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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Rama Vs Moises

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Marie Tablizo
    Section 3(b) of PD 198, which determined the appointing authority for local water district boards based on the percentage of water connections within city boundaries, was found to violate substantive due process rights. While the provision was originally fair and reasonable when enacted, the reclassification of Cebu City as an independent component city and changes in local government law rendered continued application of the percentage-based approach unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared Section 3(b) unconstitutional because limiting the mayor's appointment authority based on an outdated percentage was no longer a valid exercise of government power.

    Copyright:

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

    Rama Vs Moises

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Marie Tablizo
    133 views1 page
    Section 3(b) of PD 198, which determined the appointing authority for local water district boards based on the percentage of water connections within city boundaries, was found to violate substantive due process rights. While the provision was originally fair and reasonable when enacted, the reclassification of Cebu City as an independent component city and changes in local government law rendered continued application of the percentage-based approach unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared Section 3(b) unconstitutional because limiting the mayor's appointment authority based on an outdated percentage was no longer a valid exercise of government power.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Rama vs Moises

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 3(b) of PD 198, which determined the appointing authority for local water district boards based on the percentage of water connections within city boundaries, was found to violate substantive due process rights. While the provision was originally fair and reasonable when enacted, the reclassification of Cebu City as an independent component city and changes in local government law rendered continued application of the percentage-based approach unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared Section 3(b) unconstitutional because limiting the mayor's appointment authority based on an outdated percentage was no longer a valid exercise of government power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    133 views1 page

    Rama Vs Moises

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Marie Tablizo
    Section 3(b) of PD 198, which determined the appointing authority for local water district boards based on the percentage of water connections within city boundaries, was found to violate substantive due process rights. While the provision was originally fair and reasonable when enacted, the reclassification of Cebu City as an independent component city and changes in local government law rendered continued application of the percentage-based approach unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared Section 3(b) unconstitutional because limiting the mayor's appointment authority based on an outdated percentage was no longer a valid exercise of government power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAMA vs.

    MOISES

    Summary:

    Substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely the HELD:
    procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. It
    demands the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the Section 3 (b) of PD 198 was declared unconstitutional
    person to life, liberty or property. In short, to be determined is whether the law
    Ratio:
    has a valid governmental objective, like the interest of the public as against that
    of a particular class. The petitioners assert that Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198, being unfair,
    violated substantive due process. Although Section 3(b) of P.D. No. 198
    Facts:
    provided for substantial distinction and was germane to the purpose of P.D. No.
    President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD198 (Provincial Water 198 when it was enacted in 1973, the intervening reclassification of the City of
    Utilities Act of 1973). From 1974 to 2002, the Cebu City Mayor appointed all the Cebu into an HUC and the subsequent enactment of the 1991 Local Government
    members of the MCWD Board of Directors in accordance with Section 3 (b) of P. Code rendered the continued application of Section 3(b) in disregard of the
    D. No. 198. The mentioned section states that “The person empowered to reclassification unreasonable and unfair.
    appoint the members of the board of Directors of a local water district,
    depending upon the geographic coverage and population make-up of the
    particular district. In the event that more than seventy-five percent of the total
    active water service connections of a local water district are within the
    boundary of any city or municipality, the appointing authority shall be the
    mayor of that city or municipality, as the case may be; otherwise, the
    appointing authority shall be the governor of the province within which the
    district is located.”

    In July 2002, Cebu Provincial Governor Pablo L. Garcia wrote to the MCWD to
    assert his authority and intention to appoint the members of the MCWD Board
    of Directors. He stated in his letter that since 1996, the active water service
    connections in Cebu City had been below 75% of the total active water service
    connection of the MCWD; that no other city or municipality under the MCWD
    had reached the required percentage of 75%; and that, accordingly, he, as the
    Provincial Governor of Cebu, was the appointing authority for the members of
    the MCWD Board of Directors pursuant to Section 3 (b) of P. D. No. 198.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Section 3 (b) violated the due process clause and
    equal protection clause enshrined in the Constitution.

    You might also like