Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Rhaegar v.

Republic
Trial Memorandum
Page 1 of 12

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

RHAEGAR For: Certiorari and


Petitioner, Prohibition
Case No. __________
-versus-

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x

TRIAL MEMORANDUM

The Petitioner, RHAEGAR, through undersigned counsel, unto this


Honorable Court, respectfully submits his Trial Memorandum, as
follows:

Prefatory Statement

It is hornbook principle that a taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a


claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is wastage of public
funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law1.

Narration of Events

1. Respondent Senator Viserys ran for and won a seat in the


Philippine Senate. Senator Viserys authored a bill entitled “An Act
Appropriating Emergency Funds for the Philippine Amusement
Gaming Corporation and for Other Purposes.” The significant
provisions of the bill are as follows:

“Section 2. Declaration of policy. It shall be the policy of the


State to invigorate the government-sanctioned gambling
industry by making a long-term commitment of building at
least one (1) casino in every province and city in the country.”

1 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April 17, 2013
Rhaegar v. Republic
Trial Memorandum
Page 2 of 12

“Section 3. Appropriation. The amount of ONE HUNDRED


TWENTY MILLION PESOS (Php 120,000,000.00) is hereby
appropriated for the use of PAGCOR to start the urgent need
for the construction of new casinos in the different provinces
of the Philippines.”

“Section 5. Donations to PAGCOR exempt from donor’s tax


and other kinds of taxes. All donations made to the PAGCOR
by any person shall be exempt from donor’s tax and any from
other kind of taxes as defined in the National Internal
Revenue Code.”

2. The bill was passed by Congress – first by the Senate and


later by the House of Representatives. President Theon, a gambling
buddy of Senator Viserys, willingly approved the bill into law.

Issues

Whether or not the law is constitutional

Arguments

I. The Title of the Law


Does Not Comply
With The One
Subject, One Title
Rule

1. The law, otherwise known as “An Act Appropriating


Emergency Funds for the Philippine Amusement Gaming
Corporation and for Other Purposes” enacted by Viserys does
not comply with the requirement of Paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article VI of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace


more than one subject which shall be expressed in the
title of the bill.

2. The words “for Other Purposes” defeats the constitutional


requirement of One Subject-One Title Rule.

3. Thus, it is void and unconstitutional.


Rhaegar v. Republic
Trial Memorandum
Page 3 of 12

II. Appropriation Bills


should Originate
from the House, not
from the Senate.

1. The said law, being an appropriation bill, is in


contravention against the constitutional provision under
Section 24, Article VI, which provides that:

Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills


authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.

2. The bill did not originate exclusively in the House of


Representatives. The Senate did not propose nor concur
with any other bill from the House, rather drew and
enacted one on its own initiative.

3. As held by this Court in the landmark case of Tolentino vs.


Executive Secretary, it is herein quoted as follows:

“To begin with, it is not the law — but the revenue bill —
which is required by the Constitution to "originate
exclusively" in the House of Representatives.

4. It is clearly proven that the bill originated from the Senate,


especially where a Senator authored the bill, now a law.
Thus, it is another ground to declare its unconstitutionality.

III. The Tests of Police


Power are Not
Validly Complied
With

1. There are two (2) tests to confirm the validity of an enacted


measure, to wit: (a) lawful subject; and (b) lawful means.
2. Jurisprudence states the test as follows: (1) the interest of the
public generally, as distinguished from those of particular
class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.2
Reliefs

2
Rhaegar v. Republic
Trial Memorandum
Page 4 of 12

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Court that the Accused A be ACQUITTED of the crime of
Slight Illegal Detention, the instant case against him be DISMISSED,
and the bail posted be RELEASED in his favor.

Other reliefs just or equitable under the circumstances are likewise


prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Q City for L City, 29 December 2014.

LAW FIRM
Address
Tel No.: 3456789

By:

LAWYER1
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 0987654/QC/ [date]
IBP Lifetime No. 23456
Admitted to the bar xxxxx

LAWYER2
Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
PTR No. 9876543/QC/[date]
IBP No. 34567/QC/[date]
MCLE No. XX-xxxxxx; [date]

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor


L City, A

C
B, L City, A

The Branch Clerk of Court


RTC Branch N
L City, A
Rhaegar v. Republic
Trial Memorandum
Page 5 of 12

Greetings:
Kindly submit this Trial Memorandum for the kind consideration of this
Honorable Court.

EXPLANATION

The filing and service of this Trial Memorandum is being done by registered mail
due to lack of sufficient personnel to effect personal filing and service.
LAWYER2

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen