This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-06-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| According to petitioner, the COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed[20] because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications" of the Members of the House of Representatives. | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| authority.[25] Note that the record of a public document may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record.[26] | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, in Matugas v. Commission on Elections,[51] we reiterated this rule, saying:The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be raised for the first time on appeal,[52] and documents forming no part of the proofs before the appellate court will not be considered in disposing of the issues of an action.[53] This is true whether the decision elevated for review originated from a regular court[54] or an administrative agency or quasi-judicial body,[55] and whether it was rendered in a civil case,[56] a special proceeding,[57] or a criminal case.[58] Piecemeal presentation of evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice. | |||||
|
2006-10-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine v. Firestone,[29] the Supreme Court of Florida declared: Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes "logrolling," which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean anything, we cannot permit. The very broadness of the proposed amendment amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is voting on - the amendment's proponents' simplistic explanation reveals only the tip of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must give the electorate fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted on. x x x x The ballot language in the instant case fails to do that. The very broadness of the proposal makes it impossible to state what it will affect and effect and violates the requirement that proposed amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied) Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v. McAlpine,[30] the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against "inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in logrolling: Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the problems that the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are exacerbated. There is a greater danger of logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling of issues to increase the likelihood of an initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for "inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in the enactment-by-initiative process. The drafters of an initiative operate independently of any structured or supervised process. They often emphasize particular provisions of their proposition, while remaining silent on other (more complex or less appealing) provisions, when communicating to the public. x x x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use simplistic advertising to present their initiative to potential petition-signers and eventual voters. Many voters will never read the full text of the initiative before the election. More importantly, there is no process for amending or splitting the several provisions in an initiative proposal. These difficulties clearly distinguish the initiative from the legislative process. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a constituent assembly. The people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used to propose an amendment mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is nothing on record to show that the original structure was unstable. One who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[16] Aside from the pictures and videos of the cracked perimeter fence, petitioners did not present any other evidence. These pictures and videos are insufficient to show that the townhouse's foundation was structurally defective. The cracks could be merely superficial. Other than that, the presumption is that there was no irregularity regarding the approval of the building plan. Moreover, respondent presented an affidavit of a structural engineer attesting that the cracks and leaks on the perimeter fence do not affect the structural integrity of the townhouse. Absent any showing that the townhouse structure was unstable and unsafe for habitation, petitioners are not entitled to a refund. | |||||
|
2005-04-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners had called upon the Court of Appeals to consider alleged new evidence not presented before the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC, a course of action unmistakably outside the sphere of that court's certiorari jurisdiction. This Court itself was confronted with the same situation in Matugas v. Commission on Elections, et al.,[40] as petitioner therein asked the Court to consider documents which were not presented in evidence before the poll body. The Court rejected petitioner's stance, holding that the "cause of action" sought is "clearly beyond the courts' certiorari powers."[41] | |||||