Article 8 Cases

7/25/2019 Article 8 Cases

1/9

BADUA vs. CBA

Facts:Spouses Leonor and Rosa Badua allegedly

own farm land from which they were forcibly

ejected through the decision of the Cordillera

Bodong Administration, with the case entitled David

uema v! Leonor Badua! "he bac#ground of this

case reveals that David uema owns the parcels of

land evidenced by "a$ Declarations %&&' and

%&&(! "he parcels of land were purchased from Dr!

)rotida *alera! "wenty+two --. years later, he was

able to redeem the parcels of land through payment

of /0,000 to the vendor1s heir, 2essie 3acaraeg!

uema was prevented from tilling the land by Rosa

Badua! 4rompted by such turn of events, David

uema filed a case in the Baranggay Council but

failed to have the dispute settled! A judge advised

uema to file his case in the provincial courts!

5owever, uema did not, and filed it in the tribal

court of the 3aeng "ribe! Due to several warnings

from the tribe, spouses Badua filed a petition for

special relief, with the following to be settled6 a!

"hat the respondents be enjoined from enforcing

the decision of the tribal court in the pending case!

b! "he respondents be prohibited from usurping

judicial power! c! "hat the legal personality of the

Cordillera Bodong Administration be clarified! "he

Baduas also allege that they were denied due

process or hearing. and that the tribal court has

78 jurisdiction over the case, since neither they nor

the respondent are members of the 3aeng tribe!

"he respondents contend that the SC has no

jurisdiction over the case since the tribal court is78" a part of the judicial system!

Issue:9hether the tribal court has jurisdiction over

the case!

Held6 7o! "ribal courts are not a part of the

4hilippine judicial system which consists of the

Supreme Court and the lower courts which have

been established by law Sec! /, Art! *:::, /&('

Constitution.! "hey do not possess judicial power

Li#e the pang#ats or conciliation panels created by4!D! 7o! /;0( in the barangays, they are advisory

and conciliatory bodies whose principal objective is

to bring together the parties to a dispute and

persuade them to ma#e peace, settle, and

compromise! An amicable settlement, compromise

and arbitration award rendered by a pang#at, if no

seasonably repudiated, has the force and effect of

a final judgment of a court Sec! //, 4!D! /;0(., but

it can be enforced only through the local city ormunicipal court to which the secretary of the Lupon

transmits the compromise settlement or arbitration

award upon e$piration of the period to annul o

repudiate it Sec! /%, 4!D! /;0(.! Similarly, the

decisions of a tribal court based on compromise or

arbitration, as provided in 4!D! /;0(, may be

enforced or set aside, in and through the regular

courts today!

JAVELLANA vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

50 SCRA 30 Political law Constitutional Law

Political Question Validity of the 1973

Constitution Restiction to !udicial Powe

:n /&'


2/9

proposed constitution! =urther, the election held to

ratify such constitution is not a free election there

being intimidation and fraud!

ISSUE: 9hether or not the SC must give due

course to the petition!

HELD: "he SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the

case at bar! 3ajority of the SC justices e$pressedthe view that they were concluded by the

ascertainment made by the president of the

4hilippines, in the e$ercise of his political

prerogatives! =urther, there being no competent

evidence to show such fraud and intimidation

during the election, it is to be assumed that the

people had ac?uiesced in or accepted the /&'

"he nomination of the last two members who

would fill in the supposed seat of the minority

members. must not come from the majority party! :nthis case, the Chairman of the S)", apparently

already appointed members that would fill in the

minority seats even though those will come from

the majority party.! "his is still valid provided the

majority members of the S)" referring to those

legally sitting. concurred with the Chairman!

Besides, the S)" may set its own rules in situations

li#e this provided such rules comply with the

Constitution!

%ON&ALES vs. #OMELE#

"1 SCRA 77# Political Law A*end*ent to the

Constitution Political Question %s !usticia.le

Question

:n 2une /&E', Republic Act %&/< was passed! "his

law provided for the C83)L)C to hold a plebiscite

for the proposed amendments to the Constitution! :t

was provided in the said law that the plebiscite shall

be held on the same day that the general national

elections shall be held 7ovember /%, /&E'.! "his

was ?uestioned by Ramon onales and other

concerned groups as they argued that this was

unlawful as there would be no proper submission of

the proposals to the people who would be more

interested in the issues involved in the general

election rather than in the issues involving the

plebiscite!

onales also ?uestioned the validity of the

procedure adopted by Congress when they came

up with their proposals to amend the Constitution

RA %&/


6/9

able to compare the original proposition with the

amended proposition!

LO*E& vs. RO+AS

17 SCRA 75: Political Law Constitutional Law

!udicial Powe=efined

=ernando Lope and erardo Ro$as were the

candidates for *ice 4resident in the /&E; elections!

Lope won the election! Ro$as appealed his loss

before the 4residential )lectoral "ribunal 4)".!

