1.

Noblejasvssalas

Petitioner Antonio H. Noblejas is the duly appointed, confirmed and qualified Commissioner of Land Registration, a position created by RA 1151. He is entitled to receive the same compensation, emoluments and privileges as those of a judge of the CFI. That on 7 March 1968, respondent Secretary of Justice wrote a letter to the petitioner requiring him to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner for approving or recommending the approval of subdivision, consolidation and consolidated-subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles. In his reply, the Secretary of Justice cannot suspend nor investigate since it can only be done in the same manner as a judge of CFI; therefore, papers relative to his case should be submitted to the Supreme Court. In this regard, he received a letter suspending him for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to public interest. ISSUE: WON the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court. Held: No Rationale: The judiciary Act of the Philippines provides for investigation, suspension or removal of judges, specifically recites that No District Judge shall be separated or removed from office by the president of the Philippine sunless sufficient cause shall exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court. . . and it is nowhere claimed, that the Commissioner of Land Registration is a District Judge, or in fact a member of the Judiciary at all. Petitioners theory that the grant of privileges of Jud ges of CFI includes by implication the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its recommendation, would result in the same right being possessed by a variety of executive officials upon whom the Legislature had indiscriminately conferred the same. If the Legislature intended to include the general grant of privileges or rank and privileges of judges of CFi the right to be investigated by the Supreme Court such would be unconstitutional as it would violate fundamental doctrine of separation of powers. 2. FACTS: Former President, Ferdinand Marcos wishes to return to the Philippines after having been exiled but has been barred by the then president Aquino in exercise of Police Power as his return is prejudicial to national interest. Petitioner assert that the right of the Marcos to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, Sec. 1 right to life, liberty and property; and, Sec. 6. Liberty of abode except upon lawful order of the court. They further argue that before liberty of abode may be impaired, there should be a legislative act to that effect. Petitioner further assert that under international law, the right of Marcos to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights. MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS

ISSUE: WON the president acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoss to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. Held: NO RATIONALE: the president also has implied residual powers inherent to the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The president has powers other than those expressly stated in the Constitution. She did not act in grave abuse of discretion. As long as there is some factual basis for the presidents decision, there Is no grave abuse of discretion. Sec. 20.Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law.chanrobles virtua Also, The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre- emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the peoples sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility. 3. ARANETA VS GATMAITAN

FACTS: The President issued E.O 22 - prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel Bay, and the E.O 66 and 80 as amendments to EO 22, as a response for the general clamor among the majority of people living in the coastal towns of San Miguel Bay that the said resources of the area are in danger of major depletion because of the effects of trawl fishing. A group of Otter trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from enforcing the said E.O. and to declare E.O 22 as null and void. Issue:W/N E.O 22, 60 and 80 were valid, for the issuance thereof was not in the exercise of legislative powers unduly delegated to the Pres. Held: VALID! Congress provided under the Fisheries Act that a.) it is unlawful to take or catch fry or fish eggs in the waters of the Phil and b.) it authorizes Sec. of Agriculture and Nat. Resources to provide regulations/ restrictions as may be deemed necessary. The Act was complete in itself and leaves it to the Sec. to carry into effect its legislative intent. The Pres. did nothing but show an anxious regard for the welfare of the inhabitants and dispose of issues of gen. concern w/c were in consonance and strict conformity with law. 4. Larinvs EXECUTIVE Secretary FACTS:

Larin, a Revenue Specific Tax Officer under the Assistant Commissioner of the BIR, is convicted of crimes of violation of sec. 268 (4) NIRC and sec. 3 (e) RA 3019 (grave misconduct). Acting by authority of the president, Sr. Deputy Executive Secretary Quisumbing issued a memorandum order, creating an Executive Committee to investigate Larinsadministrative charge. While the investigation was going on, the President issued E.O. 132, streamlining the BIR and abolishing the office of the Specific Tax Service. Afterwards, Larin was found guilty and was subsequently dismissed. However, in the appealed case, SC set aside the conviction of Larin ISSUE: W/N Larin was unlawfully removed from office (1) Does the President have the power to dismiss him? Reorganize the BIR? (2) Was reorganization valid, considering that there was no law enacted by Congress authorizing reorganization by the Executive HELD: SC held that removal as a result of reorganization was done in bad faith. Does the President have the power to dismiss him? Larin is a presidential appointee. As such, he comes under the direct disciplining authority of the President for the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. However, Larin is a career service officer, therefore, he enjoys security of tenure. Under the Civil Service Decree, career service officers and employees who enjoy security of tenure may be removed only for any of the causes enumerated in said law. In other words, the fact that the petitioner is a presidential appointee does not give the appointing authority the license to remove him at will or at his pleasure for it is an admitted fact that he is likewise a career service officer who under the law is the recipient of tenurial protection, thus, may only be removed for a cause and in accordance with procedural due process. Was the removal for a legal cause under a valid proceeding? SC held that the removal complied with the requirements for procedural due process but that the dismissal was not for a valid cause. The basis used in Larins removal is the criminal conviction against him, but this conviction was later set aside by the Supreme Court upon appeal. Where the very basis of the administrative case against petitioner is his conviction in the criminal action which was later on set aside by this court upon a categorical and clear findings that the acts for which he was administratively held liable are not unlawful and irregular, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case necessarily entails the dismissal of the administrative action against him, because in sch a case, there is no basis nor justifiable reason to maintain the administrative suit. Does the President have the power to reorganize the BIR? Yes, under sec. 48 and 62 of RA 7645, sec. 20, Bk. III of EO 292 (Residual Powers), and PD 1772 which amended PD 1416. But while the Presidents power to reorganize can not be denied, this does not mean however that the reorganization itself is properly made in accordance with law. Well-settled is the rule that reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith.