1/3/2017

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))

USETHESEARCHFORALLYOURLEGALRESEARCHNEEDS:
Search

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))(/law
library/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutional
law/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html)
ConstitutionalLaw(/LawLibrary/PoliticalAndPublicInternationalLaw/ConstitutionalLaw.Html)

1 MORE CHANCE FOR TWO LOVERS

Like

Tweet

Share

Share

U.S.SupremeCourt

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))
UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,PRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES,ETAL.CERTIORARIBEFOREJUDGMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFOR
THE
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIACIRCUIT.
No.731766.
ArguedJuly8,1974.
DecidedJuly24,1974.*
[Footnote*]TogetherwithNo.731834,Nixon,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesv.UnitedStates,alsooncertioraribeforejudgmenttothesamecourt.

FACTS:
OnMarch1,1974,agrandjuryoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbiareturnedanindictmentchargingsevennamedindividuals.withvarious
offenses,includingconspiracytodefraudtheUnitedStatesandtoobstructjustice.Althoughhewasnotdesignatedassuchintheindictment,thegrandjurynamedthe
President,amongothers,asanunindictedcoconspirator.OnApril18,1974,uponmotionoftheSpecialProsecutor,asubpoenaducestecumwasissuedpursuantto
Rule17(c)tothePresidentbytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtandmadereturnableonMay2,1974.Thesubpoenarequiredtheproductionofcertaintapes,
memoranda,papers,transcripts,orotherwritingsrelatingtocertainpreciselyidentifiedmeetingsbetweenthePresidentandothers.
OnApril30,thePresidentpubliclyreleasededitedtranscriptsof43conversationsportionsof20conversationssubjecttosubpoenainthepresentcasewereincluded.
OnMay1,1974,thePresident'scounselfileda"specialappearance"andamotiontoquashthesubpoenaunderRule17(c).Thismotionwasaccompaniedbyaformal
claimofprivilege.
OnMay20,1974,theDistrictCourtdeniedthemotiontoquashandthemotionstoexpungeandforprotectiveorders.,itfurtherorderedtodelivertotheDistrictCourt,
onorbeforeMay31,1974,theoriginalsofallsubpoenaeditems,aswellasanindexandanalysisofthoseitems,togetherwithtapecopiesofthoseportionsofthe
subpoenaedrecordingsforwhichtranscriptshadbeenreleasedtothepublicbythePresidentonApril30.TheDistrictCourtrejectedjurisdictionalchallengesbasedona
contentionthatthedisputewasnonjusticiablebecauseitwasbetweentheSpecialProsecutorandtheChiefExecutiveandhence"intraexecutive"incharacter.
TheDistrictCourtheldthatthejudiciary,notthePresident,wasthefinalarbiterofaclaimofexecutiveprivilege.Thecourtconcludedthat,underthecircumstancesof
thiscase,thepresumptiveprivilegewasovercomebytheSpecialProsecutor'sprimafacie"demonstrationofneedsufficientlycompellingtowarrantjudicialexamination
inchambers...."OnMay24,1974,thePresidentfiledatimelynoticeofappealfromtheDistrictCourtorder,andthecertifiedrecordfromtheDistrictCourt.OnMay
31,thepetitionwasgrantedwithanexpeditedbriefingschedule.OnJune6,thePresidentfiled,underseal,acrosspetitionforwritofcertioraribeforejudgment.This
crosspetitionwasgrantedJune15,1974,andthecasewassetforargumentonJuly8,1974.

ISSUE:
http://www.batasnatin.com/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html

1/5

1/3/2017

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))

WhetherornotthesubpoenaducestecumisbindinguponthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesbasedontheprinciplesofexecutiveprivilegeandseparationofpowers.

