Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 733 views

    Lopez V Senate

    Uploaded by

    dasfghkjl
    1) Representative Ruy Elias Lopez filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Canvassing Rules approved by Congress for the 2004 national elections. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that while it had jurisdiction over Lopez's constitutional claims, it dismissed the petition because Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in creating a Joint Committee to expedite the canvassing process. 3) The Court also found that the Canvassing Rules were a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power to promulgate its own rules for canvassing elections, and that creating the Joint Committee did not constitute an improper delegation of Congress's duties as the National Board of Canvassers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lopez V Senate

    Uploaded by

    dasfghkjl
    733 views2 pages
    1) Representative Ruy Elias Lopez filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Canvassing Rules approved by Congress for the 2004 national elections. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that while it had jurisdiction over Lopez's constitutional claims, it dismissed the petition because Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in creating a Joint Committee to expedite the canvassing process. 3) The Court also found that the Canvassing Rules were a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power to promulgate its own rules for canvassing elections, and that creating the Joint Committee did not constitute an improper delegation of Congress's duties as the National Board of Canvassers.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law - Legislative

    Original Title

    Lopez v Senate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Representative Ruy Elias Lopez filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Canvassing Rules approved by Congress for the 2004 national elections. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that while it had jurisdiction over Lopez's constitutional claims, it dismissed the petition because Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in creating a Joint Committee to expedite the canvassing process. 3) The Court also found that the Canvassing Rules were a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power to promulgate its own rules for canvassing elections, and that creating the Joint Committee did not constitute an improper delegation of Congress's duties as the National Board of Canvassers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    733 views2 pages

    Lopez V Senate

    Uploaded by

    dasfghkjl
    1) Representative Ruy Elias Lopez filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Canvassing Rules approved by Congress for the 2004 national elections. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that while it had jurisdiction over Lopez's constitutional claims, it dismissed the petition because Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in creating a Joint Committee to expedite the canvassing process. 3) The Court also found that the Canvassing Rules were a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power to promulgate its own rules for canvassing elections, and that creating the Joint Committee did not constitute an improper delegation of Congress's duties as the National Board of Canvassers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lopez v.

    Senate of the Philippines


    G.R.No. 163556
    June 8, 2004

    FACTS:
    ● Ruy Elias Lopez, Representative of the 3 rd Legislative District of Davao City, filed a petition for prohibition and
    mandamus to ask the Court to declare unconstitutional the Canvassing Rules, which was approved by the Senate
    and the House of Representatives in a joint session.
    ● Lopez argued that the power and authority to open all certificates of canvass of votes for Presidential and Vice-
    Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the Constitution upon the Senate President. While,
    the power and authority to determine the authenticity and due execution of all certificates of canvass and to
    canvass the votes cast for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates are solely and exclusively vested by the
    Constitution upon the Congress as one whole body.
    ● He alleged that the Canvassing Rules are unconstitutional because:
    ○ It constitutes a delegation of legislative power to a Joint Committee of Congress;
    ○ It constitutes an amendment of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution;
    ○ It deprives him of his rights and prerogatives as a Member of Congress; and
    ○ By the passage of the Canvassing Rules, Congress has neglected to perform an act which the Constitution
    specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office.
    ● The OSG, the Senate and the House of Representatives similarly argued that the adoption of the Canvassing
    Rules is beyond the scope of judicial inquiry as it is an internal matter of Congress. They also argued that there
    has been no invalid delegation to the Joint Committee of the duties of Congress.

    ISSUES and RULING:


    1) Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

    Yes, the SC has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the petition contains sufficient allegations claiming
    violations of the Constitution. However, the SC dismissed the petition on the ground that it failed to show that
    Congress gravely abused its discretion in creating the Joint Committee.

    2) Whether the Canvassing Rules is unconstitutional.

    No, Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of
    the certificates.

    3) Whether the creation of the Joint Committee constituted an invalid delegation of the constitutional duties of
    Congress.

    No, the decisions and final report of the Joint Committee are still subject to the approval of the joint session of both
    Houses of Congress, voting separately.

    Separate Opinions:
    1) The Court has jurisdiction over the issue raised based on Art. VIII, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which provides that
    judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting
    to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It falls within the
    judicial power to determine for itself whether the legality and the limits of the exercise of a power have been
    observed and respected. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the issue raised by Lopez
    calls for the proper interpretation of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.

    2) The authority of Congress to adopt its own rules of procedure is a right that has been recognized to apply
    regardless of whether Congress is exercising its legislative power or its other duties, such as in this case when it
    acts as the National Board of Canvassers. Congress remains the body exercising its canvassing duties and
    delegating preliminary determinations to expedite proceedings. Where the rules of Congress have thus been
    passed within the limits of constitutional and legal boundaries, everything else remains internal and procedural.

    The Canvassing Rules did not violate Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress the
    power to promulgate its own rules for the canvassing of election certificates. The Rules enjoy the presumption of
    legality and Lopez has miserably failed to overcome such presumption.

    3) The creation of the Joint Committee did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power. As a canvassing
    board, Congress exercises no legislative power and therefore did not delegate any.
    The principle of potestas delegate non delegari potest (a delegated power cannot again be delegated) does not
    apply in this case insofar as no other branch of government has been tasked with the duties of Congress as a
    National Board of Canvassers. There has been no delegation or abdication of any Constitutional authority, even
    within Congress itself.

    Since the Canvassing Rules subjects the acts of the Joint Committee to the affirmation of Congress, the
    Committee’s report is preliminary and recommendatory in nature. The Rules leaves to both Houses, as an entire
    body, the final act of determining the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass, and the
    proclamation of the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect.

    There is no deprivation of the rights and prerogatives of the Members of Congress. The fact that the findings of
    the Committee are subject to a final act of Congress, then, by casting his vote and declaring his approval or
    disapproval of the final report, Lopez exercises his prerogatives as a Member of Congress.

    You might also like