7/25/2019 Philippine Judges v Prado Case Digest

1/1

PHIL JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS PRADO ENBANCPosted by kaye lee on 6:34 PM

227 SCRA 703 G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993

FACTS:

Petitioners assailed the validit o! Se" 35 R.A. No. 735# $hi"h $ithdra$ the !ran%in& 'rivile&e !rom the S('reme Co(rt, the Co(rt o!

A''eals, the Re&ional )rial Co(rts, the *etro'olitan )rial Co(rts, the *(ni"i'al )rial Co(rts, and the +and Re&istration Commissionand its Re&isters o! eeds, alon& $ith "ertain other &overnment o!!i"es.

)he 'etition assails the "onstit(tionalit o! R.A. No. 735# on the &ro(nds that- 1/ its title embra"es more than one s(be"t and does

not e'ress its '(r'oses 2/ it did not 'ass the re(ired readin&s in both 4o(ses o! Con&ress and 'rinted "o'ies o! the bill in its

!inal !orm $ere not distrib(ted amon& the members be!ore its 'assa&e and 3/ it is dis"riminator and en"roa"hes on the

inde'enden"e o! the (di"iar.

ISSUE:

6hether or not Se" 35 o! RA 735# is "onstit(tional.

RULING:

No. SC held that Se" 35 R.A. No. 735# is (n"onstit(tional.

1. Arti"le 8, Se". 2l/, o! the Constit(tion 'rovidin& that :;ver bill 'assed b the Con&ress shall embra"e onl one s(be"t $hi"hshall be e'ressed in the title thereo!.:

)he title o! the bill is not re(ired to be an inde to the bod o! the a"t, or to be as "om'rehensive as to "over ever sin&le detail o!

the meas(re. 8t has been held that i! the title !airl indi"ates the &eneral s(be"t, and reasonabl "overs all the 'rovisions o! the a"t,

and is not "al"(lated to mislead the le&islat(re or the 'eo'le, there is s(!!i"ient "om'lian"e $ith the "onstit(tional re(irement.

6e are "onvin"ed that the $ithdra$al o! the !ran%in& 'rivile&e !rom some a&en"ies is &ermane to the a""om'lishment o! the

'rin"i'al obe"tive o! R.A. No. 735#, $hi"h is the "reation o! a more e!!i"ient and e!!e"tive 'ostal servi"e sstem.