DECISION:
Yes,thesubpoenaisbindinguponthePresidentoftheUnitesStates.
Decision:Affirmed.
RATIO/REASON:
I.JURISDICTION
ThethresholdquestionpresentediswhethertheMay20,1974,orderoftheDistrictCourtwasanappealableorderandwhetherthiscasewasproperly"in"theCourtof
AppealswhenthepetitionforcertiorariwasfiledinthisCourt.ThejurisdictionoftheCourtofAppealsencompassesonlyfinaldecisionsofthedistrictcourts.Inapplying
thisprincipletoanorderdenyingamotiontoquashandrequiringtheproductionofevidencepursuanttoasubpoenaducestecum,ithasbeenreportedlyheldthatthe
orderisnotfinalandhencenotappealable.
ThisCourthas,inanearliercase:
"consistentlyheldthatthenecessityforexpeditionintheadministrationofthecriminallawjustifiesputtingonewhoseekstoresisttheproductionofdesiredinformation
toachoicebetweencompliancewithatrialcourt'sordertoproducepriortoanyreviewofthatorder,andresistancetothatorderwiththeconcomitantpossibilityofan
adjudicationofcontemptifhisclaimsarerejectedonappeal."
Thiswouldmeanthatathirdpartywhohasbeenissuedasubpoenatoproducedocumentswouldbasicallyhaveonly2options:first,tocomplywithsuchorderand
second,toresisttotheorderwiththepossibilityofbeingheldincontemptifthethirdpartysclaimsarerejectedonappeal.Inthecaseatbar,thetraditionalcontempt
avenuetoimmediateappealispeculiarlyinappropriateduetotheuniquesettingofthecase.TheseconsiderationsleadustoconcludethattheorderoftheDistrictCourt
wasanappealableorder.
II.JUSTICIABILITY
IntheDistrictCourt,thePresidentscounselarguedthatthecourtlackedjurisdictiontoissuethesubpoenabecausethematterwasaninterbranchdisputebetweena
subordinateandsuperiorofficeroftheExecutivebranch.SincetheExecutiveBranchhasexclusiveauthorityandabsolutediscretiontodecidewhethertoprosecutea
case,itiscontendedthataPresident'sdecisionisfinalindeterminingwhatevidenceistobeusedinagivencriminalcase.Althoughhiscounselconcedesthatthe
PresidenthasdelegatedcertainspecificpowerstotheSpecialProsecutor,hehasnot"waivednordelegatedtotheSpecialProsecutorthePresident'sdutytoclaim
privilegeastoallmaterials...whichfallwithinthePresident'sinherentauthoritytorefusetodisclosetoanyexecutiveofficer."
However,themereassertionofaclaimofan"intrabranchdispute,"withoutmore,hasneveroperatedtodefeatfederaljurisdictionjusticiabilitydoesnotdependon
suchasurfaceinquiry.TheissueistheproductionornonproductionofspecifiedevidencedeemedbytheSpecialProsecutortoberelevantandadmissibleinapending
criminalcase.ItissoughtbyoneofficialoftheExecutiveBranchwithinthescopeofhisexpressauthorityitisresistedbytheChiefExecutiveonthegroundofhisdutyto
preservetheconfidentialityofthecommunicationsofthePresident.Whateverthecorrectansweronthemerits,theseissuesare"ofatypewhicharetraditionally
justiciable."Inlightoftheuniquenessofthesettinginwhichtheconflictarises,thefactthatbothpartiesareofficersoftheExecutiveBranchcannotbeviewedasa
barriertojusticiability.

III.RULE17(c)
ThesubpoenaducestecumischallengedonthegroundthattheSpecialProsecutorfailedtosatisfytherequirementsofFed.RuleCrim.Proc.17(c),whichgoverns.the
issuanceofsubpoenasducestecuminfederalcriminalproceedings.Ifwesustainedthischallenge,therewouldbenooccasiontoreachtheclaimofprivilegeasserted
withrespecttothesubpoenaedmaterial.
Rule17(c)provides:
"Asubpoenamayalsocommandthepersontowhomitisdirectedtoproducethebooks,papers,documentsorotherobjectsdesignatedtherein.Thecourtonmotion
madepromptlymayquashormodifythesubpoenaifcompliancewouldbeunreasonableoroppressive.Thecourtmaydirectthatbooks,papers,documentsorobjects
designatedinthesubpoenabeproducedbeforethecourtatatimepriortothetrialorpriortothetimewhentheyaretobeofferedinevidenceandmayupontheir
productionpermitthebooks,papers,documentsorobjectsorportionsthereoftobeinspectedbythepartiesandtheirattorneys."
Asubpoenafordocumentsmaybequashediftheirproductionwouldbe"unreasonableoroppressive,"butnototherwise.Thiscaserecognizedcertainfundamental
characteristicsofthesubpoenaducestecumincriminalcases:(1)itwasnotintendedtoprovideameansofdiscoveryforcriminalcasesofsubpoenaedmaterials.
Underthistest,inordertorequireproductionpriortotrial,themovingpartymustshow:(1)thatthedocumentsareevidentiaryandrelevant(2)thattheyarenot
otherwiseprocurablereasonablyinadvanceoftrialbyexerciseofduediligence(3)thatthepartycannotproperlypreparefortrialwithoutsuchproductionand
inspectioninadvanceoftrialandthatthefailuretoobtainsuchinspectionmaytendunreasonablytodelaythetrialand(4)thattheapplicationismadeingoodfaithand
isnotintendedasageneral"fishingexpedition."
Ourconclusionisbasedontherecordbeforeus,muchofwhichisunderseal.Ofcourse,thecontentsofthesubpoenaedtapescouldnotatthatstagebedescribedfully
bytheSpecialProsecutor,buttherewasasufficientlikelihoodthateachofthetapescontainsconversationsrelevanttotheoffenseschargedintheindictment.Wealso
concludetherewasasufficientpreliminaryshowingthateachofthesubpoenaedtapescontainsevidenceadmissiblewithrespecttotheoffenseschargedinthe
indictment.Themostcogentobjectiontotheadmissibilityofthetapedconversationshereatissueisthattheyareacollectionofoutofcourtstatementsbydeclarants
whowillnotbesubjecttocrossexaminationandthatthestatementsarethereforeinadmissiblehearsay.Here,however,mostofthetapesapparentlycontain
conversationstowhichoneormoreofthedefendantsnamedintheindictmentwereparty.Thehearsayruledoesnotautomaticallybaralloutofcourtstatementsbya
defendantinacriminalcase.Declarationsbyonedefendantmayalsobeadmissibleagainstotherdefendantsuponasufficientshowing,byindependentevidence,ofa
conspiracyamongoneormoreotherdefendantsandthedeclarantandifthedeclarationsatissuewereinfurtheranceofthatconspiracy.Thesameistrueof
declarationsofcoconspiratorswhoarenotdefendantsinthecaseontrial.Recordedconversationsmayalsobeadmissibleforthelimitedpurposeofimpeachingthe
credibilityofanydefendantwhotestifiesoranyothercoconspiratorwhotestifies.Generally,theneedforevidencetoimpeachwitnessesisinsufficienttorequireits

http://www.batasnatin.com/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html

2/5

1/3/2017

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))

