Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
People v. Vera
In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal
case filed against him by the Hongkong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation (HSBC). In 1936, he filed for probation.
The matter was referred to the Insular Probation Office
which recommended the denial of Cu Unjiengs petition for
probation. A hearing was set by Judge Jose Vera concerning
the petition for probation. The Prosecution opposed the
petition. Eventually, due to delays in the hearing, the
Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court alleging that courts like the Court of First Instance of
Manila (which is presided over by Judge Vera) have no
jurisdiction to place accused like Cu Unjieng under probation
because under the law (Act No. 4221 or The Probation Law),
probation is only meant to be applied in provinces with
probation officers; that the City of Manila is not a province,
and that Manila, even if construed as a province, has no
designated probation officer hence, a Manila court cannot
grant probation.
HELD:
or
the
[old]
Probation
Law
is
FACTS:
Petitioner, also in behalf of other alien residents
corporations and partnerships, brought this action to obtain
a judicial declaration that RA 1180 is unconstitutional.
Petitioner contends, among others, that said act violate the
equal protection of laws and that it violates the treaty of the
Philippines with China. Solicitor General contends that the
act was a valid exercise of the police power and that not a
single treaty was infringed by said act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 1180 violates the equal protection of
laws
HELD:
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue
favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination on oppression of inequality. The real question
at hand is whether or not the exclusion in the future aliens
for the retail trade unreasonable. The equal protection
clause is not infringed by a specified class if it applies to all
persons within such class and reasonable grounds exist for
making a distinction between those who fall within such
class and those who do not. Aliens are under no special
constitutional protection which forbids a classification
otherwise justified simply because the limitation of the class
falls along the lines of nationality. The difference in status
between citizens and aliens constitute a basis for reasonable
classification in the exercise of police power.
RULING:
(1) Yes. The P50 fee is unreasonable not only because it is
excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial
differences in situation among individual aliens who are
required to pay it. The same amount of P50 is being
collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or
permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly
employee or a highly paid executive.
Dumlao v. COMELEC
Patricio Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya.
He has already retired from his office and he has been
receiving retirement benefits therefrom.
In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same office.
Meanwhile, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 was enacted. This law
provides, among others, that retirees from public office like
Dumlao are disqualified to run for office. Dumlao assailed
the law averring that it is class legislation hence
unconstitutional. In general, Dumlao invoked equal
protection in the eye of the law.
His petition was joined by Atty. Romeo Igot and Alfredo
Salapantan, Jr. These two however have different issues. The
suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayers suit
assailing the other provisions of BP 52 regarding the term of
office of the elected officials, the length of the campaign,
and the provision which bars persons charged for crimes
from running for public office as well as the provision that
provides that the mere filing of complaints against them
after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them
from office.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dumlao, Igot, and Salapantan have a
cause of action.
HELD: No. The SC pointed out the procedural lapses of this
case for this case should have never been merged.
Dumlaos issue is different from Igots. They have separate
issues. Further, this case does not meet all the requisites so
that itd be eligible for judicial review. There are standards
that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of
judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate
case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party
raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the
function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
Almonte v. Vasquez
Facts:
This is a case wherein respondent Ombudsman, requires
petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as chief
accountant and record custodian, respectively, of the
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to
produce "all documents relating to Personal Services Funds
for the year 1988" and all evidence such as vouchers from
enforcing his orders.
Petitioner Almonte was formerly Commissioner of the EIIB,
while Perez is Chief of the EIIB's Budget and Fiscal
Management Division. The subpoena duces tecum was
issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his
investigation of an anonymous letter alleging that funds
representing savings from unfilled positions in the EIIB had
been illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to have been
written by an employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen,
was addressed to the Secretary of Finance, with copies
furnished several government offices, including the Office of
the Ombudsman.
May be erased: [The letter reads in pertinent parts: that the
EIIB has a syndicate headed by the Chief of Budget Division
who is manipulating funds and also the brain of the so called
"ghost agents" or the "Emergency Intelligence Agents" (EIA);
that when the agency had salary differential last Oct '88 all
money for the whole plantilla were released and from that
alone, Millions were saved and converted to ghost agents of
EIA; Almost all EIIB agents collects payroll from the big time
smuggler syndicate monthly and brokers every week for
them not to be apprehended.]
In his comment on the letter-complaint, petitioner Almonte
denied all the allegations written on the anonymous letter.
Petitioners move to quash the subpoena and the subpoena
duces tecum but was denied.
Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted with the
claim of privilege of an agency of the government on the
ground that "knowledge of EIIB's documents relative to its
Personal Services Funds and its plantilla . . . will necessarily
[lead to] knowledge of its operations, movements, targets,
strategies, and tactics and the whole of its being" and this
could "destroy the EIIB."
Issue:
Whether petitioners can be ordered to produce documents
relating to personal services and salary vouchers of EIIB
employees on the plea that such documents are classified
without violating their equal protection of laws.
Held:
YES. At common law a governmental privilege against
disclosure is recognized with respect to state secrets
bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters and in
addition, privilege to withhold the identity of persons who
furnish information of violation of laws. In the case at bar,
there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be
disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the
personnel of the EIIB. Indeed, EIIB's function is the gathering
and evaluation of intelligence reports and information
regarding "illegal activities affecting the national economy,
such as, but not limited to, economic sabotage, smuggling,
tax evasion, dollar salting." Consequently, while in cases
which involve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine
from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable
danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military