Scribd
Upload
15 views4 pages

Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest

Uploaded by

2401118016
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views4 pages

Constitutional Law 1 Case Digest

Uploaded by

2401118016
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V.

COMELEC
G. R. 127325; MARCH 19, 1997

FACTS:
Davide, Jr., J.:

In 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, files a petition to Amend the
Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials by People’s Initiative,
wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order, such as:

(a) Fixing time and date for signature gathering;


(b) Publication of the attached Petition for Initiative in newspapers, general
and local circulation; and
(c) Instructing Municipal Election Registrars all over the region and
volunteers to assist in establishing signing stations.

The provision sought to be amended are as follows, to wit:

(1) section 4 and 7 of Article VI,


(2) section 4 of Article VII, and
(3) section 8 of Article X of the Constitution.
They aim to gather signature of 12% registered voters in the country.

The COMELEC then issued an order in granting the petition and set the case
for hearing.
Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss since it is not the initiatory petition
cognizable by the COMELEC.
Senator Defensor-Santiago filed a special civil action for prohibition on the
arguments that to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law
and by the Congress. In fact, Senate Bill no. 1290 entitled an act Prescribing
and Regulating Constitutional Amendment which Senator Santiago filed is
still pending.
The matter of People’s Intitative to amend the Constitution was left to some
future law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC would constitute a revision of, or an


amendment to, the constitution the lifting of the limit of elective national and
local officials.

RULINGS:

No. COMELEC Resolution no. 2300, insofar as prescribes rules and


regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the constitution, is
void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative. Additionally,
the court held that COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse
if discretion in entertaining the Delfin petition. Finally, the court ruled that
the parts of Resolution No. 2300 on the COMELEC prescribing rules and
regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution,
and ordered the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition.
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY V. COMELEC, ET. AL.
G.R. 125416; SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

FACTS:
Panganiban, J.:

R. A. No. 7227 created Subic Special Economic Zone, likewise, created


petitioner to implement the declared national policy of converting the Subic
Military to alternative productive uses.
After American navy turned over the Subic Military reservation to the
Philippine Government, the Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong, Bataan passed a
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, to join the Subic Special Economic Zone to the
Office of the President.
Respondents Garcia, Calimbas, and their companions filed a petition to annul
the Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10.
Respondent COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative by herein
private respondents on the ground that the subject was merely a resolution
and not an ordinance. COMELEC directed its Provincial Election Supervisor
to hold action on the authentication of signatories being solicited by private
respondents.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, is sufficient


in form and substance for submission to the people for their approval;

RULING:

The court held on gathering that initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the
people directly either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact
the law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because they want to
amend or modify one already existing.
VETERANS V. COMELEC
G.R. 136781; OCTOBER 06, 2000

FACTS:
Panganiban, J.:

Our 1987 Constitution introduced a novel feature into our presidential system
of government -- the party-list method of representation. Under this system,
any national, regional or sectoral party or organization registered with the
Commission on Elections may participate in the election of party-list
representatives who, upon their election and proclamation, shall sit in the
House of Representatives as regular members.
First election for party-list representation held simultaneously with the
national elections on May 11, 1998. A total of 123 parties participated, with the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially proclaiming thirteen (13)
party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties that had obtained at least
two percent of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system.
This representation is mandate under section 5 Article VI of the Constitution.
The Congress enacted RA 7941 to promote proportional representation in the
election of representatives.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RA 7941 is constitutional of the 2% threshold


requirement and the three-seat limit.

RULING:

YES. The two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit per
party are constitutional as they ensure meaningful representation and prevent
the dilution of the party-list system by an excessive number of participants.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are hereby partially GRANTED. The assailed


Resolutions of the COMELEC are SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The
proclamations of the fourteen (14) sitting party-list representatives - two for
APEC and one each for the remaining twelve (12) qualified parties - are
AFFIRMED.

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