FACTS
ISSUE
PET
Ampatuan
v DILG Sec
Whether or not
President Arroyo
invalidly exercised
emergency powers
when she called
out the AFP and
the PNP to
prevent and
suppress all
incidents of
lawless
violence in
Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat,
and
Cotabato City; and
WON Proclamation
1959
is
constitutional
MOOT
AND
ACADEMIC
ALREADY
Petitioner ARMM
officials claimed
that the President
had no factual
basis for declaring
a state of
emergency,
especially in Sultan
Kudarat and
Cotabato, where no
critical violent
incidents occurred.
The deployment of
troops and
the taking over of
the ARMM
constitutes an
invalid exercise of
the Presidents
emergency powers.
Petitioners asked
that Proclamation
1946 as well as
AOs 273 and
273-A be declared
unconstitutional
and that
respondents DILG
Secretary, the AFP,
and the PNP be
enjoined from
implementing them.
Petitioners are
questioning the
constitutionality
of President
Arroyos
Proclamation 1959
affecting
Maguindanao.
(But, given the
prompt lifting of
that proclamation
before Congress
could review it and
before any serious
question affecting
the rights and
liberties of
Maguindanaos
inhabitants could
arise, the Court
Fortun v
Arroyo
Medyo
sabaw tng
case na to
so get
ready.
Yung solid
digest
nandon sa
pinost ko
na digest
ng poli
class ni
dean
AND
Whether or not the
President had
factual bases for
her actions.
RESP
--President
Arroyo said
that she acted
based on her
finding that
lawless men
have taken up
arms in
Maguindanao
and risen
against the
government
RULING
RATIO
Petition
Dismissed
the Court
DISMISSES
the
consolidated
petitions on
the ground
that
the same
have become
moot and
academic.
1.
2.
Cristobal v
Labrador
Cristobals
contentions:
the
pardon did not
restore
the
full
enjoyment
of
political rights:
-- pardoning power
of
the
Chief
Executive does not
apply to legislative
prohibitions
-- pardoning power
here would amount
to
an
unlawful
exercise
by
the
Chief Executive of a
legislative function,
-- Santos served his
sentence and all the
accessory penalties
imposed by law,
there was nothing to
pardon.
The petition
for certiorar
i is denied,
with costs
against the
petitioner
Llamas v
Orbos
Petitioner contends
that executive
clemency could only
be granted to
criminal cases and
not administrative
case
the President
did not act
arbitrarily or
with abuse,
much
less
grave abuse
of discretion
in
issuing
the May 15,
1991
Resolution
granting on
the grounds
mentioned
therein,
People v
Bacang
executive
clemency to
Ocampo and
that,
accordingly,
the same is
not
unconstituti
onal
INVALID
NOT VALID
Drilon v CA
Torres v
Gonzales
motion to withdraw.
Thereafter, Superintendent
Venancio Tesoro informed
the Court that the RES were
released on conditional pardon
1. The DOJ has brought suit to
annul the Decision of Court
of Appeals, prohibiting the
Government from pursuing
criminal actions against the
private respondents for the death
of Irene Longno and Lonely
Chavez during early
Martial Law.
2. In 1973 Raul Paredes and
Rodolfo Ganzon were charged
with double murder
before Military Commission No.
34.
3. July 27, 1973 the Military
acquitted Paredes and
sentenced Ganzon to life
imprisonment with hard labor.
4. March 25, 1978 Ganzon was
released and was placed under
house arrest.
5. In 1988 Secretary of Justice
Sedfrey Ordonez directed State
Prosecutor Aurelio Trampe to
conduct a Preliminary
investigation against the
private respondents for the
murders.
In 1978, Torres was convicted of
estafa. In 1979, he was pardoned
by the president with the
condition that he shall not violate
any penal laws again. He accepted
the conditional pardon and was
consequently
released
from
confinement. In 1982, Torres was
charged with multiple crimes of
estafa.
In
1986,
Gonzales
petitioned for the cancellation of
Torres pardon. Hence, the
president cancelled the pardon.
Torres appealed the issue before
the SC averring that the Exec
Dept erred in convicting him for
violating the conditions of his
pardon because the estafa charges
against him were not yet final and
WON conviction of
a crime by final
judgment of a court
is necessary before
Torres can be
validly rearrested
and recommitted
for violation of the
terms of his
conditional pardon
and accordingly to
serve the balance of
his original
sentence
Private
respondents
moved for
dismissal on
the grounds
that Ganzon
has been
extended
absolute
pardon by
President
Marcos and
having been
previously
convicted
cannot be
tried anew,
and Paredes
has been
acquitted.
TorresArgument
:
-impugns
the
validity of the Order
of
Arrest
and
Recommitment
-- claims that he did
not
violate
his
conditional pardon
since he has not
been convicted by
final judgment of
the 20 counts of
estafa nor of the
crime of sedition
-- also, he was not
given
an
opportunity to be
heard before he was
Petition
DENIED,
The Decision
of Court of
Appeals is
AFFIRMED.
NO
People v
Casido
arrested
and
recommitted
to
prison,
and
accordingly claims
he
has
been
deprived
of his
rights under the due
process clause of
the Constitution
W/N the release of
petitioners were
valid
The release
was valid
because of
PARDON
not of
AMNESTY.