Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, J.
Section 1, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as "independent." Although their respective functions are essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of such functions. Each of the Constitutional Commissions conducts its own proceedings under the applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review on certiorari by the Court as provided by Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.[30] To safeguard the independence of these Commissions, the 1987 Constitution, among others,[31] imposes under Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution certain inhibitions and disqualifications upon the Chairmen and members to strengthen their integrity, to wit: (a) Holding any other office or employment during their tenure; (b) Engaging in the practice of any profession; (c) Engaging in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office; and (d) Being financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.[32] The issue herein involves the first disqualification abovementioned, which is the disqualification from holding any other office or employment during Duque's tenure as Chairman of the CSC. The Court finds it imperative to interpret this disqualification in relation to Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the Constitution and the Court's pronouncement in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary.
	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
In Brillantes, Jr. v. Yorac,[46] we emphasized that the Constitutional Commissions, which have been characterized under the Constitution as "independent," are not under the control of the President, even if they discharge functions that are executive in nature. The Court declared as unconstitutional the President's act of temporarily appointing the respondent in that case as Acting Chairman of the Comelec "however well-meaning"[47] it might have been.
	GR No. 199082 2013-07-23	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
On August 15, 2011, the Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team (referred to as Joint Panel) on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases. The Joint Committee was mandated to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation on the basis of the evidence gathered and the charges recommended by the Fact-Finding Team. The Fact-Finding Team, on the other hand, was created for the purpose of gathering real, documentary, and testimonial evidence which can be utilized in the preliminary investigation to be conducted by the Joint Committee. Pursuant to Section 7[4] of the Joint Order, on August 23, 2011, the Joint Committee promulgated its Rules of Procedure.
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
Section 1,[95] Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions.[96] The Constitution envisions a truly independent Comelec committed to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections and to serve as the guardian of the people's sacred right of suffrage the citizenry's vital weapon in effecting a peaceful change of government and in achieving and promoting political stability.[97]
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
Meanwhile, on October 17, 2011, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III (Senator Pimentel) filed a Complaint-Affidavit[18] for Electoral Sabotage against petitioners and twelve others[19] and several John Does and Jane Does. The case was docketed as DOJ-Comelec Case No. 002-2011.
	GR No. 196231 2012-09-04	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is true that the authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations proceeds from its constitutional mandate to be an effective protector of the people against inept and corrupt government officers and employees,[27] and is subsumed under the broad powers "explicitly conferred" upon it by the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770.[28]