Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Arceta vs.

Mangrobang [GR 152895, 15 June 2004] Facts: The City Prosecutor of Navotas, Metro Manila charged Ofelia V. Arceta with violating Batas Pambansa 22. Likewise, Gloria Dy, was charged with the same offense by the City Prosecutor of Caloocan. Both did not move to have the charge against them dismissed or the Information quashed but instead assailed the constitutionality of BP 22. Issue: Whether or not BP 22 is unconstitutional. Held: No. When a law is assailed with regard to its validity, the Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) an actual case or controversy exists; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.. The court stated that all the requisites provided have not been met. Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below. The court did not find the constitutional question raised to be the very lis mota presented in the controversy.

MIRASOL VS CA [351 SCRA 44; G.R. No. 128448; 1 Feb 2001] Facts: The Spouses Mirasols were extended a loan by the PNB secured by a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops. The mortgage entitled PNB the proceeds and to apply the same to the payment of their obligations. Then, President Marcos issued PD 579. The decree directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. Afterwards, PNB asked petitioners to settle their due and demandable accounts which the spouses paid insufficiently. They asked PNB to account the proceeds of the mortgaged property, insisting that said proceeds, if properly liquidated, could offset their outstanding obligations. PNB refused stating that under P.D. No. 579, there was nothing to account since under said law, all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government. The Spouses then filed a suit against PNB. Issue Whether or not the PD is subject to judicial review. HELD No. As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be settled on other grounds. The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid, absent a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that PNBs obligation to render an accounting is an issue, which can be determined, without having to rule on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 579. In fact there is nothing in P.D. No. 579, which is applicable to PNBs intransigence in refusing to give an accounting.

Case Digest, 02-2005 BLAS F. OPLE, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES et al [G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998] FACTS OF THE CASE: President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order (A.O.) 308 on December 12, 1996 entitled Adoption of National Computerized Identification Reference System or commonly known as National ID System. Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the said executive issuance on two important grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai