Upload
jeb-gica
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
1/46
Name: Jabe Tecson Gica
July 12, 2013 Friday
TITLE: EBRALINAGVS.DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFCEBU
CITATIN: 2!1 "C#A !$%
&ATE: &ECE'(E# 2%, 1%%!
FACT":
Two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and
consolidated for raising same issue. Petitioners allege that the public respondents
acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents ordered expulsion of ! "S and #S students of $anta%an,
Pinamungajan, &aracar, Taburan and 'sturias in &ebu.
Public school authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing
the national anthem and recite the (Panatang Ma)aba%an* re+uired b% R' -.
The% are /ehovah0s 1itnesses believing that b% doing these is religious
worship2devotion a)in to idolatr% against their teachings. The% contend that to
compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official
control and religious freedom. The respondents relied on the precedence of #erona
et al v. Secretar% of 3ducation.
#erona doctrine provides that we are a s%stem of separation of the church and
state and the flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesn0t involve an%
religious ceremon%. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed b% the &onstitution
does not mean exception from non4discriminator% laws li)e the saluting of flag and
singing national anthem.
This exemption disrupts school discipline and demorali5es the teachings of civic
consciousness and duties of citi5enship.
I"")E:
1hether or not the freedom of religion has been violated6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
7reedom of religion is a fundamental right of highest priorit%. The - fold aspect of
right to religious worship is8
.9 7reedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought.
-.9 7reedom to act on one0s belief regulated and translated to external acts.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
2/46
The onl% limitation to religious freedom is the existence of grave and present
danger to public safet%, morals, health and interests where State has right to
prevent.
The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. The :; %r old
previous #3Rn the case at bar, the Students expelled were onl% standing +uietl%
during ceremonies. $% observing the ceremonies +uietl%, it doesn0t present an%
danger so evil and imminent to justif% their expulsion.
1hat the petitioner0s re+uest is the exemption from flag ceremonies and not
exclusion from public schools. The expulsion of the students b% reason of their
religious beliefs is also a violation of a citi5en0s right to free education. The non4
observance of the flag ceremon% does not totall% constitute ignorance of patriotism
and civic consciousness. ?ove for countr% and admiration for national heroes, civic
consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. Therefore,
expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified.
The petition for &ertiorari and Prohibition was granted and the expulsion was
annulled.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
3/46
TITLE: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND HSBCVSJ"E O. VERA
CITATIN: $! -*IL !$ G# N L./!$!&ATE: NE'(E# 1$, 1%3
FACT":
Petitioners herein, the People of the Philippine and the "ong)ong and Shanghai
$an)ing &orporation, are respectivel% the plaintiff and the offended part%, and the
respondent herein Mariano &u @njieng is one of the defendants, in the criminal case
entitled (The People of the Philippine >slands vs. Mariano &u @njieng, et al.*,
&ourt of 7irst >nstance of Manila, on /anuar% !, A:B, rendered a judgment of
conviction sentencing the defendant Mariano &u @njieng to indeterminate penalt%.
The instant proceedings have to do with the application for probation filed b% the
herein respondent Mariano &u @njieng, before the trial court, under the provisions
of 'ct =o. B-- of the defunct Philippine ?egislature. The &7> of Manila, /udge Pedro
Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the >nsular Probation
nstance of Manila, seventh branch, /udge /ose
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
4/46
the provincial boards with the power to ma)e said law effective or otherwise in their
respective or otherwise in their respective provinces.
I"")E:
1hether or not 'ct no. B-- constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
"ecion 11 o4 Ac No /221constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of
legislative authorit% to the provincial boards and is, for this reason, unconstitutional
and void.
The power to ma)e laws G the legislative power G is vested in a bicameral
?egislature b% the /ones ?aw Esec. -9 and in a unicameral =ational 'ssembl% b% the
&onstitution E'ct. V>, sec. , &onstitution of the Philippines9. The Philippine
?egislature or the =ational 'ssembl% ma% not escape its duties and responsibilities
b% delegating that power to an% other bod% or authorit%. The rule, however, which
forbids the delegation of legislative power is not absolute and inflexible. >t admits of
exceptions.
The case before us does not fall under an% of the exceptions.
The challenged section of 'ct =o. B-- in section which reads as follows8
This 'ct shall appl% onl% in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards
have provided for the salar% of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now
provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed b% the
Secretar% of /ustice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation n testing whether a statute constitute an undue delegation of legislative power or
not, it is usual to in+uire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and
provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the
judgment of an% other appointee or delegate of the legislature.
7or the purpose of Probation 'ct, the provincial boards ma% be regarded as
administrative bodies endowed with power to determine when the 'ct should ta)e
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
5/46
effect in their respective provinces. The% are the agents or delegates of the
legislature in this respect. The rules governing delegation of legislative power to
administrative and executive officers are applicable or are at least indicative of the
rule which should be here adopted. 'n examination of a variet% of cases on
delegation of power to administrative bodies will show that the ratio decidendi is at
variance but, it can be broadl% asserted that the rationale revolves around the
presence or absence of a standard or rule of action G or the sufficienc% thereof G in
the statute, to aid the delegate in exercising the granted discretion. >n some cases,
it is held that the standard is sufficientF in others that is insufficientF and in still
others that it is entirel% lac)ing. 's a rule, an act of the legislature is incomplete and
hence invalid if it does not la% down an% rule or definite standard b% which the
administrative officer or board ma% be guided in the exercise of the discretionar%
powers delegated to it.
>n the case at bar, what rules are to guide the provincial boards in the exercise of
their discretionar% power to determine whether or not the Probation 'ct shall appl%
in their respective provinces6 1hat standards are fixed b% the 'ct6 1e do not find
an% and none has been pointed to us b% the respondents. The probation 'ct does
not, b% the force of an% of its provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial boards
an% standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionar% power. 1hat is granted,
if we ma% use the language of /ustice &ardo5o in the recent case of Schecter, supra,
is a (roving commission* which enables the provincial boards to exercise arbitrar%
discretion. $% section if the 'ct, the legislature does not seemingl% on its own
authorit% extend the benefits of the Probation 'ct to the provinces but in realit%
leaves the entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine. >n other
words, the provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for
themselves, whether the Probation ?aw shall appl% to their provinces or not at all.
The applicabilit% and application of the Probation 'ct are entirel% placed in the
hands of the provincial boards. >f the provincial board does not wish to have the 'ct
applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed
amount for the salar% of a probation officer. The plain language of the 'ct is notsusceptible of an% other interpretation. This, to our minds, is a virtual surrender of
legislative power to the provincial boards.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
6/46
TITLE: THE UNITED STATESVS.ANG TANG HO
CITATIN: /3 -*IL 1 G# N 1122
&ATE: FE(#)A#5 2, 1%22
FACT":
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
7/46
Ec9 To fix, from time to time the +uantities of pala% rice, or corn that a compan% or
individual ma% ac+uire, and the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant
ma% demand.
S3&. -. >t shall be unlawful to destro%, limit, prevent or in an% other manner obstructthe production or milling of pala%, rice or corn for the purpose of raising the prices
thereofF to corner or hoard said products as defined in section three of this 'ctF . . .
Section : defines what shall constitute a monopol% or hoarding of pala%, rice or corn
within the meaning of this 'ct, but does not specif% the price of rice or define an%
basic for fixing the price.
S3&. B. The violations of an% of the provisions of this 'ct or of the regulations,
orders and decrees promulgated in accordance therewith shall be punished b% a
fine of not more than five thousands pesos, or b% imprisonment for not more than
two %ears, or both, in the discretion of the court8 Provided, That in the case of
companies or corporations the manager or administrator shall be criminall% liable.
S3&. C. 't an% time that the #overnor4#eneral, with the consent of the &ouncil of
State, shall consider that the public interest re+uires the application of the
provisions of this 'ct, he shall so declare b% proclamation, and an% provisions of
other laws inconsistent herewith shall from then on be temporaril% suspended.
Pursuant to this 'ct, on the st of 'ugust AA, the #overnor #eneral issued
3xecutive
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
8/46
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
This +uestion involves an anal%sis and construction of 'ct =o. -!!, in so far as it
authori5es the #overnor4#eneral to fix the price at which rice should be sold. >t will
be noted that section authori5es the #overnor4#eneral, with the consent of the
&ouncil of State, for an% cause resulting in an extraordinar% rise in the price of
pala%, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate temporar% rules and emergenc%
measures for carr%ing out the purposes of the 'ct. $% its ver% terms, the
promulgation of temporar% rules and emergenc% measures is left to the discretion
of the #overnor4#eneral. The ?egislature does not underta)e to specif% or define
under what conditions or for what reasons the #overnor4#eneral shall issue the
proclamation, but sa%s that it ma% be issued (for an% cause,* and leaves the
+uestion as to what is (an% cause* to the discretion of the #overnor4#eneral. The
'ct also sa%s8 (7or an% cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinar% rise in
the price of pala%, rice or corn.*
The ?egislature does not specif% or define what is (an extraordinar% rise.* That is
also left to the discretion of the #overnor4#eneral. The 'ct also sa%s that the
#overnor4#eneral, (with the consent of the &ouncil of State,* is authori5ed to issue
and promulgate (temporar% rules and emergenc% measures for carr%ing out the
purposes of this 'ct.* >t does not specif% or define what is a temporar% rule or anemergenc% measure, or how long such temporar% rules or emergenc% measures
shall remain in force and effect, or when the% shall ta)e effect. That is to sa%, the
?egislature itself has not in an% manner specified or defined an% basis for the order,
but has left it to the sole judgment and discretion of the #overnor4#eneral to sa%
what is or what is not (a cause,* and what is or what is not (an extraordinar% rise in
the price of rice,* and as to what is a temporar% rule or an emergenc% measure for
the carr%ing out the purposes of the 'ct.
@nder this state of facts, if the law is valid and the #overnor4#eneral issues a
proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice should be sold, an% dealer who,
with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal.
There ma% not have been an% cause, and the price ma% not have beenextraordinar%, and there ma% not have been an emergenc%, but, if the #overnor4
#eneral found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is
sold at an% higher price, the seller commits a crime.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
9/46
' law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the
legislative branch of the government, and nothing must be left to the judgment of
the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and
substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which ma% be left to ta)e
effect in futuro, if necessar%, upon the ascertainment of an% prescribed fact or
event.
The law sa%s that the #overnor4#eneral ma% fix (the maximum sale price that the
industrial or merchant ma% demand.* The law is a general law and not a local or
special law.
The proclamation underta)es to fix one price for rice in Manila and other and
different prices in other and different provinces in the Philippine >slands, and
delegates the power to determine the other and different prices to provincial
treasurers and their deputies. "ere, then, %ou would have a delegation of legislative
power to the #overnor4#eneral, and a delegation b% him of that power to provincial
treasurers and their deputies, who (are hereb% directed to communicate with, and
execute all instructions emanating from the Hirector of &ommerce and >ndustr%, for
the most effective and proper enforcement of the above regulations in their
respective localities.* The issuance of the proclamation b% the #overnor4#eneral
was the exercise of the delegation of a delegated power, and was even a sub
delegation of that power.
