consti i-b

87
B. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION 8.) Sarmiento III vs Mison GR No. 79974 December 17, 1987 FACTS: Petitioners seek to enjoin respondent Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and respondent Carague as Secretary of the Dept of Budget from disbursing payments for Mison’s salaries and emoluments on the ground that Mison’s appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (CA). On the other hand, respondents maintain the constitutionality of Mison’s appointment without the confirmation of the (CA). It is apparent in Sec 16, Art. 7 of the Constitution that there are four groups of officers whom the president shall appoint. (1)the heads of the exec departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution, (2)all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, (3)those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint and (4)officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. The 1st group is clearly appointed with the consent of the CA. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups are the present bone of contention. ISSUE: Whether or not the 2nd, 3rd and 4th groups should be appointed by the president with or without the consent/confirmation of the CA

Upload: princessf0717

Post on 18-Aug-2015

11 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

AUSL

TRANSCRIPT

B. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION8.) Sarmiento III vs MisonGR No. 79974Deem!er "7# "987$ACTS% Petitioners seek to enjoin respondent Mison from performing the functions of the Officeof Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and respondent Carague as Secretary ofthe Dept of Budget from disbursing payments for Misons salaries and emoluments onthegroundthat Misons appointment asCommissioner of theBureauof Customsisunconstitutional byreasonof itsnot havingbeenconfirmedbytheCommissiononppointments!C"# Ontheotherhand$ respondentsmaintaintheconstitutionalityofMisons appointment %ithout the confirmation of the !C"# &t is apparent in Sec '($ rt# )of theConstitutionthat therearefour groupsof officers%homthepresident shallappoint# !'" theheadsof thee*ecdepartments$ ambassadors$ other publicministersandconsuls$ officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain$and other officers %hose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution$ !+" all other officersof the,overnment %hoseappointmentsarenot other%iseprovided for by la%$ !-" those %hom the President may be authori.ed by la% to appoint and !/" officers lo%er in rank %hose appointments the Congress may by la% vest in thePresident alone# 0he 'st group is clearly appointed %ith the consent of the C# 0he +nd$ -rd and /thgroups are the present bone of contention# ISSU&% 1hether or not the +nd$ -rd and /th groups should be appointed by the president %ithor %ithout the consent2confirmation of the C'&LD% 0he fundamental principle of Constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent ofthe framers of the organic la% and the people adopting it# 0he Court %ill thus construethe applicable constitutional provisions not in accordance %ith ho% the e*ecutive or thelegislative may %ant them construed$ but in accordance %ith %hat they say and provide#0he '3-4 Constitution re5uires confirmation by the C of all presidential appointments#0his has resulted in horse6trading and similar malpractices# 7nder the '3)-Constitution$ the president has the absolute po%er of appointment %ith hardly any checkon the legislature# ,iven these t%o e*tremes$ the '38) Constitution struck a 9middle6ground: byre5uiringtheconsent of theCfor the'st groupof appointmentsandleaving to the President %ithout such confirmation the appointments of the otherofficers# 0heclearande*pressedintent of theframersof the'38)Constitution istoe*clude presidential appointments from confirmation on the C e*cept appointments toofficese*presslymentionedinthefirst sentenceof Sec# '($rt ;& 0herefore$ theconfirmation on the appointment of Commissioners of the Bureau of Customs by the Cis not re5uired# 0he appointment of Mison %ithout submitting his nomination the Cis %ithin theconstitutional authority of the President# 9.) LUZ FARMSvs. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORMG.R. No. 86889.December 4, 1990FACTS:On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Proft Sharing as embodied in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 .On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rulesand Regulations implementing Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (Commercial Farms).Luz Farms, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely afected by the enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Proft Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 promulgated onJanuary 2, 1989 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 11 thereofas promulgated by the DAR on January 9, 1989 .Hence, this petition praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be declared unconstitutional.ISSUE:Whether or not R.A. No. 6657 (CARL of 1988) is constitutional.HELD:The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers in the adoption of the Constitution.Ascertainment of the meaning of the provision of Constitution begins with the language of the document itself. The transcripts of the eli!erations of the Constitutional Co""ission of 1986on the "eanin# of the $or %a#ricultural&% clearl' sho$ that it $as ne(er theintention of the fra"ers of the Constitution to inclue li(estoc) an poultr'inustr'intheco(era#eof theconstitutionall'*"anatea#rarianrefor"pro#ra" of the +o(ern"ent.The Co""ittee aopte the e,nition of %a#ricultural lan% as e,ne uner-ection 166 of R.A. .8//& as lau e(ote to an' #ro$th& incluin# !ut notli"ite to crop lans& salt!es& ,shpons& ile an a!anone lan.0t is e(ient fro" their iscussion that -ection 00 of R.A. 6657 $hich inclues%pri(ate a#ricultural lans e(otetoco""ercial li(estoc)& poultr' ans$ine raisin#% in the e,nition of %co""ercial far"s% is in(ali& to the e1tentthat the aforecite a#ro*inustrial acti(ities are "ae to !e co(ere !' thea#rarian refor" pro#ra" of the -tate. There is si"pl' no reason to inclueli(estoc) an poultr' lans in the co(era#e of a#rarian refor".2ence& there is "erit in Lu3 4ar"s5 ar#u"ent that the re6uire"ent in-ections 1. an .7 of R.A. 6657 irectin# %corporate far"s% $hich inclueli(estoc) an poultr' raisers to e1ecute an i"ple"ent %prouction*sharin#plans% (penin# ,nal reistri!ution of their lanholin#s) $here!' the' arecalle upon to istri!ute fro" three percent (.8) of their #ross sales an tenpercent (198) of their net pro,ts to their $or)ers as aitional co"pensationis unreasona!le for !ein# con,scator'& an therefore (iolati(e of ueprocess.:R;;R;>& theinstantpetitionishere!'+RANT;>. -ections.(!)& 11& 1. an .7 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raisin# ofli(estoc)& poultr'ans$ineinitsco(era#eas$ell asthe0"ple"entin#Rules an +uielines pro"ul#ate in accorance there$ith& are here!'>;CLAR;> null an (oi for !ein# unconstitutional an the $rit ofpreli"inar' in?unction issue is here!' ; per"anent. 10.) CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARYG.R. No. 83896 ; 194 SCRA 317 ;February 22, 1991FACTS: Consolidatedpetitionsarebeingresolvedjointlyasbothseekforthedeclaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order o!2"# $EO o!2"#%issued by for&er 'resident Cora(on C! )*uino on +uly 2,, 19"-!EO o! 2"# allo.s &e&bers of the Cabinet, their /ndersecretaries and )ssistant0ecretariestoholdotherthantheirgovern&entpositionsinadditiontotheirpri&ary positions! 0ection11 )Cabinet&e&ber, /ndersecretaryor)ssistant0ecretaryorotherappointiveofficials ofthe Executive2epart&ent&ay, inadditiontohis pri&aryposition, hold not &ore than t.o $2% positions in the govern&ent and govern&entcorporations and receive corresponding co&pensation thereof! 0ection 21 3f they hold &ore than the re*uisites of 0ection 1, they &ust relin*uishthe excess position in favor of the subordinate official .ho is next in rank but in nocase shall any officer hold not &ore than t.o $2% positions other than his pri&aryposition! 0ection 41 )t least 154 of the &e&bers of the boards of such corporation shouldeither be a 0ecretary, /ndersecretary or )ssistant 0ecretary!'etitioners are challenging EO o! 2"#6s unconstitutionality as its provisions are indirect contrast .ith 0ection 14, )rticle 733 of the Constitution! )ccording to thepetitioners, the only exceptions against holding any other office or e&ploy&ent ingovern&ent are those provided in the Constitution na&ely1 1% the 7ice 'resident&ay be appointed as a Cabinet &e&ber under 0ection 4$2% of )rticle 7338 2% 9he0ecretary of +ustice is and ex:officio of the +udicial and ;ar Council by virtue of0ection ", )rticle 7333!Cons!"!on#$ %&o'!s!ons1 0ection 14, )rticle 7331 9he 'resident, 7ice:'resident, the henthereisconflict, itshall beresolvedinfavorofthehighestla.oftheland! 9hus, theCourtheldthatEOo! 2"#is/CO0939/93O)?! )s a result, 2E@ 0ecretary Fulgenio Factoran, +r!, 23?F0ecretary ?uis 0antos, 2OA0ecretary )lfredo ;eng(on and2;ON#R, =R%:N, CO:, R#8N:&DO :. =>&&:RC.R. No. *;(;*, :,ril (-, ()*(*A+,E Huna challenges the constitutionalit" of the a,,ointment of Re"naldo :. =illar as Chairman of the CO:.Hollowing the retirement of Carague on Hebruar" (, ())! and during the fourth "ear of =illar as CO: Commissioner, =illar was designated as :cting Chairman of CO: from Hebruar" -, ())! to :,ril *-, ())!. >, signified his intention to ste, down from office u,on the a,,ointment of his re,lacement. +rue to his word, =illar vacated his ,osition when President Aenigno >> named %a. Cracia Pulido/+an $Chairman +an' CO: Chairman. +his develo,ment has rendered this ,etition and the main issue tendered therein moot and academic.:lthough deemed moot due to the intervening a,,ointment of Chairman +an and the resignation of =illar, 3e consider the instant case as falling within the re1uirements for review of a moot and academic case, since it asserts at least four e4ce,tions to the mootness rule discussed in David vs %aca,agal :rro"o namel"Ea. +here is a grave violation of the Constitution2b. +he case involves a situation of e4ce,tional character and is of ,aramount ,ublic interest2c. +he constitutional issue raised re1uires the formulation of controlling ,rinci,les to guide the bench, the bar and the ,ublic2d. +he case is ca,able of re,etition "et evading review.+he ,rocedural as,ect comes down to the 1uestion of whether or not the following re1uisites for the e4ercise of Budicial review of an e4ecutive act obtain in this ,etition, vi.Ea. +here must be an actual case orBusticiable controvers" before the courtb. +he 1uestion before it must be ri,e for adBudication2c. +he ,erson challenging the act must be a ,ro,er ,art"2 andd. +he issue of constitutionalit" must be raised at the earliest o,,ortunit" and must be the ver" litis mota of the case-,,.E,Ea. 3ON the ,etitioner has &ocus G$D' of the ConstitutionHELDE>ssue of &ocus n the same vein, a Commissioner who was a,,ointed for a term of seven "ears who li0ewise served the full term is barred from being rea,,ointed. >n short, once the Chairman or Commissioner shall have served the full term of seven "ears, then he can no longer be rea,,ointed to either the ,osition of Chairman or Commissioner. +he obvious intent of the framers is to,revent the ,resident from ?dominating7 the Commission b" allowing him to a,,oint anadditional or two more commissioners.On the other hand, the ,rovision, on its face, does not ,rohibit a ,romotional a,,ointment from commissioner to chairman as long as the commissioner has not served the full term of seven "ears, further 1ualified b" the third sentence of n conclusion, there is nothing in UITO N. OC'OA# 9R.# &T AL.#G.R. Nos. 2148"9 an4 ot6er onso(i4ate4 ases= A@ri( 8# 21"4M&NDO.A# 9.%$ACTS%Aothing has polari.ed the nation more in recent years than the issues of population gro%th control$ abortion and contraception# s in every democratic society$ diametrically opposed vie%s on the subjects and their perceived conse5uences freely circulate in various media# Drom television debates to sticker campaigns$ from rallies by socio6political activists to mass gatherings organi.ed by members of the clergy 6the clash bet%een the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and progressive liberals has caused a deep division in every level of the society# Despite calls to %ithhold support thereto$ ho%ever$