Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006 Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Parañaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority (“MIAA Charter”). Executive Order No. 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E.…

Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, Respondents.  G.R. NOS. 221698-700MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.FACTS : Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned as a…

Carpio-Morales vs. CA (2015)

Doctrine of Condonation

Herrera vs. Mago (2020)

Political and International Law | Local Government | Doctrine of Condonation | Abandonment of the Doctrine of Condonation

Philippine Agila Satellite vs. Lichauco (2006)

PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE INC. vs LICHAUCO G.R. No. 142362 (2006)Tinga, J.Immunity from Suit The doctrine of the state’s immunity from suit will not apply if the government official invoking it is being sued in a personal capacity and if the decision will not result to any pecuniary liability against the State. FACTS: In 1994, a…

Ang Ladlad LGBTQ vs. COMELEC

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 190582, EN BANC, April 8, 2010 FACTS: “Ang Ladlad” is an organization of people who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or trans- genders. The Comelec dismissed the petition on moral grounds as “the definition of the LGBT sector makes it crystal clear that it…

State Prosecutors vs. Judge Muro (1994)

STATE PROSECUTORS, complainants, vs.JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 | 236 SCRA 505, 19 September 1994 | En Banc | Per Curiam Political and International Law | Constitutional Law | Bill of Rights | Due Process FACTS: The state prosecutors who are members of the DOJ Panel…

Revaldo vs. People (2009)

Dura Lex Sed Lex

DENR vs. DENR Region 12 Employees (2003)

The Regional Executive Director of the DENR for Region XII issued a Memorandum directing the immediate transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal. The respondent employees assails this decision as without legal basis. The SC ruled otherwise.

Applying the doctrine of qualified political agency, the power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be delegated to his cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department. The DENR Secretary can validly reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter ego, is presumed to be the acts of the President for the latter had not expressly repudiated the same.

Blaquera vs. Alcala (1998)

The President was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the respondents who granted incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the President, thereby resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.

In the view of the President, respondents did a mistake which had to be corrected. In so acting, the President exercised a constitutionally-protected prerogative. Considering, however, that all the parties here acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already received.

Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Constitutional Commissions (1989)

Appointment as sectoral representative (during the transition period) in the House of Representatives requires confirmation by CA (falls in “other officers whose appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution” of the “1st group”).

Bautista vs. Salonga (1989)

When the appointment is one that the Constitution mandates is for the President to make without the participation of the CA, the executive’s voluntary act of submitting such appointment to the CA and the latter’s act of confirming or rejecting the same are done without or in excess of jurisdiction. Ad interim appointments do not apply to appointments solely for the President to make. Appointments as Chairman and members of the CHR does NOT require confirmation by CA (falls in the “3rd group”).

Sarmiento III vs. Mison (1987)

It is the clear and expressed intent of the framers of the Constitution that presidential appointments, except those mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, are NOT subject to confirmation by the CA.

Binamira vs. Garrucho, Jr. (1990)

It is an appointment (and not a designation) that results in security of tenure.

Lastimosa vs. Vasquez (1995)

GLORIA G. LASTIMOSA, First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, petitioner,vs.HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONRADO VASQUEZ, HONORABLE ARTURO C. MOJICA, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, and HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAMON J. LIWAG, respondents. G.R. No. 116801 | 243 SCRA 497 | April 6, 1995 | En Banc | Justice Mendoza Political and International…