Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) : Philippines Japan Philippines Japan

    Uploaded by

    Ezekiel T. Mostiero
    The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have the authority to appoint the Chief Justice during the election ban period. While the President generally has appointment powers, the Constitution designates a specific process for appointing Justices that requires nominations from the Judicial and Bar Council, which can occur during the election period. Therefore, the President's appointment of the Chief Justice during the ban period violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) : Philippines Japan Philippines Japan

    Uploaded by

    Ezekiel T. Mostiero
    57 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have the authority to appoint the Chief Justice during the election ban period. While the President generally has appointment powers, the Constitution designates a specific process for appointing Justices that requires nominations from the Judicial and Bar Council, which can occur during the election period. Therefore, the President's appointment of the Chief Justice during the ban period violated the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    Consti1

    Original Title

    Consti1 Digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have the authority to appoint the Chief Justice during the election ban period. While the President generally has appointment powers, the Constitution designates a specific process for appointing Justices that requires nominations from the Judicial and Bar Council, which can occur during the election period. Therefore, the President's appointment of the Chief Justice during the ban period violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views5 pages

    Vinuya v. Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010) : Philippines Japan Philippines Japan

    Uploaded by

    Ezekiel T. Mostiero
    The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have the authority to appoint the Chief Justice during the election ban period. While the President generally has appointment powers, the Constitution designates a specific process for appointing Justices that requires nominations from the Judicial and Bar Council, which can occur during the election period. Therefore, the President's appointment of the Chief Justice during the ban period violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Vinuya v.

    Romulo, 619 SCRA 533 (2010)

    FACTS:

    Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit


    organization registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, established
    for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces
    in the Philippines during the Second World War. Officials of the Executive Department
    declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position that the individual claims of the
    comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japans compliance
    with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

    ISSUE:

    Can the judiciary compel the executive government to espouse the claim of the
    petitioners?

    HELD:

    No. The International Law Commissions (ILCs) Draft Articles on Diplomatic


    Protection fully support this traditional view. They (i) state that "the right of diplomatic
    protection belongs to or vests in the State, [59](ii) affirm its discretionary nature by
    clarifying that diplomatic protection is a "sovereign prerogative" of the State, and (iii)
    stress that the state "has the right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national.
    It is under no duty or obligation to do so. The State, therefore, is the sole judge to decide
    whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it
    cease. It retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise of which may be
    determined by considerations of a political or other nature, unrelated to the particular
    case.
    NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, et al. v. THE EXECUTIVE
    SECRETARY, et al.

    FACTS:

    Petitioners claim that former President Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her


    discretion in disregarding the results of the rigorous screening and selection process for the
    Order of National Artists and in substituting her own choice for those of the Deliberation
    Panels. According to petitioners, the Presidents discretion to name National Artists is not
    absolute but limited. In particular, her discretion on the matter cannot be exercised in the
    absence of or against the recommendation of the NCCA and the CCP.

    ISSUE:

    Was there grave abuse of discretion committed by former President?

    RULING:

    The "power to recommend" includes the power to give "advice, exhortation or


    indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to
    whom it is made." Thus, in the matter of the conferment of the Order of National Artists, the
    President may or may not adopt the recommendation or advice of the NCCA and the CCP
    Boards. In other words, the advice of the NCCA and the CCP is subject to the Presidents
    discretion.

    Nevertheless, the Presidents discretion on the matter is not totally unfettered, nor the
    role of the NCCA and the CCP Boards meaningless. The Presidents power must be
    exercised in accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution
    prescribes faithful execution of the laws by the President. The Presidents discretion in the
    conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in accordance with the duty
    to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an
    obligation imposed on the President, not a separate grant of power.
    De Castro, et al v. JBC

    FACTS:

    The President entered into an executive agreement (VFA) with the US. Petitioner
    alleges that the concurrence of the Senate is necessary for the VFA to be valid and
    effective.

    ISSUE:

    Are the petitioners allegations correct?

    RULING:

    No. By constitutional fiat and by the nature of his or her office, the
    President, as head of state and government, is the sole organ and authority in the
    external affairs of the country.[65] The Constitution vests in the President the power
    to enter into international agreements, subject, in appropriate cases, to the
    required concurrence votes of the Senate. But as earlier indicated, executive
    agreements may be validly entered into without such concurrence. As the
    President wields vast powers and influence, her conduct in the external affairs of
    the nation is, as Bayan would put it, executive altogether. The right of the
    President to enter into or ratify binding executive agreements has been confirmed
    by long practice.
    Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council
    FACTS:
    The President appointed the Chief Justice during the election ban
    period.
    ISSUE:
    Can the President do so?
    RULING:
    No. Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to
    appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other
    appointments to the Judiciary. Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial
    Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the
    Supreme Court, among others. Section 4(1) and Section 9 of this Article
    are the provisions specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme
    Court Justices. In particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of
    Supreme Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the
    submission of a list of at least three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1)
    of the Article mandates the President to fill the vacancy within 90 days
    from the occurrence of the vacancy.

    You might also like