Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NOTE:E jus de m-Ge ne ris - Latin: of the same kind. A rule of statutory
construction, generally accepted by both state and federal courts,
"that where general words follow enumerations of particular classes
or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as
applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or
kind as those enumerated
In this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally
in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all
classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine,
involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the
wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during
any of the great exigencies of government."
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and
Referendum and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is
provided for initiative on the Constitution. This means that the main
thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and local
laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully provide for the
implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it
could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the
order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and
local laws.
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No
agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
C. Submission-
The third of these theories, which is the most popular, has been
observed in our government since the case of Mabanag vs. Vito.
Pres. Aquino declared that she and her vice- president were “taking
power in the name and by the will of the Filipino People” on the basis
of the clear sovereign will of the people expressed in the election of
Feb. 7, 1986. In her oath, she swore to preserve and defend the
“fundamental law” (not the “Constitution”) and execute “just laws”
( instead of “its laws).
Prematurity
Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this
abstract issue. Worse, they hoist this futuristic issue in a petition for
declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
The decided case of Cutaran vs DENR the court defined the word
“justiciable controversy” Court cannot rule on the basis of petitioners'
speculation that the DENR will approve the application of the heirs of
Carantes. There must be an actual governmental act which directly
causes or will imminently cause injury to the alleged right of the
petitioner to possess the land before the jurisdiction of this Court may
be invoked. There is no showing that the petitioners were being
evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders from the
DENR;
Mootness
In case of Gonzales vs Narvasa, that, with respect to the
PCCR, this case has become moot and academic.
illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and
determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot."These
decisions and the doctrine they reflect
would be quite relevant if the question of mootness here
had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the
Exceptions to Mootness
In case of Acop vs. Guingona, the court sayd that it’s necessary to
resolve the merits of the principal issue raised for a proper disposition
of prayer c) and for future guidance of both bench and bar as to the
application of Sections 3(d) and 4 of R.A. No. 6981. As we have ruled
in Alunan III vs. Mirasol, and Viola vs. Alunan III, "courts will decide a
The same as in the case of Pimentel vs Ermita, the court held that as
a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done.
However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide
a question otherwise moot
if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its
resolution. The question of the constitutionality of the Presidents
appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while
Congress is in session will arise in every such appointment.
2. Proper Party
In case of Joya vs PCGG , THE COURT HELD THAT
In Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns
a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the
enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real
parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a
citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need
not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the
action.
Associational Standing
In KMU Labor Center vs Garcia, the court held that; In line
with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary
taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of
planters, and
In John Hay vs Lim, The court says; The grant by the law on local
government units of the right of concurrence on the bases' conversion
is equivalent to vesting a legal standing on them, for it is in effect a
recognition of the real interests that communities nearby or
surrounding a particular base area have in its utilization. Thus, the
interest of petitioners, being inhabitants of Baguio, in assailing the
legality of Proclamation 420, is personal and substantial such that
they have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
government act being challenged." Theirs is a material interest, an
interest in issue affected by the proclamation and not merely an
interest in the question involved or an incidental interest," for what is
at stake in the enforcement of Proclamation 420 is the very economic
and social existence of the people of Baguio City.
In the case of Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. v. Teofisto
Guingona, Jr., et al.,ruled in the same lines and
enumerated some of the cases where the same policy was
adopted, viz:
Taxpayers Standing
In ITF vs COMELEC, the court held that;The issues
central to the case are "of transcendental importance
and of national interest." As alleged, Comelec’s flawed
subject matter of the case is "a matter of public concern and imbued
with public interest"; in other words, it is of "paramount public
interest" and "transcendental importance." This fact alone would
justify relaxing the rule on legal standing, following the liberal policy
of the Court whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching
significance to our society."ITF,
Legislative Standing
In Ople vs Torres
RULING:
unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait for
the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In
this light, the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on
GOVERNMENTAL STANDING:
In People vs Vera;
HELD: The People of the Philippines, represented by the
Facial Challenge
In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the court defined the “face
challenge”;
For this reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to
3. Earliest Opportunity
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
In case of Arceta vs Mangrobang, the court held that;
Mandatory Notice
In case of Mirasol vs. C.A, the court held that;
The fact that the petition was moot and academic did not prevent the
Court in the exercise of its symbolic function from promulgating one
of the most voluminous decisions ever printed in the Reports. Herein,
the prosecution
DE FACTO GOVERNMENT
A de facto government is a government of fact, that is, it
actually exercises power or control but without legal title.
KINDS of de facto government;
In case Co Kim Cham vs Valdez, the court define the kinds of de facto
governments;
E. Sovereignty
Definition: is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent
in a State by which that State is governed.
Kinds:
1. Legal Sovereignty – is the authority which has the power to issue
final commands.
Acts of State
VI. CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship- is membership in a political community which is personal
and more or less permanent in character.
Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political
community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of a
democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchial
community]. It does not necessarily include the right or
privilege of exercising political and civil rights.
Reacquisition of citizenship:
Repatriation
-mode for reacquisition for those who lost their citizenship
-governed by various statutes
It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before
he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former
natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when
he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered
his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship
through repatriation.
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the
former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they
are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.