country afford him of a remedy. ISSUE: Although Judge Marshall could have a. WON Marbury has a legal right to the held that the proper remedy was a commission? writ of mandamus from SC, but b. If it has legal right, did the law provide instead, he declared that the court him with proper remedy does not have the power to issue such c. WON the proper remedy for such the relevant provision of the Judiciary violation was writ of mandamus to be Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. awarded by the SC Section 13 of the said act provides that the SC has the authority to issue FACTS: writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usage In the week of Jefferson’s inauguration, of law. Such provision is contrary to President Adams, in an effort to preserve his the express provision of Section 2 Federalist party’s control over the judiciary Article 3 of the constitution which and to frustrate the agenda of Jefferson’s states that in all cases affecting Republican Party, he proceeded to fill in the ambassadors, public ministers, and judgeship positions in the country. Because consuls, the SC shall have original Marbury is one of those last appointments jurisdiction. In surrendering the (the midnight appointments), he did not petition for the writ of mandamus, receive his commission before Jefferson Judge Marshall gained for the court became the president. Once Pres. Jeferson is the pwer of judicial review, which is in office, he directed his Secretary of State, the power of the SC to determine Thomas Madison, to withhold the commission whether any law, treaty, contract, of Marbury. With that, Marbury petitioned in rules, regulations, international court and prayed that the court will issue im a agreements, or executive order is writ of mandamus in order to compel unconstitutional. Madison to deliver his commission. 2. ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL RULING: COMMISSSION
a. The court ruled that Marbury has ISSUE:
legal right over the commission he a. WON the SC has jurisdiction over the prayed for. Judge Marshall held that EC and the subject matter of the validity of the commission existed controversy from the time the president signed it b. WON the EC acted without or in excess and transmitted it to the Secretary of of jurisdiction in assuming to the State to affix his seal. The Secretary of cognizance election protest filed the State now has the ministerial task notwithstanding the previous of delivering the said commission to confirmation of the NA Marbury. Because Masbury has the legal right to receive the questioned FACTS: commission, failure to deliver such is tantamount to the violation of the In September 1935, Jose Angara, the review limited to actual cases or petitioner, together with Pedro Ynsua, the controversies, and is the power and respondent, were candidates for the position duty of the court to see that no to be a member of the NA, in the first district branch or agency of the government of Tayabas. In October 1935, the provincial transcends the constitution. board of canvassers proclaimed Angara to be b. The court further ruled that the EC a member-elect of the NA. Later in November does not act without or in excess of its of the same year, Angara took an oath of jurisdiction when it takes cognizance office. On December 3, 1935, Resolution No. 8 of the election protest filed by Ynsua. was passed by the NA confirming the The EC is recognized as an proclamation of the members of the NA independent quasi-judicial body without pending protest. On December 8, which is not an inferior tribunal, 1935, Ynsua filed a Motion of protest against corporation, board, or person, and is the election of Angara before the Electoral thus granted the power and authority Commission. On that same day, the EC to be the sole judge of all cases adopted a resolution fixing that date as the relating to election, returns and last date of filing an election protest against qualifications of the members of the any member of the NA. Angara filed a motion NA. The present constitution granted to dismiss the protest alleging that the protest the EC all the powers exercised by the was filed beyond the prescribed period, as legislative relating to the said Resolution No. 8 was adopted in the exercise function, which includes the of the legitimate constitutional prerogative of promulgation and regulation of the the NA. rules and regulation regarding election protests. The confirmation of RULING: NA is not required and does not limit the powers of the EC with regard to a. The Court ruled that the SC has the election protest filed against jurisdiction over the EC and the Angara. subject matter of controversy. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, 3. GARCIA vs. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS though each department of the government has exclusive cognizance ISSUE: on matters within its jurisdiction, the WON the BOI committed a grave abuse of Constitution provides for an elaborate discretion in approving the application of the system of checks and balance to BPC with regard to the transfer of the plant secure coordination on the various site from Bataan to Batangas without workings of the departments. When consideration to the national interest. there is a conflict between the boundaries of the powers and FACTS: functions of the different branches or agencies of the government, the Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, judiciary has the power to review and now Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, resolve these issues through judicial organized by a group of Taiwanese investors review. This so called judicial was granted by the BOI of the transfer of its supremacy is the power of judicial plant site from Bataan to Batangas, and the shift of its feedstock or fuel from naptha to naptha and/or liquefied petroleum gas. In February 1989, after one year of operation in Bataan, BPC applied for the transfer of its plant site to Batangas. Despite the several oppositions from Garcia and others, the BOI granted such transfer explaining that it is the corporation’s final choice since they are the ones whose capital may be at risk.