406 MARZO Melchor Vs Moya

MELCHOR vs.
MOYA (MARZO)  This is a petition for certiorari instituted by then

March 17, 1983 | Fernando, J. | adherence to, or departure Executive Secretary Alejandro Melchor Jr seeking
from, language of statute - literal interpretation - departure
to reverse the decision of the respondent Judge
from literal interpretation
Jose Moya who declared Republic Act No. 6359
PETITIONER: ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, JR., in his capacity
(Rent Control Law) as amended by Presidential
as Executive Secretary Decree No. 20 unconstitutional on the ground that
RESPONDENTS: HON. JOSE L. MOYA, as Judge of the it is not a valid police power measure.
Court of First Instance of Manila, REALTY OWNERS
ISSUE: Is Republic Act No. 6359 or the Rent Control
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., and ALBERTO
Law unconstitutional?
GUEVARA, SR.
RULING: No, it is not. Republic Act 6359 is valid.
DOCTRINE:
RATIO:
1. Pursuant to the provisions of the 1973
Constitution, Presidential Decrees promulgated  The Supreme Court reversed the assailed decision
or issued, or acts from by President Marcos and upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act
6359 primarily on the following grounds:
shall be part of the law of the land and to
o The issuance of Presidential Decree No. 20
remain valid, legal, binding, and effective
more than justified the validity of RA 6359.
except when modified, revoked, or suspended
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1973
by him as incumbent president or unless
Constitution, Presidential Decrees
expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by
promulgated or issued, or acts from by
the Batasang Pambansa. President Marcos shall be part of the law of
2. “it would be illogical in the extreme if an the land and to remain valid, legal, binding,
amendatory act is given full force and effect and
and effective except when modified,
yet the statute it sought to amend would be
revoked, or suspended by him as incumbent
declared as being tainted by an unconstitutional
president or unless expressly and explicitly
infirmity.”
modified or repealed by the Batasang
Pambansa.
o In the case of Aquino Jr. vs. COMELEC, the
FACTS: Supreme Court has already upheld the
power of the President to issue decrees and
(This case was written in an unconventional that these have the force and effect of law.
manner) o In the case of Gutierrez vs. Cantada, the
Court also left no doubt as to the binding
effect of the Rent Control Law that it stems forgotten that shelter is one of the basic
from a police power legislation with the social and economic rights.”
objective to remedy the plight of lessees, o It would appear as well that the declaration
and was later amended by PD No. 20, of unconstitutionality by the respondent
another valid law. judge was based on doubts entertained by
o Thus, the Supreme Court stated that “it him about the validity of the Act, however,
would be illogical in the extreme if an the Supreme Court reiterated the time
amendatory act is given full force and effect settled rule that laws enacted by Congress
and yet the statute it sought to amend are presumed to be valid.
would be declared as being tainted by an
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision declaring
unconstitutional infirmity.”
unconstitutional Republic Act No. 6359 is reversed.
 The Supreme Court also discussed the roots of
Costs against respondents Realty Owners Association of
the assailed decision as follows:
the Philippines and Alberto Guevara, Sr.
o The respondent retired judge held the Act
unconstitutional for being violative of the
equal protection clause as being class
legislation however, the Supreme Court
stated that this statute was enacted as a
valid exercise of the State’s police power. It
was enacted to promote the public interest
and the general welfare and that the State
is not compelled to stand idle where a
considerable segment of its citizens suffers
from economic distress.
o The respondent retired judge also declared
the Act unconstitutional for violating due
process as it is oppressive, however, the
Supreme Court quickly disregarded such
argument stating that “how can a measure
specifically designed to ease a housing
shortage, resulting in unwarranted increase
in rentals to the grave prejudice of the
lower-income groups, be considered
arbitrary or oppressive? It is not to be

406 MARZO Melchor Vs Moya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

406 MARZO Melchor Vs Moya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

406 MARZO Melchor Vs Moya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MELCHOR vs.

MOYA (MARZO)  This is a petition for certiorari instituted by then

You might also like