4 Court martial is a lawful tribunal existing by same authority that any other

4 court martial is a lawful tribunal existing by same

This preview shows page 33 - 36 out of 47 pages.

4. Court-martial is a lawful tribunal existing by same authority that any other exists by, and the military law is a branch of law as valid as the others. It differs from other laws only because- it applies to officers and soldiers but not to other members of the body politic, it is limited to beaches of military duty.
Image of page 33
PUYAT vs DE GUZMAN Facts: After an election for the Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held, one group, the respondent Acero group, instituted at the SEC quo warranto proceedings, questioning the election. Justice Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero to which the petitioner, Puyat group, objected on Constitutional ground that no Assemblyman could “appear as counsel before any administrative body,” and SEC was an administrative body. Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his appearance for respondent Acero. Assemblyman Fernandez had purchased 10 shares of IPI for P200.00 upon request of respondent Acero. Following the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez’ purchase, he filed a motion for intervention in the SEC case as the owner of 10 IPI shares alleging legal interest in the matter in litigation. The SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis of Fernandez’ ownership of the said 10 shares. Issue: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, as a stockholder of IPI, may intervene in the SEC case without violating Sec. 11, Art. VIII (now Sec. 14, Art. VI) of the Constitution? Decision: Commissioner’s order granting Fernandez to leave to intervene in SEC was reversed and set aside. He had signified his intention to appear as counsel for Acero which was objected to by petitioners. He decided, instead, to intervene on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. the Court is constrained to find that there has been an indirect appearance as counsel before an administrative body. That is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition contained in Sec. 11, Art. VIII (now Sec. 14, Art. VI). The intervention was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.
Image of page 34
PJA vs PRADO 227 SCRA 703 G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993 FACTS: Petitioners assailed the validity of Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 which withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices. The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its title embraces more than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its passage; and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.
Image of page 35
Image of page 36

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture