MANUEL DE GUIA VS COMELEC

SALENILLAS VS CA

FACTS:

FACTS:

C]ongress passed R.A. 7166, signed into law by the President

on November 26, 1991. It is An Act Providing for
Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral
Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other
Purposes. Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
issued Resolution No. 2313, adopting rules and guidelines in
the apportionment, by district, of the number of elective
members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in provinces with
only one (1) legislative district and the Sangguniang Bayan of
municipalities in the Metro Manila Area for the preparation of
the Project of District Apportionment by the Provincial Election
Supervisors and Election Registrars, Resolution No. 2379,
approving the Project of District Apportionment submitted
pursuant to Resolution No. 2313, and Resolution UND. 92-010
holding that pars. (a), (b) and (c), and the first sentence of
par. (d), all of Sec. 3, R.A. 7166, apply to the May 11, 1992
elections. Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to
COMELEC in promulgating the aforementioned resolutions, and
maintained that election of Sanggunian members be at large
instead of by district.

The parents of Elena Salenillas, one of the petitioners, were

grantees of free patent. The subject property was later sold to
Elena Salenillas and her husband, petitioners in the instant
case. On December 4,1973, the property of petitioners was
mortgaged to Philippine National Bank as security for a loan of
P2,500. For failure to pay their loan, the property was
foreclose by PNB and was brought at a public auction by
private respondent. Petitioner maintains that they have a right
to repurchase the property under Sec. 119 of the Public Land
Act. Respondent states that the sale of the property
disqualified petitioner from being legal heirs vis--vis the said
property.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners interpretation of Sec.3 of R.A.
7166 is correct in assailing the aforementioned COMELEC
Resolutions.
HELD:
NO. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit
Spirit and purpose of the law The reason for the
promulgation of R.A. 7166 is shown in the explanatory note of
Senate Bill No. 1861, and that respondent COMELEC is
cognizant of its legislative intent.
No law is ever enacted that is intended to be meaningless,
much less inutile. We must therefore, as far as we can, divine
its meaning, its significance, its reason for being. As it has oft
been held, the key to open the door to what the legislature
intended which is vaguely expressed in the language of a
statute is its purpose or the reason which induced it to enact
the statute.
The true import of Par. (d) is that Sangguniang Panlungsod of
the single-district cities and the Sangguniang Bayan of the
municipalities outside Metro Manila, which remained singledistricts not having been ordered apportioned under Sec. 3 of
R.A. 7166 will have to continue to be elected at large in the
May 11, 1992, elections, although starting 1995 they shall all
be elected by district to effect the full implementation of the
letter and spirit of R.A. 7166.

ISSUE:
WON petitioners have the rigtht to repurchase the property
under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act
HELD:
YES. Sec 119 of the Public Lanfd Act provides that every
conveyance of land acquired under free patent or homestead
provisions shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his
widow or legal heirs within a period of five years from the date
of conveyance. The provision makes no distinction between
the legal heirs. The distinction made by the respondent
contravenes the very purpose of the act. Between two
statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose
of the law should prevail.
B/GEN JOSE COMMENDADOR VS B/GEN DEMETRIO
CAMERA
FACTS:
Petitioners are members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and were charged with violations of Articles of War in relation
with their alleged participation in a failed coup dtat. At a
hearing, petitioners manifested their desire to exercise their
right to raise peremptory challenges against the President and
the members of the general court martial invoking Art.18 of CA
No. 408. The General Court Martial ruled that peremptory
challenges had been discontinued under PD 39.
ISSUE:
WON the right to peremptory challenge provide by Art. 18 of
CA No. 408 has been discontinued under PD 39.
HELD:
No. Although PD 39 disallowed peremptory challenged allowed
under CA No. 408, PD 39 however was issued to implement
General Order No.8 issued during martial law to create military
tribunals. With the lifting of Martial Law, General Order No.8
was revoked and military tribunals were dissolved. As such, the
reason for the existence of PD 39 ceased automatically. When
the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante
ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.