1hen 'ct =o. -!! is anal%5ed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the
#overnor4#eneral which constitutes the crime. 1ithout that proclamation, it was no
crime to sell rice at an% price. >n other words, the ?egislature left it to the sole
discretion of the #overnor4#eneral to sa% what was and what was not (an% cause*
for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not (an extraordinar% rise in the
price of pala%, rice or corn,* and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price
at which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or +ualit%, also to sa% whether
a proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be
enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended.
The ?egislature did not specif% or define what was (an% cause,* or what was (an
extraordinar% rise in the price of rice, pala% or corn,* =either did it specif% or define
the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. >n the absence of the
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
10/46
proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all,
because the #overnor4#eneral issued the proclamation.
The act or proclamation does not sa% an%thing about the different grades or
+ualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with the sale (of one ganta of rice at
the price of eight% centavos EP;.!;9 which is a price greater than that fixed b%
3xecutive order =o. :.*
'ct =o. -!!, in so far as it underta)es to authori5e the #overnor4#eneral in his
discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to ma)e the sale of
rice in violation of the price of rice, and to ma)e the sale of rice in violation of the
proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void.
TITLE: EASTERN SHIPPING LINESVS POEA
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
11/46
CITATIN: 1$$ "C#A !33 G# N $$33
&ATE: CT(E# 1, 1%
FACT":
The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of PA-,;;;.;; b% the
Philippine
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
12/46
I"")E:
1hether or not the issuance of Memorandum &ircular =o. - is a violation of non4
delegation of powers6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
The Supreme &ourt held that there was valid delegation of powers.
>n +uestioning the validit% of the memorandum circular, 3astern Shipping ?inescontended that P
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
13/46
comprehend. Speciali5ation even in legislation has become necessar%. Too man% of
the problems attendant upon present4da% underta)ings, the legislature ma% not
have the competence to provide the re+uired direct and efficacious, not to sa%,
specific solutions. These solutions ma%, however, be expected from its delegates,
who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields.
The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are
particularl% applicable to administrative bodies. 1ith the proliferation of speciali5ed
activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found itmore and more necessar% to entrust to administrative agencies the authorit% to
issue rules to carr% out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the
(power of subordinate legislation.*
1ith this power, administrative bodies ma% implement the broad policies laid down
in statute b% (filling in* the details which the &ongress ma% not have the
opportunit% or competence to provide. Memorandum &ircular =o. - is one such
administrative regulation.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
14/46
TITLE: ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (FORMERLY AASJAS6 VS. THEHONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
CITATIN: G# N 1$0!$&ATE: "E-TE'(E# 1, 200!
FACT":
Motions for Reconsideration filed b% petitioners, '$'K'H' #uro part% ?ist of the &onstitution when the Senate introduced amendments not
connected with V'T. Petitioners 3scudero, et al., also reiterate that R.'. =o. A::C
stand4 b% authorit% to the 3xecutive to increase the V'T rate, especiall% on account
of the recommendator% power granted to the Secretar% of 7inance, constitutes
undue delegation of legislative power.
The% submit that the recommendator% power given to the Secretar% of 7inance withregard to the occurrence of either of two events using the #ross Homestic Product
E#HP9 as a benchmar) necessaril% and inherentl% re+uired extended anal%sis and
evaluation, as well as polic% ma)ing. Petitioners also reiterate their argument that
the input tax is a propert% or a propert% right.Petitioners also contend that even if
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
15/46
the right to credit the input V'T is merel% a statutor% privilege, it has alread%
evolved into a vested right that the State cannot remove.
I"")E:
1hether or not the R.'. =o. A::C or the Vat Reform 'ct is constitutional6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
The &ourt is not persuaded. Aricle I, "ecion 2/of the &onstitution provides
that 'll appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authori5ing increase of the public
debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusivel% in the
"ouse of Representatives, but the Senate ma% propose or concur with
amendments.
The &ourt reiterates that in ma)ing his recommendation to the President on the
existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretar% of 7inance is not acting as
the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. "e is acting as the agent of
the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its
expressed will is to ta)e effect. The Secretar% of 7inance becomes the means or tool
b% which legislative polic% is determined and implemented, considering that he
possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader
perspective to properl% evaluate them.
"is function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information
and verif% if an% of the two conditions laid out b% &ongress is present. >n the same
breath, the &ourt reiterates its finding that it is not a propert% or a propert% right,
and a V'T4registered person entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere
statutor% privilege. 's the &ourt stated in its Hecision, the right to credit the input
tax is a mere creation of law. More importantl%, the assailed provisions of R.'.
=o. A::C alread% involve legislative polic% and wisdom. So long as there is a public
end for which R.'. =o. A::C was passed, the means through which such end shall
be accomplished is for the legislature to choose so long as it is within constitutional
bounds.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
16/46
The Motions for Reconsideration were &ENIE& 7IT* FINALIT5. The
temporar% restraining order issued b% the &ourt was LIFTE&.
TITLE: EMMANUEL PELAEZ VS.THE AUDITOR GENERAL
CITATIN: G# N L.232! &ATE:
&ECE'(E# 2/, 1%$!
