Gil Aldrick Fernandez

Admin law 1/17/11

Aratuc vs Comelec

Facts

Petitioner Aratuc filed a petition for certiorari, to review the decision of respondent
Comelec.

A supervening panel headed by Comelec had conducted hearings of the complaints

of the petitioner therein alleged irregularities in the election records. In order for the
Commission to decide properly. It will have to go deep into the examination of the
voting records and registration records and it will have to interview and get
statements from persons under oath from the area to determine whether actual
voting took place. The Comelec then rendered its resolution being assailed in these
cases, declaring the final result of the canvass.

Issue

Whether the Comelec committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack of jurisdiction?

Ruling

No.

Under section 168 of the revised election code of the 1978 “ the commission on
elections shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers”. In
administrative law, a superior body or office having supervision or control over
another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done.

The petition is hereby dismissed, for lack of merit

Gil Aldrick Fernandez

Admin law 1/18/11

People vs Rosenthal

Facts

The accused, Jacob Rosenthal, board of directors of the O.R.O. oil company, have
deliberate intent of evading the provisions or sections 2 and 5 of the said act no.
2581, and conspiring and confederating together and helping each other, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously trade in, negotiate and speculate with their shares by
making personally through brokers or agents repeated and successive sales,
without first obtaining the corresponding written permit or license from the insular
treasurer of the commonwealth of the Philippines, as by law required. Rosenthal
contends that that act no. 2581 is unconstitutional.

Issue

Whether act. 2581 is unconstitutional?

Ruling

No. Legislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if susceptible
of any reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. An act will not be
declared inoperative and ineffectual on the ground that it furnishes no adequate
means to secure purpose for which it is passed.

We hold that Act no. 2581 is valid and constitutional.