FACTS

Having met the requirements for admission to practice law in the Philippines without
examination, Max Shoop has applied to practice in the Philippines . Under Par. 4 of the
Rules for the Examination of Candidates for Admission to practice of law, the New
York State by comity grants admission without the need for an examination under
similar circumstances to attorneys who were admitted to practice in the Philippines. In
addition, satisfactory affidavits of the applicant must indicate at least a 5-year practice in
any court of the US or its territory. However, the court still has the discretion with
regards to the admission. Meanwhile, the rule of New York court permits admission as
long as the following conditions are met:
1. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years as a member of
the bar in the highest law court in any other state or territory of the American Union or in
the District of Columbia.
2. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years in another country
whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law.
ISSUE: Whether or Not under the New York rule as it exists the principle of comity is
established.
HELD:
The Philippines is considered as an unorganized territory of the United States and is
governed by a civil government as established by the Congress. Although we are not an
organized territory, the US Congress legislates for the Philippines therefore, to an extent
we are considered as a territory according the the US Attorney General. Moreover, this
court used the theories and precedents of Anglo-American cases as its basis in
interpreting and applying its written laws of jurisidiction as well as in rendering decisions
not covered by the written low. However, the court has excluded cases where remnants
of Spanish written law present well-defined civil law theories and those that are
inconsistent with local customs and institutions. In addition, the jurisprudence of this
jurisdiction is based on the English Common Law in its present day form. New York
awards privileges to attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippines similar to the
privileges that the court has accorded.
The Petition was granted. Decision was based on the interpretation of the New York
Rule. However, this decision would not apply to future applications.


Government Vs. Springer
In the 1900s, the Philippine congress created the National Coal Company (NCC)
through Act. No 2822. This act provides that: The voting power shall be vested
exclusively in a committee consisting of the Governor-General, Senate President and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. However, in November 1926, Governor
General Leonard Wood stripped the Senate President and the House Speaker of their
voting rights by issuing Executive Order No. 37. The order reiterated that the voting
right should solely be given to the Governor-General, who is the head of the
government. The Senate President and House Speaker were given copies.
However, notwithstanding EO No. 37, NCC held its elections; and, the Senate
President and House Speaker elected Milton Springer and four other board directors.
Thereafter, a quo warranto petition that seeks to question the validity of their election
into the board of NCC was filed against Springer and four other members on behalf of
the government.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate President and House Speaker can validly elect the
Board Members of NCC
HELD:
The court ruled negative as Executive Order No. 37 is valid in accordance with the
doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court reiterated that the legislature
creates public offices but cannot designate people to fill the office. Appointing people to
a public office is solely the role of the executive department. NCC is considered as a
government owned and controlled corporation created by the congress. To extend the
power of the Congress by appointing members of the NCC clearly invades the
executive powers. However, the Supreme court notes that exceptions to this rule exist
such as appointment of member within the legislative branch. Such exception exists as
they do not weaken the power of the executive branch.

Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. # 88211 September 15, 1989
FACTS:
Ferdinand E. Marcos was removed from presidency and was forced into exile. Corazon
Aquino ascended into the position and her government was repeatedly challenged by
failed coup attempts as well as plots by Marcos loyalist and the Marcoses themselves.
In his deathbed, Marcos made his wish to return to the Philippines to die known.
However, President Aquino stood firm on her decision to bar the return of the Marcos
family as this may have dire consequences to the nation. This petition was then filed for
the mandamus and prohibition that asks the court to order the respondent to issue
travel documents to Mr. Ferdinand Marcos and immediate family members and to take
charge of the implementation of the Presidents decision to bar their return to the
country.

Issues: Whether or not the president has the power to block the return of the Marcoses
to the Philippines. If she has the power to bar, is there any finding that made clear that
their return presents a danger to the public? Finally, have the requirements of due
process been complied in the making of the finding?
Held:
The petition was dismissed. The request of the Marcoses must be treated as an issue
that is appropriately addressed by the unstated powers of the President which are
implicit in her offices duty to safeguard and protect the general welfare. Such request or
demand should be under the broader discretion of the President to determine whether it
must be granted or denied. The court has also found factual bases for the Presidents
decision as there were coups, communist threats, peace and order issues especially in
Mindanao. Moreover, the court reasoned that We cannot also lose sight of the fact that
the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the
plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and
relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a pWosition to destabilize the
country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its
efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign
jurisdictions.

FACTS
Republic Act Number 972 otherwise known as Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 was passed
by the congress. In accordance with this law, the Supreme court passed and granted
privilege of admission to the bar those candidates who obtained an average of 72%
after raising it to 75%. After the approval of RA 972, many unsuccessful post war
candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar by invoking its provisions. Those
pending motions for revision of examination papers also invoked the law as an
additional ground for admission. However, others continued to simply seek
reconsideration of their grades without invoking the law. To avoid injustice to individual
petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration irrespective of
whether or not they invoked the law.
ISSUE: Is RA 972 constitutional and valid?
HELD: RA 972 is held to be unconstitutional. Republic Act 972 has for its object those
who have suffered from inadequate preparation and insufficiency of reading materials.
In the judicial system from which we have derived our own judicial system, admission,
suspension and reinstatement of attorneys of law in the practice of their profession and
their supervision have been a undisputed judiciary function. It is also very clear that
there is a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative
departments of the government. Therefore, the ultimate power to grant admission to bar
belongs exclusively to the Court. Moreover, the law passed by the Congress is
permissive or is created to merely fix the minimum requirements for the license.