Paras v.

COMELEC Case Digest

Paras v. COMELEC G.R. No. 123169 (November 4, 1996) FACTS: A petition for recall was filed against Paras, who is the incumbent Punong Barangay. The recall election was deferred due to Petitioners opposition that under Sec. 74 of RA No. 7160, no recall shall take place within one year from the date of the officials assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. Since the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set on the first Monday of May 2006, no recall may be instituted. ISSUE: W/N the SK election is a local election. HELD: No. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to its context, and it must be considered together and kept subservient to its general intent. The evident intent of Sec. 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall once during his term, as provided in par. (a) and par. (b). The spirit, rather than the letter of a law, determines its construction. Thus, interpreting the phrase regular local election to include SK election will unduly circumscribe the Code for there will never be a recall election rendering inutile the provision. In interpreting a statute, the Court assumed that the legislature intended to enact an effective law. An interpretation should be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory.

Association Of Small Landowners Vs. Secretary Of DAR Case Digest

Asso. Of Small Landowners Vs. Sec. Of DAR 175 SCRA 343 G.R. No. L-78742 July 14, 1989

Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislatures power. b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victorias Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion. c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.

Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EOs, PD, and RA were constitutional. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent domain. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain. RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer. A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the method. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it.

G.R. No. 118712 | October 6, 1995 | LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO,AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.| FRANCISCO,R., J.: DIGEST FACTS The nature of the case is the consolidation of two separate petitions for review filed byDepartment of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, assailing the Court of Appeals decision, which granted private respondents' petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and DevelopmentCorporation or AMADCOR (private respondents) are landowners whose landholdings wereacquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DARand the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land,private respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition questioning the validity of DARAdministrative Order No. 6 (1992) and No. 9 (1990), and sought to compel the DAR toexpedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the justcompensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds theamounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for privaterespondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same. The Supreme Court referred thepetition to CA for proper determination and disposition. The CA found the following facts undisputed:Respondents argued that Admin. Order No. 9 (1990) was issued in grave abuse of discretionamounting excess in jurisdiction because it permits the opening of trust accounts by theLandbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR,the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided underSection 16(e) of RA 6657. DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked", "deposited in trust" or"reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate thatbefore taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or inbonds.On the other hand, petitioner DAR contended that Admin Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of itsrule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.Landbank averred that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits is in consonance withCircular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words"reserved/deposited" were also used. ISSUES 1. WON CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR Admin Order No. 9 (1990) insofar as itprovides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds2. WON CA erred in holding that private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to theimmediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the finalresolution of the cases it has filed for just compensation.

RULING: NO. Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 provides:Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from thelandowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DARshall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Registerof Deeds to issue a TCT in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.It is explicit that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". Nowhere does itappear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. There is noambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term"deposit". The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. Action of anadministrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is anerror of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearlyconflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment. The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thusconfined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is thatadministrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment,

forsettled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy between the basic law and an implementing ruleor regulation, it is the former that prevails.2. YES. To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already depositedin their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR'svaluation, and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession anduse of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. It is unnecessary todistinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final compensationunder Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same; the landowner is deprived of the use andpossession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated.Wherefore, petition is denied for lack of merit. Appealed decision is affirmed