Article 8 – The Judicial Department Cases on Sections 1-3

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

Article 8 – The Judicial Department

Cases on Sections 1-3

SEC.1

1. JUDICIAL POWER

2. CASES

Santiago v. Bautista

Firstly, how the fuck does this deserve an En Banc

ruling? This is not even sensational. It’s just a whim of

a father (apparently a lawyer) who wanted to make

good on his threat that he will file charges if his son

doesn’t get highest honors. Why can’t he accept the

fact that, maybe, some students are fucking better

than his son? What a faggot.

Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a Grade 6 pupil at Sero

Elementary School in Cotabato City. He is herein

represented by his mother, Angelita Santiago, with

his father acting as legal counsel. Juanita Bautista

was a teacher at the same school, acting as a

member of the Committee on the Rating of Students

for Honor of the same.

Section 1 of Rule 65 provides:

Petition for certiorari — When any tribunal, board, or

officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without

or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave

abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any

plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a

verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts

with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered

annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law

requires, of such tribunal, board or officer.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true

copy of the judgment or order subject thereof,

together with copies of all pleadings and documents

relevant and pertinent thereto.

Facts:

As the school year 1964-1965 was then about to end,

the "Committee on the Rating of Students for Honor"

was constituted by the teachers concerned at said

school for the purpose of selecting the "honor

students" of its graduating class. After deliberations,

the committee finally adjudged Socorro Medina,

Patricia Liñgat and Teodoro Santiago, Jr. as first,

second and third honors, respectively. The graduation

exercises would be on May 21. However, Santiago’s

parents wasn’t contended with the 3

honors that

their son would receive, and so 3 days before the

graduation exercises, the parents filed a complaint

seeking the invalidation of the "ranking of honor

students" thus made. This complaint was dismissed

and the graduation exercises pushed through as

planned. On May 24, the defendants motioned to

dismiss the case, alleging that the action for certiorari

was improper and the issue is already academic.

Reconsideration was filed but this was again

dismissed on the following grounds:

• That the petition does not comply with the 2

paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 65 because it

has not been accompanied by a certified

true copy of the judgment or order subject

thereof, together with copies of all pleadings

and documents relevant and pertinent

thereto;

• That administrative remedies were not first

exhausted; and

• That there was no grave abuse of discretion

on the part of the teachers who constituted

the committee referred to.

Of course, on the other hand, defendants argue that,

in addition to the abovementioned grounds, the

"committee on the ratings of students for honor"

whose actions are here condemned by appellant is

not the "tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial

functions" against which an action for certiorari may

lie under Section 1 of Rule 65.

Issue:

Whether or not the committee of teachers whose

decision is herein assailed falls within the category of

the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial

functions contemplated by Rule 65.

Held:

In this jurisdiction certiorari is a special civil action

instituted against any tribunal, board, or officer

exercising judicial functions. A judicial function is an

act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the

exercise of a judicial function is the doing of

something in the nature of the action of the court. In

order that a special civil action of certiorari may be

invoked in this jurisdiction the following circumstances

must exist:

• That there must be a specific controversy

involving rights of persons or property and

the said controversy is brought before a

tribunal, board or officer for hearing and

determination of their respective rights and

obligations.

• That the tribunal, board or officer before

whom the controversy is brought must have

the power and authority to pronounce

judgment and render a decision on the

controversy construing and applying the

laws to that end.

• That the tribunal, board or officer must

pertain to that branch of the sovereign power

which belongs to the judiciary, or at least,

which does not belong to the legislative or

executive department.

The so-called committee on the rating of students for

honor whose actions are questioned in this case

exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial functions

in the performance of its assigned task. Before

tribunal board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi

judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that

give rise to some specific rights of persons or

property under which adverse claims to such rights

are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is

brought, in turn, before the tribunal, board or officer

clothed with power and authority to determine what

that law is and thereupon adjudicate the respective

rights of the contending parties. There is nothing on

record about any rule of law that provides that when

teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of

their pupils for purposes of rating them for honors,

such function involves the determination of what the

law is and that they are therefore automatically vested

with judicial or quasi judicial functions.

