Iven Pacatang- case digest

IVEN B. PACATANG-Digested Cases in Constitutional Law

ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO

G.R. No. 95279 July 25, 1991

FACTS:

     Herein petitioner claimed that the Quonset building located in Port Area, Basilan which was purchased by Gregoria Francisco (deceased) was with a permit to occupy the lot issued by the Philippine Ports Authority (Port of Zamboanga). The said property was used for storage of copra and was alleged by the Municipality of Basilan as represented by Mayor Benjamin Valencia, herein respondent, that it was a nuisance and would endanger the health, safety and general welfare in pursuant to the Municipal Ordinance "clean-up campaign on illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard." The Respondent Municipal Mayor ordered the demolition and Respondent municipal employees implemented the demolition, for which reason they are also impleaded.

ISSUE:

     Whether or not Respondent Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition of petitioner's quonset building.

HELD:

     NO. It is a contravention of the requirements of due process. Moreover, the enforcement and administration of the provisions of the Ordinance resides with the Zoning Administrator. It is said official who may call upon the City Fiscal to institute the necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance .Respondents can’t seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of nuisances without judicial proceedings. The storage of copra in the quonset building is a legitimate business. By its nature, it can’t be said to be injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community. While the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a nuisance, it can’t declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its condemnation. 

       Municipal councils do not have the power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per se nor can they authorize the extra judicial condemnation and destruction of that as a nuisance which, in its nature, situation or use is not such. These things must be determined in the ordinary courts of law. It was entitled to an impartial hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether the quonset building did constitute a nuisance in law. They had deprived petitioner of its property without due process of law.

SPOUSES CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ AND ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DENNIS GARAY, RESPONDENTS.

 G. R. NO. 167011, APRIL 30, 2008 

FACTS:

     Dennis Garay filed a case alleging that petitioners made false and untruthful representations in violation of Section 10[11] of Republic Act Nos. 8189, by indicating therein that they are residents of 935 San Jose Street, Burauen, Leyte, when in truth and in fact, they were and still are residents of 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa Street, Bagong Lipunan ng Crame, Quezon City.                        

The petitioners contended, inter alia that Section 45(j) of the Voter’s Registration Act was void for being vague as it did not refer to a definite provision of the law, the violation of which would constitute an election offense ; hence, it ran contrary to Section 14(1) and section 14 (2) , Article III of the 1987 Constitution ( due process clause)

       Nevertheless, the Commission on Election (COMELEC) Charged the petitioners with violations of Section 10 (g) and (j) , in relation to Section 45 (J) of the Voter’s Registration Act.

1.    Section 10(g) and Section 10(j) of Republic Act No. 8189, provides that a qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration as prescribed by the Commission in three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired the qualifications of a voter. The application shall, inter alia, contain the following data: Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration and a statement that the application is not a registered voter of any precinct.

2.    Section 45(j) of the same Act provides, inter alia, that the following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: “Violation of any of the provisions of this Act”.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of its jurisdiction when it premised its resolution on a misapprehension of facts and failed to consider certain relevant facts that would justify a different conclusion.

HELD:

NO. The Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. However, this Court has imposed certain limitations by which a criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar, may be scrutinized. This Court has declared that facial invalidation or an “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate.

        Indeed, an “on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement of “actual case and controversy” and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual concreteness.The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge.

        Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.It is succinct that courts will not substitute the finding of probable cause by the COMELEC in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.