Facs:
This is a special civil action for a writ of prohibition with preliminar% injunction
instituted b% 3mmanuel Pelae5, as Vice President of the Philippines and as taxpa%er,
against the 'uditor #eneral, to restrain him, as well as his representatives and
agents, from passing in audit an% expenditure of public funds in implementation
of the 3
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
17/46
Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void, upon the ground that
said Section ! has been impliedl% repealed b% Republic 'ct =o. -:C; and
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Respondent maintains the
contrar% view and avers that the present action is premature and that not all proper
parties G referring to the officials of the new political subdivisions in +uestion G
have been impleaded. Subse+uentl%, the ma%ors of several municipalities adversel%
affected b% the aforementioned executive orders G because the latter have ta)en
awa% from the former the barrios composing the new political subdivisions G
intervened in the case.
>n AB, the President, pursuant to Section ! of the Revised 'dministrative &ode
issued 3xecutive
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
18/46
"ecion 10 816 o4 Aricle IIof our fundamental law ordains8
The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or
offices, exercise general supervision over all local governments as ma% be
provided b% law, and ta)e care that the laws be faithfull% executed.
The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to
interfere in the exercise of such discretion as ma% be vested b% law in the officers of
the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well
as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied b% the &onstitution to the
3xecutive, insofar as local governments are concerned. 1ith respect to the latter,
the fundamental law permits him to wield no more authorit% than that of chec)ing
whether said local governments or the officers thereof perform their duties as
provided b% statutor% enactments. "ence, the President cannot interfere with local
governments, so long as the same or its officers act within the scope of their
authorit%. "e ma% not enact an ordinance which the municipal council has failed or
refused to pass, even if it had thereb% violated a dut% imposed thereto b% law,
although he ma% see to it that the corresponding provincial officials ta)e
appropriate disciplinar% action therefore. =either ma% he vote, set aside or annul an
ordinance passed b% said council within the scope of its jurisdiction, no matter how
patentl% unwise it ma% be.
"e ma% not even suspend an elective official of a regular municipalit% or ta)e an%
disciplinar% action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the
corresponding provincial board. @pon the other hand if the President could create a
municipalit%, he could, in effect, remove an% of its officials, b% creating a new
municipalit% and including therein the barrio in which the official concerned resides,
for his office would thereb% become vacant.Thus, b% merel% brandishing the power
to create a new municipalit% Eif he had it9, without actuall% creating it, he could
compel local officials to submit to his dictation, thereb%, in effect, exercising over
them the power of control denied to him b% the &onstitution.
Then, also, the power of control of the President over executive departments,
bureaus or offices implies no more than the authorit% to assume directl% the
functions thereof or to interfere in the exercise of discretion b% its officials.
Manifestl%, such control does not include the authorit% either to abolish an
executive department or bureau, or to create a new one. 's a conse+uence, the
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
19/46
alleged power of the President to create municipal corporations would necessaril%
connote the exercise b% him of an authorit% even greater than that of control which
he has over the executive departments, bureaus or offices. >n other words, Section
! of the Revised 'dministrative &ode does not merel% fail to compl% with the
constitutional mandate above +uoted. >nstead of giving the President less power
over local governments than that vested in him over the executive departments,
bureaus or offices, it reverses the process and does the exact opposite, b%
conferring upon him more power over municipal corporations than that which he
has over said executive departments, bureaus or offices.
The 3xecutive
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
20/46
s%stem of rewards and sanctions through the creation of Rewards and >ncentives
7und E7und9 and a Revenue Performance 3valuation $oard E$oard9. >t covers all
officials and emplo%ees of the $>R and the $
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
21/46
the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral to the chec)s and
balances inherent in a democratic s%stem of government. >t ma% in fact even
enhance the separation of powers as it prevents the over4accumulation of power in
the executive branch.
"owever, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment Jbe%ond the
legislative sphere,J the &onstitution imposes two basic and related constraints on
&ongress.
'n% action or step be%ond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed
b% the &onstitution. ?egislative vetoes fall in this class ?egislative veto is a
statutor% provision re+uiring the President or an administrative agenc% to present
the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to &ongress which, b%
itself or through a committee formed b% it, retains a JrightJ or JpowerJ to approve or
disapprove such regulations before the% ta)e effect. 's such, a legislative veto in
the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of an inward4turning
delegation designed to attach a congressional leash Eother than through scrutin%
and investigation9 to an agenc% to which &ongress has b% law initiall% delegated
broad powers. >t radicall% changes the design or structure of the &onstitutionIs
diagram of power as it entrusts to &ongress a direct role in enforcing, appl%ing or
implementing its own laws.
The petition was -A#TIALL5 G#ANTE& Section - of R' A:: creating a /oint
&ongressional
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
22/46
CITATIN: 32 "C#A 1 G# L.1$/
&ATE: "E-TE'(E# 1/, 1%$1
FACT":
Petitioners re+uest that respondent officials be prevented from implementing
Republic 'ct :;B; that apportions representative districts in this countr%. >t is
unconstitutional and void, the% allege, because8 Ea9 it was passed b% the "ouse of
Representatives without printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the
Members at least three calendar da%s prior to its passageF Eb9 it was approved more
than three %ears after the return of the last census of our populationF and Ec9 it
apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several
provinces.
'dmitting some allegations but den%ing others, the respondents aver the% were
merel% compl%ing with their duties under the statute, which the% presume and
allege to be constitutional. The respondent =ational Treasurer further avers that
petitioners have no personalit% to bring this actionF that a dul% certified cop% of the
law creates the presumption of its having been passed in accordance with the
re+uirements of the &onstitution Edistribution of printed bills included9F that the
Hirector of the &ensus submitted an official report on the population of the
Philippines in =ovember, A;, which report became the basis of the billF and thatthe 'ct complies with the principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the
&onstitution.