Therefore, since the committee did not perform

judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the petition for

certiorari cannot prosper and is improper.

Consequently, the petitioner is hereby held to have no

cause of action.

Marcos v. Manglapus

Ferdinand Marcos was the dictator who fled after the

original People Power Revolution of 1986. Raul

Manglapus was then the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

Facts:

Ferdinand Marcos was kicked out of the presidency

via the EDSA Revolution and was forced into exile.

Subsequently, Cory Aquino was declared President

under a revolutionary government. However, the

country was far from being stabilized as continued

threats emerged from various sectors ranging from

the rebels to the Marcos loyalists. The economy had

its own challenges as it fights to relieve itself of the

devastating effect of the accumulated foreign debt as

a result of the ill-mannered accumulation of wealth.

When Marcos was dying, he wished to return to the

country along with his family but then President

Aquino stood in his way and contended that Marcos

cannot return to the country considering that his

return would be a threat to the stability of the

government and the country’s economy.

Issue:

Whether or not the President, in the exercise of

powers granted by the Constitution, can prohibit the

Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily, or with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

of jurisdiction, when she determined that the return of

the Marcoses to the Philippines posed a serious

threat to national interest and welfare and decided to

bar their return.

Held:

The President has residual and discretionary powers

not stated in the Constitution which include the power

to protect the general welfare of the people. She is

obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare

and advance national interest as provided in Sections

4 and 5 of Article 2 of the Constitution. Residual

powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate

that the President can do anything which is not

forbidden in the Constitution. Therefore, as part of her

residual power, the President can ban the return of

Marcos and his family to the country considering the

consequences which could pose a serious threat to

national interest and welfare of the country.

The President did not act arbitrarily or with grave

abuse of discretion in barring Marcoses from

returning to the country. Their return, considering

present time & circumstances, would pose a serious

threat to national interest and welfare.

Fernan, concurring:

The President’s power is not fixed. Limits would

depend on the imperatives of events and not on

abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical

time and the current problem can only be answerable

by the President. The state cannot sacrifice public

peace, order, safety and our political and economic

gains to give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country.

Compassion must give way to the other state

interests.

Cruz, dissenting:

As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return,

live & die in his own country. It is a right guaranteed

by the Constitution to all individuals. Further, the

military has failed to show that Marcos’ return would

pose a threat to national security. Fears were mere

conjectures.

Paras, dissenting:

The Armed Forces has failed to prove danger which

would allow State to impair Marcos’ right to return to

the Philippines. Therefore, there is no substantial

proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national

security or public safety. Fears are speculative and,

more importantly, the military admits that it’s under

control.

But where is the judicial part of this?

In the process of the litigation for this case, the Court

was tasked to determine whether or not there has

been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction on the part of the President

when she made that decision to bar the Marcoses.

Prior to this case and perhaps in less sensational

cases, the Court could have decided to forego looking

into the President’s prerogative precisely because of

the separation of powers doctrine. However, in this

case, the Court made it a priority and a critical point

that they establish the extents of the exercise of

judicial review. In this case, the Court carefully

examined the concept of judicial review and,

subsequently, applied it. In the end, the Court found

that judicial review extends, as applied in this case, to

End of Preview - Want to read all 21 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Article 8 - The Judicial Department Cases on Sections 1-3 SEC.1 1. JUDICIAL POWER 2. CASES Santiago v. Bautista Firstly, how the fuck does this deserve an En Banc ruling? This is not even sensational. It's just a whim of a father (apparently a lawyer) who wanted to make good on his threat that he will file charges if his son doesn't get highest honors. Why can't he accept the fact that, maybe, some students are fucking better than his son? What a faggot. Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a Grade 6 pupil at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. He is herein represented by his mother, Angelita Santiago, with his father acting as legal counsel. Juanita Bautista was a teacher at the same school, acting as a member of the Committee on the Rating of Students for Honor of the same. Section 1 of Rule 65 provides: Petition for certiorari - When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents ...
Purchase document to see full attachment