Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

1. MARBURY vs.

MADISON said right; hence, the law of the


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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și