The Philippine Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the COMELEC over its decision to disqualify the group “Ang Ladlad” from running as a partylist representative in the coming May 2010 elections. The Supreme Court en banc directed the COMELEC to recognize Ang Ladlad as an accredited partylist group and to include it in the printing of the ballots for the coming May elections pending the Court’s final ruling on the matter.
Archive for the ‘Political Law’ Category
Ang Ladlad- a partylist representative for now
Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 13, 2010
Posted in Election Law, Political Law, Uncategorized | Tagged: Election Law, Political Law | Leave a Comment »
Marriage Expiration – Best before 10 years
Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 12, 2010
A partylist group came up with a proposal that marriages should have an expiry period of 10 years to spare incompatible couples from the hassles of annulment or legal separation. According to the partylist group, the marriage license should carry an expiry period like those of the passport and the driver’s license. Failure to renew the license would automatically end the union.
If we are going to equate marriage with a driver’s license, can we then take the future spouse for a test drive? That way, both persons will be spared from having to go through renewing or not renewing the expirable marriage license and save them money from holding the costly marriage ceremony.
Supposing that marriage will expire in ten years, what will happen to the property relations after 10 years? the validity of contracts entered into by the spouses jointly? Do we liquidate the properties, terminate valid contracts, and tell the children to expect lesser legitimes in the event one or both their parents remarry and have additional children?
In all probability, the partylist group is just generating sound bites for its foray in the political arena (notice that I did not place its name here?) and is not really serious in proposing such a measure. Otherwise, it is an additional reason why partylist representation in Congress should be scrapped.
Oscar
Posted in Civil Law, Political Law | Tagged: Civil Law, Political Law | 20 Comments »
Palatino, et al. vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 189868; 15 December 2009
Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 8, 2010
Registration of new voters extended by the Supreme Court to January 9, 2010. Under Tools, click Digested Cases to see why.
Posted in Election Law, Political Law | Leave a Comment »
Quinto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698; 1 December 2009
Posted by lexforiphilippines on January 7, 2010
Are appointive officials who intend to run in the 2010 elections, automatically resigned from office upon the filing of their Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)? Visit our Tools Section and click Digested Cases for the Supreme Court’s answer to this query.
Posted in Cases, Election Law, Political Law, Remedial Law | Tagged: digested cases, Election Law, Political Law, Remedial Law | Leave a Comment »
When Murder is Absorbed by Rebellion
Posted by lexforiphilippines on December 23, 2009
One of the criticisms against the 4 December 2009 Proclamation of Martial Law in Maguindanao (Proclamation 1959) was that it was a ruse to help the Ampatuans escape punishment for the 23 November 2009 Maguindanao massacre. The President issued Proclamation 1959, in the wake of the Maguindanao massacre, supposedly to quell a rebellion led by the Amapatuans. Critics feared that the Ampatuans would use the rebellion charges as a defense in the murder case on the premise that Murder in the course of a rebellion is deemed absorbed by the crime of Rebellion.
But will such a defense hold water?
In People vs. Hernandez (G. R. Nos. L-6025-26; 18 July 1956), the Supreme Court held that where the murder, robberies and arson are committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged, they are absorbed by, and form part of, the rebellion, and accordingly, the accused could be convicted only of the simple crime of rebellion.
In Enrile vs. Salazar (G.R. No. 92163; 5 June 1990), the Supreme Court held that the ruling in People vs. Hernandez (supra) “remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In People vs. Lovedioro (G.R. No. 112235; 29 November 1995), the High Court ruled that for murder to be considered absorbed by the crime of rebellion, it must have been committed in furtherance of a political end. In fact, even in cases where the act complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable as a common crime and would not be absorbed by the crime rebellion (citing People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 95 & 99 [1956]). The Supreme Court further held that the political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated, and that the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense, motive, being a state of mind which the accused, better than any individual, knows.
Thus, if political motive is not conclusively established, the accused should be convicted of murder.
Posted in Political Law, Remedial Law, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Martial Law in Maguindanao – Political or Judicial Question
Posted by lexforiphilippines on December 11, 2009
Where does the congressional inquiry into the Martial Law Proclamation end and the judicial review of the same Proclamation begin?
As a check-and-balance mechanism, the 1987 Constitution gave the two other co-equal branches of the government the power to rein in the seemingly vast power of the Executive. Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution grants the Legislature the power to revoke the Proclamation, and the Judiciary the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Proclamation. But won’t there be any overlapping of issues to review?
In determining whether or not to revoke the Proclamation, wouldn’t Congress be constrained to look into the factual basis of the Proclamation – to see if there was an actual rebellion in Maguindanao? As it is, Congress, in its joint session, has put forward issues concerning the sufficiency of the President’s reasons for issuing Proclamation No. 1959. What happens, therefore, if Congress decides to revoke the Proclamation? Will the petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the very same Proclamation be considered moot? And won’t the mooting of the petitions only confirm that the issues which Congress considers are the very same issues put forward before the Judiciary? If the Judiciary decides, within the 30-day period prescribed by the Constitution and before Congress resolves to revoke or affirm the Proclamation, that the Proclamation had no sufficient factual basis to proclaim martial law, will Congress be bound by such finding? Can it proceed to affirm the Proclamation? Or looking at it the other way around, what if the Judiciary sustains the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Proclamation, can Congress still decide to revoke the Proclamation? What if it does?
Just asking . . . perhaps the exec better just lift it.
Although, we must say, this recent historic event has provided fertile ground for new and interesting jurisprudence.
Posted in Political Law, Remedial Law | Leave a Comment »