Petitioners are four members of the "ouse of Representatives from =egros
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
23/46
The respondents claim in their defense that a statute ma% not be nullified upon
evidence of failure to print, because Jit is conclusivel% presumed that the details of
legislative procedure leading to the enrollment that are prescribed b% the
&onstitution have been complied with b% the ?egislature.J The% further claim that
the certificates of the Secretar% of the "ouse are inadmissible, in view of the
conclusive Eenrolled4bill9 presumption, which in several instances have been applied
b% the courts. >n further support of their contention, Sec. ::E-9 of 'ct A; might be
cited.
The respondents aver the% were merel% compl%ing with their duties under the
statute, which the% presume and allege to be constitutional. Respondent
=ational Treasurer further avers that petitioners have no personalit% to bring this
actionF that a dul% certified cop% of the law creates the presumption of its having
been passed in accordance with the re+uirements of the &onstitution Edistribution
of printed bills included9F that the Hirector of the &ensus submitted an official report
on the population of the Philippines in =ovember A;, which report became the
basis of the billF and that the 'ct complies with the principle of proportional
representation prescribed b% the &onstitution.
I"")E:
1hether or not R' :;B; violates the principle of proportional representative
stipulated in the &onstitution6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
Republic 'ct =o. :;B; that gave provinces with less number of inhabitants more
representative districts than those with bigger population is declared invalid
because it violates the principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the
&onstitution.
The &onstitution directs that the one hundred twent% Members of the "ouse
of Representatives Jshall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearl% as
ma% be according to the number of their respective inhabitants.J'fter hearing the
parties and considering their memoranda, The &ourt issued are solution, stating
that R' :;B; violates the &onstitution in several wa%s namel%8Ea9 it gave &ebu
seven members, while Ri5al with a bigger number of inhabitants got four onl%F Eb9 it
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
24/46
gave Manila four members, while &otabato with a bigger population got three onl%
JThe constitutionalit% of a statute forming a delegate district or apportioning
delegates for the house of delegates is a judicial +uestion for the courts, although
the statute is an exercise of political power.J
TITLE: BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
(BANAT!VS.COMELEC
CITATIN: G# N 1%21
&ATE: A-#IL 21, 200%
FACT":
$aranga% 'ssociation for =ational 'dvancement and Transparenc% E$'='T9
filed before the &ommission on 3lections E&f not, can major political partiesparticipate in the part%4list elections6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
25/46
=either the &onstitution nor R' CAB mandates the filling up of the entire
-;O allocation of part%4list representatives found in the &onstitution. The
&onstitution, in paragraph , Sec of 'rt V>, left the determination of the
number of the members of the "ouse of Representatives to &ongress. The
-;O allocation of part%4list representatives is merel% a ceilingF part%4list
representatives cannot be more then -;O of the members of the "ouse of
Representatives.
=o. 1e rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec Eb9 of R' CAB is
unconstitutional.
This &ourt finds that the two percent threshold ma)es it mathematicall%
impossible to achieve the maximum number of available part%4list seats
when the available part%4list seat exceeds ;.
The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution ofthe additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that
-;O of the members of the "ouse of Representatives shall consist of part%4
list representatives. 1e therefore stri)e down the two percent threshold onl%
in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second
clause of Sec Eb9 of R' CAB. The two percent threshold presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Sec E-9, 'rt V> of the
&onstitution and prevents the attainment of (the4broadest possible
representation of part%, sectoral or group interests in the "ouse of
Representatives.*
=o. =either the &onstitution nor R' CAB prohibits major political parties from
participating in the part%4list s%stem.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
26/46
TITLE: AKO BICOL" ET ALVS.COMELEC
CITATIN: G# N 203$$
&ATE: A-#IL 2, 2013
FACT":
Pursuant to the provisions of Republic 'ct =o. CAB ER.'. =o. CAB9 and &=, ''$, '>, '?K'S'=, #@'RH/'=, PPP, and P$$9 were not able to secure a mandator%
injunction from this &ourt. The &
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
27/46
that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the : Ma% -;: part%4list
elections have continuall% complied with the re+uirements of R.'. =o. CAB and 'ng
$agong $a%ani4t was held that the &
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
28/46
E9 The "ouse of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fift% members, unless otherwise fixed b% law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and
the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided b% law, shall be elected through a part%4list
s%stem of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organi5ations.
E-9 The part%4list representatives shall constitute twent% per centum of the
total number of representatives including those under the part% list. 7or three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this &onstitution, one4half of the
seats allocated to part%4list representatives shall be filled, as provided b% law,
b% selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenouscultural communities, women, %outh, and such other sectors as ma% be
provided b% law, except the religious sector.
"ecions and , Aricle I9.C
Sec. C. =o votes cast in favor of a political part%, organi5ation, or coalition shall be
valid, except for those registered under the part%4list s%stem as provided in this
&onstitution.
Sec. !. Political parties, or organi5ations or coalitions registered under the part%4list
s%stem, shall not be represented in the voters0 registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. "owever, the%
shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
&ommissioner &hristian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the part%4list s%stem,
stressed that Je ;ary.lis sysem is no synonymous
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
29/46
TITLE: MARCOSVS.COMELEC
CITATIN: G# N 11%%$
&ATE: "E-TE'(E# 1, 1%%!
