This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, we have, in the past, recognized the validity of holdover provisions in various laws. One significant difference between the present case and these past cases[22] is that while these past cases all refer to elective barangay or sangguniang kabataan officials whose terms of office are not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, the present case refers to local elective officials - the ARMM Governor, the ARMM Vice Governor, and the members of the Regional Legislative Assembly - whose terms fall within the three-year term limit set by Section 8, Article X of the Constitution. | |||||
|
2011-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence, of course, is not without examples of cases where the question of holdover was brought before, and given the imprimatur of approval by, this Court. The present case though differs significantly from past cases with contrary rulings, particularly from Sambarani v. COMELEC,[57] Adap v. Comelec,[58] and Montesclaros v. Comelec,[59] where the Court ruled that the elective officials could hold on to their positions in a hold over capacity. | |||||
|
2011-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The House of Representatives and the Senate - in the exercise of their legislative discretion - gave full recognition to the President's certification and promptly enacted RA No. 10153. Under the circumstances, nothing short of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the two houses of Congress can justify our intrusion under our power of judicial review.[21] | |||||