"he 4)" was created by RA /'&

the law that6

'hee shall .e an inde+endent Pesidential

8lectoal i.unal / / / which shall .e the sole ,ud-e

of all contests elatin- to the election) etuns) and

$ualifications of the +esident;elect and the Vice;+esident elect of the Phili++ines/

:n effect, a losing candidate would have the right to

appeal his loss! Lope assailed the law and he

sought to enjoin Ro$as and the 4)" from

proceeding with the case! Lope averred that the

4)" is unconstitutional for it was not provided for in

the constitution! Also, since the 4)" is composed

of the Chief 2ustice and the other ten members of

the SC any decision of the 4)" cannot be validly

appealed before the SC or that there may beconflict that may arise once a 4)" decision is

appealed before the SC!

ISSUE: 9hether or not the 4)" is a valid body!

HELD: es! :n coming up with the 4)", the

Congress merely conferred a new function to the

Supreme Court! Such is within its power, the

Constitution allowed Congress to determine which

body should decide controversies relating to the

election of the 4resident or the *ice 4resident! RA

/'&< did not create another court within the SC for

pursuant to the Constitution, @the 2udicial power

shall be vested in oneSC and in such inferior

courts as may be established by law

"he Supreme Court went on to emphasie that the

fundamental law vests in the judicial branch of the

government, not merely some specified or limited

judicial power, but @the judicial power under our

political system, and, accordingly, the entirety or

@all of said power, e$cept, only, so much as the

Constitution confers upon some other agency, such

as the power to @judge all contests relating to the

election, returns and ?ualifications of members of

the Senate and those of the 5ouse of

Representatives, which is vested by the

fundamental law solely in the Senate )lectora

"ribunal and the 5ouse )lectoral "ribunal

respectively!

2udicial power is the authority to settle justiciable

controversies or disputes involving rights that are

enforceable and demandable before the courts o

justice or the redress of wrongs for violations o

such rights! "he proper e$ercise of said authority

re?uires legislative action6 /. defining such

enforceable and demandable rights and>o

prescribing remedies for violations thereofG and -.

determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and

decide said controversies or disputes, in the firstinstance and>or on appeal! =or this reason, the

Constitution ordains that @Congress shall have the

power to define, prescribe, and apportion the

jurisdiction of the various courts, subject to the

limitations set forth in the fundamental law!

"he SC ruled that the 4)" is not in conflict with the

constitution! RA /'&< merely added the courtFs

jurisdiction and such can be validly legislated by

Congress! :t merely conferred upon the SC

additional functions i!e!, the functions of the 4)"

"his is valid because the determining of election

contests is essentially judicial!

SAN$IA%O vs. BAU$IS$A

FA#$S:

"eodoro Santiago, a grade E pupil, was adjudged


7/9

e$ercising judicial functions, under Rule E;,

certiorari is a remedy against judicial function

ISSUE:9o7 judicial function be e$ercised in this

case!

RULIN%:

A judicial function is an act performed by virtue ofjudicial powers! "he e$ercise of judicial function is

the doing of something in the nature of the action of

the court! :n order for an action for certiorari to

e$ist,

"est to determine whether a tribunal or board

e$ercises judicial functions6

/. there must be specific controversy involving

rights of persons brought before a tribunal for

hearing and determination!

-. that the tribunal must have the power and

authority to pronounce judgment and render adecision!


8/9

violation of Section /0, Article I of the Constitution,

as well as for violation of the e?ual protection

clause! 4etitioners also lament that the wholesale

conversion of municipalities into cities will reduce

the share of e$isting cities in the :nternal Revenue

Allotment because more cities will share the same

amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities

under Section -(; of the Local overnment Code!

Issues:

/! 9hether the Cityhood Laws violate Section /0,

Article I of the ConstitutionG and

-! 9hether or not the Cityhood Laws violate the

e?ual protection clause!

Held:

/! "he Cityhood Laws violate Sections E and /0,Article I of the Constitution, and are thus

unconstitutional!

-! es! "here is no substantial distinction between

municipalities with pending cityhood bills in the //th

Congress and municipalities that did not have

pending bills! "he mere pendency of a cityhood bill

in the //th Congress is not a material difference to

distinguish one municipality from another for the

purpose of the income re?uirement! "he pendency

of a cityhood bill in the //th Congress does not

affect or determine the level of income of a

municipality! 3unicipalities with pending cityhood

bills in the //th Congress might even have lower

annual income than municipalities that did not have

pending cityhood bills! :n short, the classification

criterion P mere pendency of a cityhood bill in the

//th Congress P is not rationally related to the

purpose of the law which is to prevent fiscally non+

viable municipalities from converting into cities!

,AR%AS ,S RILLORA&A

4osted by #aye lee on


9/9

who have to be thus appointed and confirmed

Sec;.!

Categories6 Constitutional Law /, *argas vs

Rilloraa case digest

Case Digest6 //; S!C!R!A!

Article 8 Cases

Documents

Transcript of Article 8 Cases