Validity of Laws Presumption of Constitutionality Related Cases ALBA VS EVANGELISTA

Ponente: Felix, J. Nature: Original action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari with preliminary injunction. Facts: On January 1, 1954, the President of the Philippines appointed Vivencio Alajar as Vice-Mayor of the City of Roxas. On November 23, 1955, Alajar received a telegram from the President informing him that the office will now be transferred to Juliano Alba. Alajar claims that: 1) He was appointed VM on January 1, 1954, confirmed by CA and Alba usurped his office as VM 2) There existed no vacancy in the position at the time of designation of Alba 3) There existed no legal cause or reason whatsoever for his removal and disqualification The LC deemed the removal of Alajar as illegal and he is entitled to remain in office as Vice-Mayor. Alba filed for an appeal while Alajar petitioned for immediate execution of judgement, which was approved. Alba thereafter filed a case to the Supreme Court against Judge Evangelista claiming that the decision was improperly issued. The Solicitor General intervened alleging that the order of immediate execution deprived him of defending the constitutionality of Sec 8 of RA 603. The Solicitor General referred to the tenure of officials stating that public office is the right, authority and duty created by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, and individual participate in the government. Term is different from

tenure as the former applies to elected officials and the latter applies to appointed ones. After all foregoing circumstances are found to be present, it must be shown that the statute violates that constitution clearly, palpably, plainly and in such a manner as to leave no doubt in the mind of the court. The order of the court by Judge Evangelista was ordered null and void. WON Section constitutional 8 of RA 603 is

Held: Yes. The court presumes that every statute is valid. In case of a law being interpreted either as unconstitutional or valid, the court adopts the definition with validity because of the presumption of constitutionality. The separation of powers makes the enactment and repeal of laws exclusively a legislative function.

permissible limit of police power. The decision came on July 29, 1962 when the lower court declared unconstitutional, null and void Section 7, RA 3019, insofar as it required periodical submittal of sworn statements of financial conditions, assets and liabilities of an official or employee of the government after he had once submitted such a sworn statement upon assuming office. This decision is now put on appeal. In absence of a factual foundation, the decision on matter purely on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts, the presumption of validity must prevail. Neither is this statute proven to be invading liberty protected by the due process clause. The provision explicitly stated all things and acts in detail to make clear to all what were prohibited and penalized. WON Section 7 of RA 3019 is indeed unconstitutional, null and void. Held: No. The decision of lower court was reversed on the grounds that there was no factual foundation on which the nullification of the section of the stature could be based. The law clearly and specifically placed safeguards and the public officials upon election submit themselves to the process.

which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those invoking constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

3.

MORFE VS MUTUC
Ponente: Fernando, J. Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Facts: Congress in 1960 enacted the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act (RA 3019). One of the specific provisions is that every public officer, either within 30 days after its approval of after his assumption of office and within the month of January of every year thereafter, as well as upon the termination of his position, shall prepare and file with the head of the office to which he belongs, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year. This provision is believed to be an invasion of liberty protected by the due process clause and is an insult to the personal integrity and official dignity when it implies that officials are corrupt at heart. Furthermore, the provision exceeds

Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle or law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

Article VIII, Sec 4 Judicial Department

1.

The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc of in its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases

2.