FACT":
>melda, a little over ! %ears old, in or about A:!, established her domicile in
Tacloban, ?e%te where she studied and graduated high school in the "ol% >nfant
'cadem% from A:! to ABA. She then pursued her college degree, education, in
St. Paul0s &ollege now Hivine 1ord @niversit% also in Tacloban. Subse+uentl%, she
taught in ?e%te &hinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila during A- to
wor) with her cousin, the late spea)er Haniel Romualde5 in his office in the "ouse
of Representatives. >n AB, she married late President 7erdinand Marcos when he
was still a &ongressman of >locos =orte and was registered there as a voter. 1hen
Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in AA, the% lived together in San /uan, Ri5al
where she registered as a voter. >n A, when Marcos won presidenc%, the% lived
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
30/46
in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. She served as
member of the $atasang Pambansa and #overnor of Metro Manila during AC!.
>melda Romualde54Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the
7irst Histrict of ?e%te for the AA 3lections. &irilo Ro% Montejo, the incumbent
Representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te and also a candidate for the same
position, filed a (Petition for &ancellation and His+ualificationJ with the &ommission
on 3lections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional re+uirement for
residenc%. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months
under residenc%, which she sought to rectif% b% adding the words Jsince childhoodJ
in her 'mended2&orrected &ertificate of &andidac% filed on March -A, AA and that
Jshe has alwa%s maintained Tacloban &it% as her domicile or residence. She arrived
at the seven months residenc% due to the fact that she became a resident of the
Municipalit% of Tolosa in said months.
I"")E:
1hether petitioner has satisfied the %ear residenc% re+uirement to be eligible in
running as representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
Residence is used s%non%mousl% with domicile for election purposes. The court are
in favor of a conclusion supporting petitoner0s claim of legal residence or domicile in
the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te despite her own declaration of C months residenc% in the
district for the following reasons8
. ' minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became >melda0s domicile of
origin b% operation of law when her father brought them to ?e%teF
-. Homicile of origin is onl% lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile,
a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new
one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. >n the absence and concurrenceof all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
:. ' wife does not automaticall% gain the husband0s domicile because the term
(residence* in &ivil ?aw does not mean the same thing in Political ?aw. 1hen
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
31/46
>melda married late President Marcos in AB, she )ept her domicile of origin and
merel% gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium.
B. 'ssuming that >melda gained a new domicile after her marriage and ac+uired
right to choose a new one onl% after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon
returning to the countr% clearl% indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of
origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence
certificate in AA- in Tacloban, ?e%te while living in her brother0s house, an act,
which supports the domiciliar% intention clearl% manifested. She even )ept close
ties b% establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthda%s and other
important milestones.
"aving determined that petitioner possesses the necessar% residence +ualifications
to run for a seat in the "ouse of Representatives in the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te, the
&H3. Respondent &
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
32/46
Second ?egislative Histrict of Ma)ati &it%. >n his certificate of candidac%, '+uino
stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district E-!B 'mapola &or.
'dalla Sts., Palm Village, Ma)ati9 for ; months.
Move Ma)ati, a registered political part%, and Mateo $edon, &hairman of ?'K'S4
=@&H4@MHP of $aranga% &embo, Ma)ati &it%, filed a petition to dis+ualif% '+uino on
the ground that the latter lac)ed the residence +ualification as a candidate for
congressman which under Section , 'rticle V> of the A!C &onstitution, should be
for a period not less than one %ear preceding the EMa% !, AA9 da% of the election.
7aced with a petition for dis+ualification, '+uino amended the entr% on his
residenc% in his certificate of candidac% to %ear and : da%s. The &ommission on
3lections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition on Ma% and allowed
'+uino to run in the election of ! Ma%. '+uino, with :!,BC votes, won against
'ugusto S%juco with :,A; votes.
Move Ma)ati filed a motion of reconsideration with the &omelec, to which, on Ma%
, the latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of '+uino until the
&ommission resolved the issue.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
33/46
The framers intended the word (residence* to have the same meaning of
domicile.
The place (where a part% actuall% or constructivel% has his permanent
home,* where he, no matter where he ma% be found at an% given time,
eventuall% intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the
&onstitution refers when it spea)s of residence for the purposes of election
law.The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the
conditions and needs of the communit% from ta)ing advantage of favorable
circumstances existing in that communit% for electoral gain.
1hile there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence in a
given area for meeting election law re+uirements, this defeats the essence of
representation, which is to place through assent of voters those most
cogni5ant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate
falls short of the period of residenc% mandated b% law for him to +ualif%.
'+uino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was running
in.
The S& agreed with the &omelec0s contention that '+uino should prove that
he established a domicile of choice and not just residence.
The &onstitution re+uires a person running for a post in the "R one %ear ofresidenc% prior to the elections in the district in which he see)s election to.
'+uino0s certificate of candidac% in a previous EMa% , AA-9 election
indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San /ose,
&oncepcion, Tarlac for more than - %ears prior to that election. "is birth
certificate indicated that &onception as his birthplace and his &
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
34/46
bench. To successfull% effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and
definite acts which correspond with the purpose.
'+uino was thus rightfull% dis+ualified b% the &ommission on 3lections due to
his lac) of one %ear residence in the district.
