Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Brillantes v. Concepcion Notes

    Uploaded by

    William Azucena
    The Supreme Court ruled that the issue raised in this case was justiciable, not political. The petitioners questioned whether the COMELEC's Resolution No. 6712 was legal and consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions. Specifically, the petitioners argued the resolution was not authorized under Republic Act No. 8436. The Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to determine if the COMELEC resolution showed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issue was one of legality and validity, not merely the wisdom of the resolution. Therefore, the Court could exercise judicial review to assess if the resolution respected applicable qualifications, conditions and limitations.

    Copyright:

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

    Brillantes v. Concepcion Notes

    Uploaded by

    William Azucena
    49 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the issue raised in this case was justiciable, not political. The petitioners questioned whether the COMELEC's Resolution No. 6712 was legal and consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions. Specifically, the petitioners argued the resolution was not authorized under Republic Act No. 8436. The Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to determine if the COMELEC resolution showed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issue was one of legality and validity, not merely the wisdom of the resolution. Therefore, the Court could exercise judicial review to assess if the resolution respected applicable qualifications, conditions and limitations.

    Original Title

    Brillantes v. Concepcion Notes.docx

    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 issue raised in this case was justiciable, not political. The petitioners questioned whether the COMELEC's Resolution No. 6712 was legal and consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions. Specifically, the petitioners argued the resolution was not authorized under Republic Act No. 8436. The Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to determine if the COMELEC resolution showed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issue was one of legality and validity, not merely the wisdom of the resolution. Therefore, the Court could exercise judicial review to assess if the resolution respected applicable qualifications, conditions and limitations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views3 pages

    Brillantes v. Concepcion Notes

    Uploaded by

    William Azucena
    The Supreme Court ruled that the issue raised in this case was justiciable, not political. The petitioners questioned whether the COMELEC's Resolution No. 6712 was legal and consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions. Specifically, the petitioners argued the resolution was not authorized under Republic Act No. 8436. The Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to determine if the COMELEC resolution showed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The issue was one of legality and validity, not merely the wisdom of the resolution. Therefore, the Court could exercise judicial review to assess if the resolution respected applicable qualifications, conditions and limitations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Case 15-1 (Brillantes v. Concepcion: Political v.

    Justiciable)

    1. Who has the authority to canvass the election for Pres and VP as ruled in this case?

    2. Facts of the case.


    -one whole scheme. Consequently, considering the failed implementation of Phases I and II, there is no basis at all
    for the respondent COMELEC to still push through and pursue with Phase III.

    The petitioner essentially posits that the counting and consolidation of votes contemplated under Section 6 of Rep.
    Act No. 8436 refers to the official COMELEC count under the fully automated system and not any kind of
    “unofficial” count via electronic transmission of advanced results as now provided under the assailed resolution.
    1. Moreover, the petitioners-in-intervention Drilon and De Venecia are, respectively, President of the Senate and
    Speaker of the House of Representatives, the heads of Congress which is exclusively authorized by the Constitution
    to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President. They have the requisite standing to prevent the usurpation
    of the constitutional prerogative of Congress. 2. In December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436
    authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes
    and canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local elections. On April 28, 2004, COMELEC
    promulgated Resolution No. 6712 which was captioned as GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ELECTRONIC
    TRANSMISSION AND CONSOLIDATION OF ADVANCED RESULTS IN THE MAY 10, 2004 ELECTIONS.

    However, the petitioner assails that there is no provision under Rep. Act No. 8436 which authorizes the COMELEC
    to engage in the biometrics/computerized system of validation of voters (Phase I) and a system of electronic
    transmission of election results (Phase III). Even assuming for the nonce that all the three (3) phases are duly
    authorized, they must complement each other as they are not distinct and separate programs but mere stages of

    Case15-2

    1. What is the issue?

    2. What was the ruling on the issue?


    1. Assuming that they have standing, whether the issues they raise are political in nature over which the Court has
    no jurisdiction;

    2. The issue raised in the present petition does not merely concern the wisdom of the assailed resolution but
    focuses on its alleged disregard for applicable statutory and constitutional provisions. In other words, that the
    petitioner and the petitioners-in intervention are questioning the legality of the respondent COMELEC's
    administrative issuance will not preclude this Court from exercising its power of judicial review to determine
    whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
    respondent COMELEC in issuing Resolution No. 6712. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant
    or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. 27 When the grant of power
    is quali􀀸ed, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed quali􀀸cations or conditions
    have been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable — the problem being one of legality or validity, not its
    wisdom. 28 In the present petition, the Court must pass upon the petitioner's contention that Resolution No. 6712
    does not have adequate statutory or constitutional basis.

    You might also like