Enrile vs Sandiganbayan
ones. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its
Bail is a matter of right and of discretion. The general rule is that any person,
before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is
charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Thus, once
it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be
recognized. However, for purposes of admission to bail, the determination of
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong lies within the discretion of the trial court.
Furthermore, the court upholds the Philippines’ responsibility in the international
community arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. This national commitment has authorized the grant of bail to
extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1 ) that the detainee will not be
a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2 ) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances. Enrile’s poor health and old age
justifies his admission to bail. In addition, his social and political standing and his
having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court
indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.
He is a person who has great respect for the legal processes as shown by a past
case of him involving rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. With
his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public
service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
LNMB
The Court agrees that President Duterte's decision to have the remains of Marcos
interred at the LNMB involves a political question that is not a justiciable
controversy. President Duterte decided a question of policy based on his wisdom
that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave
abuse in the exercise of such discretion, President Duterte's decision on that
political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and
hierarchy of courts. Petitioners should be faulted for failing to seek reconsideration
of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National
Defense. The Secretary of National Defense should be given opportunity to correct
himself. Petitioners also cannot simply brush aside the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the proper Regional Trial
Court (RTC).
Also, the provisions of the constitution invoked by petitioners are not self-executing
power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
Next, petitioners failed to prove that the LNMB and the National Pantheon are one
and the same. The LNMB is distinct and separate from the burial place envisioned
in R.A. No 289. To apply the standard that the LNMB is reserved only for the
"decent and the brave" or "hero" would be violative of public policy as it will put
into question the validity of the burial of each and every mortal remains resting
therein, and infringe upon the principle of separation of powers since the allocation
of plots at the LNMB is based on the grant of authority to the President under
existing laws and regulations.
Next, the Court cannot subscribe to petitioners' logic that the provisions of R.A.
No. 10368 include the prohibition on Marcos' burial at the LNMB. This Act only
recognizes the heroism of Filipinos and provides for their reparation. It would be
undue to extend the law beyond what it actually contemplates.
President Duterte is also not bound by the alleged 1992 Agreement between FVR
and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in Ilocos Norte. As
Duterte is free to amend, revoke or rescind political agreements entered into by
his predecessors, and to determine policies which he considers, based on informed
judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his
mandate.
Lastly, aside from being eligible for burial at the LNMB for being a ____, Marcos
possessed none of the disqualifications stated in AFP Regulations. He was neither
convicted by final judgment of the offense involving moral turpitude nor
dishonorably discharged from active military service.
GMA VS Sandiganbayan
The Prosecution did not sufficiently allege the existence of a conspiracy among
GMA, Aguas and Uriarte. what the Prosecution sought to show was an implied
conspiracy to commit plunder. It is notable that the Prosecution did not allege
that the conspiracy among all of the accused was by express agreement, or was a
wheel conspiracy or a chain conspiracy. This was a fatal flaw on the part of the
Prosecution. The Plunder Law requires that in the criminal charge for plunder
against several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her co-
conspirators. Such identification of the main plunderer was not only necessary
because the law required such identification, but also because it was essential in
safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges,
they were being made answerable for.
Next, GMA’s act of approval by signing “okay”, even if unqualified, could not make
her part of any criminal conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime
considering that her approval was not by any means irregular or illegal.
Also, pursuant to the maxim of noscitur a sociis, there was no raiding of the
treasury, as this requires the raider to use the property taken impliedly for his
personal benefit. In this case, there was no showing that the public officers
misappropriated, converted, misused or malversated the public funds to and for
themselves.
Senate vs Ermita
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department heads
to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of executive privilege. The
requirement to secure presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to
appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22, Article
VI of the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the question hour
is discretionary on their part. In such instances, in keeping with the separation of
powers, states that Congress may only request their appearances.
The Congress’ power of inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly recognized in
Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. A legislative body cannot legislate
wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which
the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does
not itself possess the requisite information. Attendance is thus mandatory in
inquiries in aid of legislation. The executive department cannot frustrate the power
of legislation because the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for
legislation. On the other hand, Section 22 on the other hand provides for the
Question Hour. In this case, Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question
Hour. In this case, attendance was meant to be discretionary only. The only
objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight
function, to see how the Executive implements the statutes enacted by them.
Demurrer to evidence
After the prosecution rests its case,
the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency upon
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused
may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is
filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution.
In criminal cases, demurrer to evidence is tantamount to acquittal. However, in
civil cases, After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law
the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the
right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of
dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence.
David vs Arroyo
Binay Case
The CA's resolutions were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation
doctrine. By merely following settled precedents on the condonation doctrine,
which at that time, unwittingly remained "good law," it cannot be concluded that
the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its legal attribution.
However, the condonation doctrine should be abandoned. There is no
constitutional or statutory basis to support it. The continued application of the
condonation doctrine is simply inconsistent and impermissible under the auspices
of the present Constitution which explicitly mandates that public office is a public
trust and that public officials shall be accountable to the people at all times.
Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense.
Doctrines
Stare Decisis - an abbreviation of the latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta
movere which literally means “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled
matters”. Under this doctrine, when the court has once laid down a principle of law,
it will adhere to that same principle, and shall apply to it to all subsequent cases
where the same legal issue is raised, or where the factual circumstances are
substantially the same. It promotes stability in the law, and should, therefore, be
accorded with respect. It is embodied in Article 8 of the New Civil Code which
provides that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines”.
Command Responsibility - The doctrine of command responsibility holds
military commanders and other persons occupying positions of superior authority
criminally responsible for the unlawful conduct of their subordinates. For the
doctrine to apply, the following elements must be shown to exist: (i) the
existence of a superior-subordinate relationship; (ii) the superior knew or had
reason to know that the criminal act was about to be or had been committed;
and (iii) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent the criminal act or punish the perpetrator.
Operative Fact Doctrine
Political Question Doctrine – Based on the principle of separation of powers, the
Judicial Branch cannot decide questions "in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government". It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure.
Hierarchy of Courts - Philippine courts observe a hierarchy with different status
and roles established by the law and by the Supreme Court, which governs when
and how their granted powers may be invoked.
Qualified Political Agency - The multifarious executive and administrative
functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed
and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
Separation of Powers
Sub Judice Rule - A matter is before the court for consideration and, hence,
should not be discussed in other fora. The sub judice rule restricts comments and
disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the
issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. Its purpose
is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by shielding the court from
outside influence, and to ensure a fair trial – one that is based on facts, not on
public opinion.
Over Breadth Doctrine - Based on American Jurisprudence, a penal statue is
unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it unnecessary interferes with the
exercise of constitutional rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit activities
that the government may constitutionally prohibit.
Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality - Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time
strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not
merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon
with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation
of religion under certain circumstances.
Moot and Academic Principle - An issue or a case becomes moot and
academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a
determination thereof would be without practical use and value.
Forum Shopping - when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies
in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on
the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court.
Doctrine of Condonation - The doctrine of condonation is a limited
empowerment of the electorate over the accountabilities of their elective local
officials, grounded upon a presumed knowledge of all the activities and behavior
of the elective local official. It is presumed that when the electorate exercised
their right to choose, they were all aware of “all” the misconducts of the public
official.
David vs Arroyo
De Lima
Lagman vs Medialdea
Imbong v Ochoa
National Artist