>nstant petition dismissed.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
35/46
TITLE: SEMAVS.COMELEC
CITATIN: G# N 1!%
&ATE: J)L5 1$, 200
FACT":
The Province of Maguindanao is part of 'RMM. &otabato &it% is part of the province
of Maguindanao but it is not part or 'RMM because &otabato &it% voted against its
inclusion in a plebiscite held in A!A. Maguindanao has two legislative districts. The
stlegislative district comprises of &otabato &it% and ! other municipalities.
' law ER' A;B9 was passed amending 'RMM0s
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
36/46
I"")E:
1hether or not R' A;B is unconstitutional6
1hether or not 'RMM can create validl% ?#@s6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
R' A;B is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is governed b%
"ecion 10, Aricle 9of the &onstitution, which provides8
Sec. ;. =o province, cit%, municipalit%, or baranga% ma% be created, divided,
merged, abolished or its boundar% substantiall% altered except in accordance with
the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval b% a
majorit% of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directl% affected.
Thus, the creation of an% of the four local government units province, cit%,
municipalit% or baranga% must compl% with three conditions. 7irst, the creation of a
local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the ?ocal #overnment &ode.
Second, such creation must not conflict with an% provision of the &onstitution. Third,
there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.
There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authorit% in the
&onstitution for &ongress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the
power to create local government units. "owever, under its plenar% legislative
powers, &ongress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local
government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises
with an% provision of the &onstitution. >n fact, &ongress has delegated to provincial
boards, and cit% and municipal councils, the power to create baranga%s within their
jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the ?ocal
#overnment &ode, and the plebiscite re+uirement in Section ;, 'rticle D of the
&onstitution. "ence, 'RMM cannot validl% create Shariff Kabunsuan province.
=ote that in order to create a cit% there must be at least a population of at least
-;), and that a province, once created, should have at least one representative in
the "
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
37/46
validl% create the province of S. Kabunsuan without first creating a legislative
district. $ut this can never be legall% possible because the creation of legislative
districts is vested solel% in &ongress. 't most, what 'RMM can create are baranga%s
not cities and provinces.
TITLE: AVELINOVS.CUENCO
CITATIN: 3 -*IL 1
&ATE: CT(E# 2, 1%$0
FACT":
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
38/46
thereafter. 'velino then filed a +uo warranto proceeding before the S& to declare
him as the rightful Senate President.
I"")E:
1hether or not the Supreme &ourt can ta)e cogni5ance of the case6
T*E C)#T+" #)LING:
$% a vote of to B, the Supreme &ourt held that the% cannot ta)e cogni5ance of the
case. This is in view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the
controvers% and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own
president, which power should not be interfered with, nor ta)en over, b% the
judiciar%.
The S& should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer
affects onl% the Senators themselves who are at libert% at an% time to choose their
officers, change or reinstate them. 'n%wa%, if, as the petition must impl% to be
acceptable, the majorit% of the Senators want petitioner to preside, his remed% lies
in the Senate Session "all G not in the Supreme &ourt.
Supposed the S& can ta)e cogni5ance of the case, what will be the resolution6
There is unanimit% in the view that the session under Senator 'rran5 was a
continuation of the morning session and that a minorit% of ten senators E'velino et
al9 ma% not, b% leaving the "all, prevent the other E&uenco et al9 twelve senators
from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. The answer
might be different had the resolution been approved onl% b% ten or less.
Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto was in a hospital while Sen.
&onfesor was in the @S'. The second session is a continuation of the morning
session as evidenced b% the minutes entered into the journal. There were -:
senators considered to be in session that time Eincluding Soto, excluding &onfesor9.
"ence, twelve senators constitute a majorit% of the Senate of twent% three
senators. 1hen the &onstitution declares that a majorit% of (each "ouse* shall
constitute a +uorum, (the "ouse* does not mean (all* the members. 3ven a
majorit% of all the members constitute (the "ouse*.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
39/46
There is a difference between a majorit% of (all the members of the "ouse* and a
majorit% of (the "ouse*, the latter re+uiring less number than the first. Therefore an
absolute majorit% E-9 of all the members of the Senate less one E-:9, constitutes
constitutional majorit% of the Senate for the purpose of a +uorum. 7urthermore,
even if the twelve did not constitute a +uorum, the% could have ordered the arrest
of one, at least, of the absent membersF if one had been so arrested, there would be
no doubt uorum then, and Senator &uenco would have been elected just the same
inasmuch as there would be eleven for &uenco, one against and one abstained.
'velino and his group E senators in all9 insist that the Supreme &ourt ta)e
cogni5ance of the case and that the% are willing to bind themselves to the decision
of the S& whether it be right or wrong. 'velino contends that there is no
constitutional +uorum when &uenco was elected president. There are -B senators inall. Two are absentee senatorsF one being confined and the other abroad but this
does not change the number of senators nor does it change the majorit% which if
mathematicall% construed is F in this case - Ehalf of -B9 plus or : =
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
40/46
TITLE: OSME$AVS PENDATUM
CITATIN: 10% -*IL $3 G# No L.11//&ATE: cober 2, 1%$0
FACT":
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
41/46
President with the admonition that if he failed to do so, he must show cause wh%
the "ouse should not punish him.
The petition attached a cop% of "ouse Resolution =o. A, where it was stated that
Sergio
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
42/46
The respondents filed their answer where the% challenged the jurisdiction of this
&ourt to entertain the petition, defended the power of &ongress to discipline its
members with suspension and then invited attention to the fact that &ongress
having ended its session, the &ommittee had thereb% ceased to exist.
'fter the new resolution,
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
43/46
the Philippine Senate, in 'pril ABA, suspended a senator for one %ear. =eedless to
add, the Rules of Philippine "ouse of Representatives provide that the
parliamentar% practices of the &ongress of the @nited States shall appl% in a
supplementar% manner to its proceedings.
