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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Farinas vs. Executive Secretary 463 Phil. 179 Dec 10, 2003 Callejo SR, J., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sbl Irv
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 14 of RA 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was constitutional and did not violate the "one subject-one title" rule. While the repealed provision dealt with something different than the rest of the law, the Court found the title was broad enough to encompass the repeal. In a separate case, the Court upheld an airline's policy terminating a flight attendant for exceeding weight limits, finding it was a valid bona fide occupational qualification given flight safety responsibilities. However, the Court ruled that an executive order establishing a truth commission to investigate the previous administration alone for graft and corruption violated equal protection. Singling out only one past

    Copyright:

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

    Farinas vs. Executive Secretary 463 Phil. 179 Dec 10, 2003 Callejo SR, J., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sbl Irv
    90 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 14 of RA 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was constitutional and did not violate the "one subject-one title" rule. While the repealed provision dealt with something different than the rest of the law, the Court found the title was broad enough to encompass the repeal. In a separate case, the Court upheld an airline's policy terminating a flight attendant for exceeding weight limits, finding it was a valid bona fide occupational qualification given flight safety responsibilities. However, the Court ruled that an executive order establishing a truth commission to investigate the previous administration alone for graft and corruption violated equal protection. Singling out only one past

    Original Title

    Week 4 - Siobal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 14 of RA 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was constitutional and did not violate the "one subject-one title" rule. While the repealed provision dealt with something different than the rest of the law, the Court found the title was broad enough to encompass the repeal. In a separate case, the Court upheld an airline's policy terminating a flight attendant for exceeding weight limits, finding it was a valid bona fide occupational qualification given flight safety responsibilities. However, the Court ruled that an executive order establishing a truth commission to investigate the previous administration alone for graft and corruption violated equal protection. Singling out only one past

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views4 pages

    Farinas vs. Executive Secretary 463 Phil. 179 Dec 10, 2003 Callejo SR, J., Facts

    Uploaded by

    Sbl Irv
    The Supreme Court ruled that Section 14 of RA 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was constitutional and did not violate the "one subject-one title" rule. While the repealed provision dealt with something different than the rest of the law, the Court found the title was broad enough to encompass the repeal. In a separate case, the Court upheld an airline's policy terminating a flight attendant for exceeding weight limits, finding it was a valid bona fide occupational qualification given flight safety responsibilities. However, the Court ruled that an executive order establishing a truth commission to investigate the previous administration alone for graft and corruption violated equal protection. Singling out only one past

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Farinas vs.

    Executive Secretary
    463 Phil. 179 Dec 10, 2003
    Callejo Sr, J.,

    Facts:

    Farinas et al, claimed that Section 14 of RA 9006 entitled "An Act to Enhance
    the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through
    Fair Elections Practices, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus
    Election Code, is unconstitutional because it violates Section 26(1) of the
    Article VI of the Constitution, which requires every law to have only one subject
    which should be in expressed in its title.

    By including Sec 14 repealing Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in RA


    9006, it constitutes a proscribed rider. The Sec 14 of RA 9006 primarily deals
    with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the
    elimination of unfair election practices. Sec 67 of the OEC imposes a limitation
    of officials who run for office other than the one they are holding in a
    permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon
    filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of Sec 67 of the OEC is thus not
    embraced in the title, nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9006.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Section 14 of RA 9006 is unconstitutional.

    Ruling:
    No. The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of RA 9006 are
    comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus
    Election Code within its contemplation. To require that the said repeal of
    Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a
    complete index of its content. The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the
    Code and the Section 14 of the RA 9006 does not violate "one subject-one title
    rule." This Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated
    in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they
    may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general
    subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for
    the method and means of carrying out the general subject.

    Section 26(1) of the Constitution provides: Every bill passed by the Congress
    shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

    The avowed purpose of the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill
    should be embraced in its title is to apprise the legislators of the purposes, the
    nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into law of
    matters which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators

    1
    and the public. In this case, it cannot be claimed that the legislators were not
    apprised of the repeal of Section 67 of the Code as the same was amply and
    comprehensively deliberated upon by the members of the House. In fact, the
    petitioners as members of the House of Representatives expressed their
    reservations regarding its validity prior to casting their votes. Undoubtedly, the
    legislators were aware of the existence of the provision repealing Section 67 of
    the Omnibus Election Code.

    Armando Yrasuegi vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.


    590 Phil. 490 Oct 17, 2008
    Reyes, R.T., J.

    Facts:
    Yrasuegui was a former flight attendant of PAL. He was terminated when he
    ballooned up in weight, in violation of the company policy, after repeated notice
    and warnings. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and among other
    things, claimed that PAL was discriminating against “people who are similarly
    situated”.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the petitioner was illegally dismissed

    Ruling:
    The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bonafide occupational
    qualification defense. Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to
    persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can
    show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for
    performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational
    qualification (BFOQ). In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy
    is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it
    reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job
    performance.

    The test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel


    to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably
    necessary for satisfactory job performance.”

    A common carrier, from the nature of its business and for reasons of public
    policy, is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the
    passengers it transports. It is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as
    human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
    cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances. The law leaves no
    room for mistake or oversight on the part of a common carrier. Thus, it is only
    logical to hold that the weight standards of PAL show its effort to comply with

    2
    the exacting obligations imposed upon it by law by virtue of being a common
    carrier.

    The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has committed itself to


    safely transport its passengers. In order to achieve this, it must necessarily rely
    on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight deck crew who are on board
    the aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict
    norms of discipline upon its employees.

    In other words, the primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight
    standards for cabin crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin
    attendants must maintain agility at all times in order to inspire passenger
    confidence on their ability to care for the passengers when something goes
    wrong.

    Louis Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission


    651 Phil. 374, Dec 7, 2010
    Mendoza, J.

    Facts:

    The Truth Commission (PTC) was established via an EO by Pres. Aquino. This
    is formed to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third level
    public officers and employess, along with their co-principals, accomplices and
    accessories during the GMA administration. It has all the powers of an
    investigative body but it cannot adjudicate, therefore, it is not a quasi-judicial
    body. All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption
    and make recommendations. It may have subpoena powers but it has no power
    to cite people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is a fact-
    finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause exists as to
    warrant the filing of information in our courts of law. Petitioners asked the
    Court to declare it unconstitutional because, among other things, by targeting
    specifically the Arroyo administration violates the equal protection clause, and
    to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the assailed EO violates the equal protection clause

    Ruling:
    Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No.
    1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined
    in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.
    Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
    be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It
    requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in

    3
    a similar manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every
    person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
    discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its
    improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.

    There must be equality among equals as determined according to a valid


    classification. Equal protection clause permits classification. Such
    classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The
    test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
    (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing
    conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.

    The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are
    not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.

    Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal


    protection clause. The clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and
    find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during
    the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous
    administration is plain, patent and manifest.

    Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past
    administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administrations
    similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause
    cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to
    label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution.
    Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.

    You might also like