Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF CAMILO L. SABIO v. SENATOR RICHARD GORDON

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board,[25] the Court held that, "It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution."[26] In Sabio v. Gordon,[27] the Court held that, "the Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the `basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform.'"[28] In Atty. Macalintal v. Commission on Elections,[29] the Court held that, "The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to the Constitution shall be stricken down for being unconstitutional."[30] In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System,[31] the Court held that: Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract."[32] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 162243 2009-12-03	HEHERSON ALVAREZ SUBSTITUTED BY ELISEA G. GOZUN v. PICOP RESOURCES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the recent case Sabio v. Gordon,[38] we ruled that "(t)he clear import of this provision is that all existing laws, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances inconsistent or repugnant to the Constitution are repealed."
	GR No. 179271 2009-04-21	ARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled to one guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP),[12] Anak Mindanao (AMIN),[13] and An Waray.[14] Per the certification[15] by COMELEC, the following party-list organizations have been proclaimed as of 19 May 2008:
	GR No. 174105 2009-04-02	REGHIS M. ROMERO II v. SENATOR JINGGOY E. ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
The same directors and officers contend that the Senate is barred from inquiring into the same issues being litigated before the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. Suffice it to state that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provide that the filing or pendency of any prosecution or administrative action should not stop or abate any inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose.[16]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history.[124] It is akin to the paramount interest of the state[125] for which some individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards,[126] or in maintaining access to information on matters of public concern.[127]
	GR No. 180643 2008-09-04	ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Senate v. Ermita [20]expounds on the premise of the foregoing ruling in this wise:Section 2(b) in relation to Section 3 virtually provides that, once the head of office determines that a certain information is privileged, such determination is presumed to bear the President's authority and has the effect of prohibiting the official from appearing before Congress, subject only to the express pronouncement of the President that it is allowing the appearance of such official. These provisions thus allow the President to authorize claims of privilege by mere silence.
	GR No. 180643 2008-03-25	ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Senate did not agree with the proposal for the reasons stated in the Manifestation dated March 5, 2008. As to the required documents, the Senate and respondent Committees manifested that they would not be able to submit the latter's "Minutes of all meetings" and the "Minute Book" because it has never been the "historical and traditional legislative practice to keep them."[16] They instead submitted the Transcript of Stenographic Notes of respondent Committees' joint public hearings.
	GR No. 180643 2008-03-25	ROMULO L. NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On September 26, 2007, petitioner testified before respondent Committees for eleven (11) hours. He disclosed that then Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He further narrated that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking "executive privilege". In particular, he refused to answer the questions on (a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project,[6] (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it,[7] and (c) whether or not she directed him to approve.[8]
	GR No. 167173 2007-12-27	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKS NACHURA, J.
With respect to the right of privacy which petitioners claim respondent has violated, suffice it to state that privacy is not an absolute right. While it is true that Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, guarantees respect for the rights of persons affected by the legislative investigation, not every invocation of the right to privacy should be allowed to thwart a legitimate congressional inquiry. In Sabio v. Gordon,[14] we have held that the right of the people to access information on matters of public concern generally prevails over the right to privacy of ordinary financial transactions. In that case, we declared that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding compelling state interest. Employing the rational basis relationship test, as laid down in Morfe v. Mutuc, [15] there is no infringement of the individual's right to privacy as the requirement to disclosure information is for a valid purpose, in this case, to ensure that the government agencies involved in regulating banking transactions adequately protect the public who invest in foreign securities. Suffice it to state that this purpose constitutes a reason compelling enough to proceed with the assailed legislative investigation.[16]