This brings up the third point of petitioner8 the "ouse ma% no longer ta)e action
against him, because after his speech it had ta)en up other business. Respondents
answer that Resolution =o. A was unanimousl% approved b% the "ouse, that such
approval amounted to a suspension of the "ouse Rules, which according to
standard parliamentar% practice ma% done b% unanimous consent. #ranted that the
"ouse ma% suspend the operation of its Rules, it ma% not, however, affect past acts
or renew its rights to ta)e action which had alread% lapsed.
The situation might thus be compared to laws extending the period of limitation of
actions and ma)ing them applicable to actions that had lapsed. 't an% rate, courts
are subject to revocation modification or waiver at the pleasure of the bod%
adopting them. Mere failure to conform to parliamentar% usage will not invalidate
the action ta)en b% a deliberative bod% when the re+uired number of members
have agreed to a particular measure. The following is +uoted from a reported
decision of the Supreme court of Tennessee8
The rule here invo)ed is one of parliamentar% procedure, and it is uniforml% held
that it is within the power of all deliberative bodies to abolish, modif%, or waive their
own rules of procedure, adopted for the orderl% con duct of business, and as
securit% against hast% action. E&ertain 'merican cases9
>n the case of &ongressman Stanber% of
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
44/46
This was due to the theor% of separation of powers fastidiousl% observed b% this.
3ach department, it has been said, had exclusive cogni5ance of matters within its
jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. E'ngara vs. 3lectoral
&ommission.9
The general rule has been applied in other cases to cause the courts to refuse to
intervene in what are exclusivel% legislative functions. Thus, where the stated
Senate is given the power to example a member, the court will not review its action
or revise even a most arbitrar% or unfair decision.
&lifford vs. 7rench4 several senators who had been expelled b% the State Senate of
&alifornia for having ta)en a bribe, filed mandamus proceeding to compel
reinstatement, alleging the Senate had given them no hearing, nor a chance to
ma)e defense, besides falsit% of the charges of briber%. The Supreme &ourt of
&alifornia declined to interfere8
@nder our form of government, the judicial department has no power to revise even
the most arbitrar% and unfair action of the legislative department, due to the
&onstitution. 3ver% legislative bod% in which is vested the general legislative power
of the state has the implied power to expel a member for an% cause which it ma%
deem sufficient.
>n "iss. vs. $arlett, it was said that this power is inherent in ever% legislative bod%F
that it is necessar% to the to enable the bod% Ito perform its high functions, and is
necessar% to the safet% of the stateF That it is a power of self4protection, and that
the legislative bod% must necessaril% be the sole judge of the exigenc% which ma%
justif% and re+uire its exercise. #iven the exercise of the power committed to it, the
senate is supreme. 'n attempt b% this court to direct or control the legislature, or
either house, in the exercise of the power, would be an attempt to exercise
legislative functions, which it is expressl% forbidden to do.
The &ourt merel% refuses to disregard the allocation of constitutional functions
which it is our special dut% to maintain. >ndeed, in the interest of comit%, we found
the "ouse of Representatives of the @nited States ta)ing the position upon at least
two occasions.
PetitionerIs principal argument against the "ouseIs power to suspend is the
'lejandrino precedent. >n A-B, Senator 'lejandrino was, b% resolution of Senate,
suspended from office for - months because he had assaulted another member of
that $od%. The Senator challenged the validit% of the resolution. 'lthough this &ourt
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
45/46
held that in view of the separation of powers, it had no jurisdiction to compel the
Senate to reinstate petitioner, it nevertheless went on to sa% the Senate had no
power to adopt the resolution because suspension for - months amounted to
removal, and the /ones ?aw gave the Senate no power to remove an appointive
member, li)e Senator 'lejandrino.
The /ones ?aw specificall% provided that Jeach house ma% punish its members for
disorderl% behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two4thirds votes, expel an
elective member. The /ones ?aw empowered the #overnor #eneral to appoint
Senators. 'lejandrino was one.
The opinion in that case stated that Jsuspension deprives the electoral district of
representation without that district being afforded an% means b% which to fill that
vacanc%.J $ut that remar) should be understood to refer particularl% to the
appointive senator who was then the affected part%.
=ow the &ongress has the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign
nation, except as restricted b% the &onstitution. >n the 'lejandrino case, the &ourt
reached the conclusion that the /ones ?aw did not give the Senate the power it then
exercisedGthe power of suspension for one %ear. =ow. the &ongress has the
inherent legislative prerogative of suspension which the &onstitution did not impair.
The ?egislative power of the Philippine &ongress is plenar%, limited b% the
RepublicIs &onstitution. So that an% power deemed to be legislative b% usage or
tradition, is necessaril% possessed b% the Philippine &ongress, unless the
&onstitution provides otherwise. >n an% event, petitionerIs argument as to the
deprivation of the districtIs representation can not be weight%, becuase deliberative
bodies have the power in proper cases, to commit one of their members to jail.
=ow come +uestions of procedure and jurisdiction. The petition intended to prevent
the Special &ommittee from acting tin pursuance of "ouse Resolution =o. A.
$ecause no preliminar% injunction had been issued, the &ommittee performed its
tas), reported to the "ouse, and the latter approved the suspension order. The
"ouse had closed it session, and the &ommittee has ceased to exist as such. >t
would seem, therefore, the case should be dismissed for having become moot or
academic.
8/13/2019 Case Digests 12
46/46