appointments to the
    President together with the Senate. Congress can pass laws x x x to help the
    President and Senate carry out those functions, such as establishing an agency to
    help identify and evaluate potential nominees. But x x x Congress cannot require that
    the President limit his nominees to a specific group of individuals named by someone
    else, or constrain appointments to people who meet a particular set of qualifications,
    for confirmation appointments. (Hanah Metchis Volokh, The Two Appointments
    Clauses: Statutory Qualifications For Federal Officers, 10 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 745,
    763 [2007]) (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

    The Presidents exclusive power to nominate ambassadors is complimented by a


    subsidiary doctrine treating ambassadorial selections as "based on the special trust
    and confidence" of the President (Santos v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 94070, 10 April 1992,
    208 SCRA 74, 84).

    2
    Prescinding from Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution limiting this Courts
    jurisdiction to "cases."

    3
    Section 23 provides: "Compulsory Retirements. - All officers and employees of the
    Department who have reached the age of sixty-five (65) shall be compulsorily and
    automatically retired from the Service: Provided, however, That all incumbent non-career
    chiefs of mission who are seventy (70) years old and above shall continue to hold office until
    June 30, 1992 unless sooner removed by the appointing authority. Non-career appointees
    who shall serve beyond the age of sixty-five (65) years shall not be entitled to retirement
    benefits."

    4
    Imposed in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 135 (2003).

    5
    Kilosbayan v. Morato, 320 Phil. 171, 186 (1995).

    6
    Francisco v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 838, 899 (2003) citing Kilosbayan v.
    Guingona, G.R. No. 113375, 5 May 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 155-156 (1995) (Feliciano, J.,
    concurring).

    7
    See e.g. Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 (1960) (involving the
    constitutionality of Republic Act No. 920 appropriating funds for public works); Sanidad v.
    COMELEC, No. L-44640, 12 October 1976, 73 SCRA 333 (concerning the constitutionality of
    presidential decrees calling for the holding of a national referendum on constitutional
    amendments and appropriating funds for the purpose).

    8
    See Malaluan v. COMELEC, 324 Phil. 676, 696-697 (1996).

    9
    Rollo, p. 7.

    10
    Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210, 214.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy