26-54

|
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 7 views
of 19

Please download to get full document.

View again

Description
Consti Digest
Share
Tags
Transcript
  26. Aglipay vs RuizFacts: In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manilathat he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating thecelebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International EucharisticCongress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons.Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in thefulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto,Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioner’s attorney, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States thedesigns of the postage for printing. The said stamps were actually issued andsold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further sale of thestamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.Issue: Whether the issurance of the postage stamps was in violation of theConstitution.Held: There has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, Act No.4052 grants the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of PublicWorks and Communications, discretion to misuse postage stamps with newdesigns. Even if we were to assume that these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps in question still, the caseof the petitioner would fail to take in weight. Between the exercise of a poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a gap exists which isyet to be filled to justify the court in setting aside the official act assailed ascoming within a constitutional inhibition. The court resolved that petition fora writ of prohibition is hereby denied, without pronouncement as to costs.27. Garces vs EstenzoFacts: wo resolutions of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City werepassed:a.   Resolution No. 5- Reviving the traditional socio-religious celebrationevery fifth of April. This provided for the acquisition of the image of SanVicente Ferrer and the construction of a waiting shed. Funds for the saidprojects will be obtained through the selling of tickets and cashdonations.b. Resolution No. 6- The chairman or hermano mayor of the fiesta would bethe caretaker of the image of San Vicente Ferrer and that the image wouldremain in his residence for one year and until the election of his successor.The image would be made available to the Catholic Church during the celebration of the saint’s feast day.    These resolutions have been ratified by 272 voters, and said projects wereimplemented. The image was temporarily placed in the altar of the CatholicChurch of the barangay. However, after a mass, Father Sergio MarilaoOsmeña refused to return the image to the barangay council, as it was the church’s property since church funds w ere used in its acquisition.Resolution No. 10 was passed for the authorization of hiring a lawyer for thereplevin case against the priest for the recovery of the image. Resolution No.12 appointed Brgy. Captain Veloso as a representative to the case. The priest,in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions. The priestwith Andres Garces, a member of the Aglipayan Church, contends that Sec. 8Article IV1 and Sec 18(2) Article VIII) 2 of the constitution was violated.Issue: Whether or not any freedom of religion clause in the Contitutionviolated.Held: No. As said by the Court this case is a petty quarrel over the custodyof the image. The image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion norinterfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents. Anyactivity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint(such as theacquisition) is not illegal. Pr actically, the image was placed in a layman’s custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection with prayers and novena. It was the council’s funds that were used to buy the image, therefore it is their property. Right of the determination of custody is their right, and even if they decided to give itto the Church, there is no violation of the Constitution, since private fundswere used. Not every government activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of theconstitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedomof worship and banning the use of public money or property.28. Lozanida vs COMELECFacts: Lonzanida was elected as mayor and served twoconsecutive terms from 1988 to 1995. He then ran again for thesame position in the May 1995 elections, won and dischargedhis duties as mayor. However, his opponent contested his proclamationand filed an election protest before the RTC, which ruled that therewas a failure of elections and declared the position of mayor vacant. The COMELEC affirmed this decision andpetitioner acceded to the order to vacate his post. In the 1998elections, Lonzanida again filed a certificate of candidacy formayor but was protested against due to the reason that he allegedlyhad served 3 consecutive terms already.    Issue:   Whether or not it may be considered that petitioner had served 3consecutive terms, granting that he did not finish his term in 1995.   Held:   Negative. By reason of his involuntary relinquishment of office,petitioner did not fully serve the 1995 - 1998 mayoral term and became aprivate citizen.   29.   Villena vs Secretary of Interior   Facts: Villena was the then mayor of Makati. After investigation, theSecretaryof Interior recommended the suspension of Villena with the Officeof the president who approved the same. The Secretary then suspendedVillena. Villena averred claiming that the Secretary has no jurisdiction overthe matter. The power or jurisdiction is lodged in the local government [thegovernor] pursuant to sec 2188 of the Administrative Code. Further, even if the respondent Secretary of the Interior has power of supervision over localgovernments, that power, according to the constitution, must be exercised inaccordance with the provisions of law and the provisions of law governingtrials of charges against elective municipal officials are those contained in sec2188 of the Administrative Code as amended. In other words, the Secretaryof the Interior must exercise his supervision over local governments, if he hasthat power under existing law, in accordance with sec 2188 of theAdministrative Code, as amended, as the latter provisions govern theprocedure to be followed in suspending and punishing elective local officialswhile sec 79 (C) of the Administrative Code is the genera law which mustyield to the special law.Issue: WON the secretary of Interior can suspend an LGU official underinvestigation.Held: There is no clear and expressgrantof power to the secretary tosuspend a mayor of a municipality who is under investigation. On thecontrary, the power appears lodged in the provincial governor by sec 2188 of  the Administrative Code which provides that “The provincial governor shall receive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipalofficers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other form of maladministration of office, and conviction by final judgment of any crimeinvolving moral turpitude. The fact, however, that the power of suspension isexpressly granted by sec 2188 of the Administrative Code to the provincialgovernor does not mean that the grant is necessarily exclusive and precludesthe Secretary of the Interior from exercising a similar power. For instance,counsel for the petitioner admitted in the oral argument that the President of the Philippines may himself suspend the petitioner from office in virtue of hisgreater power of removal (sec. 2191, as amended, Administrative Code) to beexercised conformably to law. Indeed, if the President could, in the mannerprescribed by law, remove a municipal official; it would be a legal incongruityif he were to be devoid of the lesser power of suspension. And the  incongruity would be more patent if, possessed of the power both tosuspend and to remove a provincial official (sec. 2078, Administrative Code),the President were to be without the power to suspend a municipal official.The power to suspend a municipal official is not exclusive. Preventivesuspension may be issued to give way for an impartial investigation.30. Lacson vs RoqueFacts: Mayor Lacson broadcasted some allegedly defamatory and libelousutterances against Roque. The said broadcast was made from the City Hall.Roque filed a petition on gorunds of misconduct against Lacson and that thelatter used his publicofficeto malign the former. Roque requested thatLacson be removed as the mayor.Issue: Whether or not the mayor may be removed by the president from hispost.Held: The power of the President to remove officials from office as providedfor in section 64 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code must be done “conformably to law;” and only for disloyalty to the Republic of thePhilippines he “may at any time remove a person from any position of trust or authority under the Government of the Philippines.” Again, this power of  removal must be exercised conformably to law. The President’s power of general supervision over local governments could be exercised by him only “as may be  provided by law” in accordance with the constitutional limitation.31. Mondano vs SilvosaFacts: Mondano was the mayor of Mainit, Surigao. A complaint was filedagainst him forrapeand concubinage. The information reached the AssistantExecutiveSecretary who ordered the governor to investigate the matter.Silvosa then summoned Mondano and the latter appeared before him.Thereafter Silvosa suspended Mondano. Mondano filed a petition forprohibition enjoining the governor from further proceeding. Silvosa invokedthe RAC which provided that he, as part of the executive and by virtue o the order given by the Asst Exec Sec, is with“ directcontrol, direction, and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction . . .” and to thatend “may order the investigation of any act or conduct of any person in the service of any bureau or office under his Department and in connectiontherewith may appoint a committee or designate an official or person whoshall conduct such investigations.Issue: WON the governor can exercise the power of control.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks