SEPARATION OF POWERS
Francisco v HRET 11.10.03
“2 impeachment cases filed against Chief Justice Davide within a period of 1 year”
RULING: The court declared the proceeding to be unconstitutional. Article XI of the Constitution provides that no public official be subject for impeachment twice within a period of 1 year. While the Congress contends that the S.C. has no power to inquire about the impeachment proceedings against Davide by virtue of separation of powers where the Congress has the sole jurisdiction to initiate and hear impeachment proceedings, the court declared it is empowered by the Constitution to exercise judicial review with the duty vested upon it to check whether there is grave abuse of discretion on any branch of the government. The SC has the power to interpret the fundamental law of the land and to answer involving Constitutional issues. The SC is not bar to inquire about any actions of the Congress especially involving Constitutional issues.
David v Macapagal-Arroyo GR. No. 171396 5.3.06
F: The President issued Proclamation No. 1017 declaring national emergency and placing the AFP under her command to maintain law and order in the Phils., suppress all forms of lawless violence, and enforce obedience to all the laws, order, decree promulgated by her or in her direction. Such proclamation was assailed as unconstitutional and a form of encroachment upon the powers of the legislative department.
I: WON the Presidential Proclamation is unconstitutional
R: The court held that the Constitution grants the President the power to call the AFP to suppress lawless violence and during times of calamity being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. However, the provision asserting her power to issue decrees, direct AFP to enforce obedience to ALL laws she promulgate, impose standard of media and other forms of restraints against the press are unconstitutional, all of which is the exercise of the legislative department.
Francisco v HRET 11.10.03
“2 impeachment cases filed against Chief Justice Davide within a period of 1 year”
RULING: The court declared the proceeding to be unconstitutional. Article XI of the Constitution provides that no public official be subject for impeachment twice within a period of 1 year. While the Congress contends that the S.C. has no power to inquire about the impeachment proceedings against Davide by virtue of separation of powers where the Congress has the sole jurisdiction to initiate and hear impeachment proceedings, the court declared it is empowered by the Constitution to exercise judicial review with the duty vested upon it to check whether there is grave abuse of discretion on any branch of the government. The SC has the power to interpret the fundamental law of the land and to answer involving Constitutional issues. The SC is not bar to inquire about any actions of the Congress especially involving Constitutional issues.
David v Macapagal-Arroyo GR. No. 171396 5.3.06
F: The President issued Proclamation No. 1017 declaring national emergency and placing the AFP under her command to maintain law and order in the Phils., suppress all forms of lawless violence, and enforce obedience to all the laws, order, decree promulgated by her or in her direction. Such proclamation was assailed as unconstitutional and a form of encroachment upon the powers of the legislative department.
I: WON the Presidential Proclamation is unconstitutional
R: The court held that the Constitution grants the President the power to call the AFP to suppress lawless violence and during times of calamity being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. However, the provision asserting her power to issue decrees, direct AFP to enforce obedience to ALL laws she promulgate, impose standard of media and other forms of restraints against the press are unconstitutional, all of which is the exercise of the legislative department.
RSS Feed