Javier and Demetria - Consti 1

8/22/2019 Javier and Demetria - Consti 1

1/11

Javier v. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194

Facts: Javier and Pacificador, private respondent, were candidates in

Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 Elections.

On the eve of the election, petitioners followers were ambushed andkilled allegedly by Pacificadors men.

Respondent was sued for murder charges but the voters were

intimidated and supported Pacificador.

Petitioner then went to Comelec and questioned the canvass of the

election returns but was dismissed and respondent was proclaimedas the winner by the Second Division of the Commission.

Thus, this petition as the Constitution requires such proclamation to

be decided en banc.


2/11

Moot and Academic

The case is still being considered in by theCourt when of February 11, 1986, Javier wasgunned down.

The EDSA Revolution toppled the Marcosregime and his government with him.

Pacificador had gone into hiding.

The Batasang Pambansa was abolished andwith such the dispute between the petitionerand the respondent.


3/11

Supreme Court Conscience of the Government

The dispute had disappeared but itnevertheless cries out to be resolved.

Justice demanded to be acted upon. Hence,

the Court continued on.

Issue:

Was the Second Division of the Commission ofElections authorized to promulgate its decisionproclaiming Pacificador the winner in theelection?


4/11

Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution

SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall have the

following powers and functions :

(2) Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the

elections, returns, and qualifications of all members of

the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and cityofficials.

SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in

three divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided

by divisions, except contests involving Members of theBatasang Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en

banc. Unless otherwise provided by law, all election cases

shall be decided within ninety days from the date of their

submission for decision.


5/11

Ruling:

Article XII-C Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 of the 1973Constitution was primarily interpreted to dividethe electoral process into the pre-proclamationstage and the post-proclamation stage and to

provide for a separate jurisdiction for eachstage, considering the first administrative andthe second judicial. The Supreme Court reversed

this decision as the Constitution does notdistinguish such stages and falls under thejurisdiction of the Comelec en banc.


6/11

Demetria v. Alba 148 SCRA 208

Facts:

Concerned citizens and members of theBatasang Pambansa presented a petition

questioning the constitutionality of PD 1177known as the Budget Reform Decree of1977, which allows the President to transferfunds of the Executive Department to anyorganization or activity included in theGeneral Appropriations Act.


7/11

Locus Standi

In questioning the constitutionality of astatute, the general rule is that not only

persons individually affected, but also

taxpayers have sufficient interest in

preventing the illegal expenditures of

moneys raised by taxation and may

therefore question the constitutionality of

statutes requiring expenditure of public

moneys.


8/11

Moot and Academic

The change of government supplied a change in

the Constitution, thus would render the case

moot and academic. The Supreme Court though, took note of the fact

that the new Constitution carried verbatim the

Section pursuant to PD 1177 which is the statute

in question which is Section 24[5], Article VI in

the present Constitution.


9/11

Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973

Constitution

No law shall be passed authorizing any

transfer of appropriations, however, the

President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the

heads of constitutional commissions may by

law be authorized to augment any item in the

general appropriations law for their respectiveoffices from savings in other items of their

respective appropriations.


10/11

Sec 44 Par 1 of PD 1177

"The President shall have the authority to

transfer any fund, appropriated for the

different departments, bureaus, offices and

agencies of the Executive Department, which

are included in the General Appropriations

Act, to any program, project or activity of any

department, bureau, or office included in theGeneral Appropriations Act or approved after

its enactment."


11/11

Ruling:

Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 overextends theprivilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It empowersthe President to indiscriminately transfer funds withoutregard as to whether or not the funds to be transferredare actually savings in the item from which the same

are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is forthe purpose of augmenting the item to which saidtransfer is to be made. It does not only completelydisregard the standards set in the fundamental law,thereby amounting to an undue delegation of

legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor[intention] thereof. Indeed, such constitutionalinfirmities render the provision in question null andvoid.

Documents

Javier and Demetria - Consti 1