productioninadvanceoftrial.Here,however,thereareothervalidpotentialevidentiaryusesforthesamematerial,andtheanalysisandpossibletranscriptionofthe
tapesmaytakeasignificantperiodoftime.Accordingly,wecannotconcludethattheDistrictCourterredinauthorizingtheissuanceofthesubpoenaducestecum.
[w]earepersuadedthattheDistrictCourt'sdenialofthePresident'smotiontoquashthesubpoenawasconsistentwithRule17(c).WealsoconcludethattheSpecial
Prosecutorhasmadeasufficientshowingtojustifyasubpoenaforproductionbeforetrial.Thesubpoenaedmaterialsarenotavailablefromanyothersource,andtheir
examinationandprocessingshouldnotawaittrialinthecircumstancesshown.
IV.THECLAIMOFPRIVILEGE
A.
ThefirstcontentionisabroadclaimthattheseparationofpowersdoctrineprecludesjudicialreviewofaPresident'sclaimofprivilege.Thesecondcontentionisthatifhe
doesnotprevailontheclaimofabsoluteprivilege,thecourtshouldholdasamatterofconstitutionallawthattheprivilegeprevailsoverthesubpoenaducestecum.
Oursystemofgovernment"requiresthatfederalcourtsonoccasioninterprettheConstitutioninamanneratvariancewiththeconstructiongiventhedocumentby
anotherbranch."Powellv.McCormack,supra,at549.AndinBakerv.Carr,369U.S.,at211,theCourtstated:
"DecidingwhetheramatterhasinanymeasurebeencommittedbytheConstitutiontoanotherbranchofgovernment,orwhethertheactionofthatbranchexceeds
whateverauthorityhasbeencommitted,isitselfadelicateexerciseinconstitutionalinterpretation,andisaresponsibilityofthisCourtasultimateinterpreterofthe
Constitution."
WethereforereaffirmthatitistheprovinceanddutyofthisCourt"tosaywhatthelawis"withrespecttotheclaimofprivilegepresentedinthiscase.
B.
Insupportofhisclaimofabsoluteprivilege,thePresident'scounselurgestwogrounds,oneofwhichiscommontoallgovernmentsandoneofwhichispeculiartoour
systemofseparationofpowers.ThefirstgroundisthevalidneedforprotectionofcommunicationsbetweenhighGovernmentofficialsandthosewhoadviseandassist
themintheperformanceoftheirmanifoldduties.WhateverthenatureoftheprivilegeofconfidentialityofPresidentialcommunicationsintheexerciseofArt.IIpowers,
theprivilegecanbesaidtoderivefromthesupremacyofeachbranchwithinitsownassignedareaofconstitutionalduties.Certainpowersandprivilegesflowfromthe
natureofenumeratedpowers.
ThesecondgroundassertedbythePresident'scounselinsupportoftheclaimofabsoluteprivilegerestsonthedoctrineofseparationofpowers.Hereitisarguedthat
theindependenceoftheExecutiveBranchwithinitsownsphere,itinsulatesaPresidentfromajudicialsubpoenainanongoingcriminalprosecution,andthereby
protectsconfidentialPresidentialcommunications.
Neitherthedoctrineofseparationofpowers,northeneedforconfidentialityofhighlevelcommunications,withoutmore,cansustainanabsolute,unqualified
Presidentialprivilegeofimmunityfromjudicialprocessunderallcircumstances.Whentheprivilegedependssolelyonthebroad,undifferentiatedclaimofpublicinterest
intheconfidentialityofsuchconversations,aconfrontationwithothervaluesarises.Absentaclaimofneedtoprotectmilitary,diplomatic,orsensitivenationalsecurity
secrets,wefinditdifficulttoaccepttheargumentthateventheveryimportantinterestinconfidentialityofPresidentialcommunicationsissignificantlydiminishedby
productionofsuchmaterialforincamerainspectionwithalltheprotectionthatadistrictcourtwillbeobligedtoprovide.
ToreadtheArt.IIpowersofthePresidentasprovidinganabsoluteprivilegeasagainstasubpoenaessentialtoenforcementofcriminalstatutesonnomorethana
generalizedclaimofthepublicinterestinconfidentialityofnonmilitaryandnondiplomaticdiscussionswouldupsettheconstitutionalbalanceof"aworkablegovernment"
andgravelyimpairtheroleofthecourtsunderArt.III.
C.
InthiscasethePresidentchallengesasubpoenaservedonhimasathirdpartyrequiringtheproductionofmaterialsforuseinacriminalprosecutionhedoessoonthe
claimthathehasaprivilegeagainstdisclosureofconfidentialcommunications.Hedoesnotplacehisclaimofprivilegeonthegroundtheyaremilitaryordiplomatic
secrets.Thepresumptiveprivilege[confidentialityofhisconversations]mustbeconsideredwiththehistoriccommitmentoftheruleoflaw,specificallythetwofoldaim
thatguiltshallnotescapeorinnocenceshallnotsuffer.TheSixthAmendmentexplicitlyconfersuponeverydefendantinacriminaltrialtheright"tobeconfrontedwith
thewitnessesagainsthim"and"tohavecompulsoryprocessforobtainingwitnessesinhisfavor."Moreover,theFifthAmendmentalsoguaranteesthatnopersonshall
bedeprivedoflibertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.
InthiscasewemustweightheimportanceofthegeneralprivilegeofconfidentialityofPresidentialcommunicationsinperformanceofthePresident'sresponsibilities
againsttheinroadsofsuchaprivilegeonthefairadministrationofcriminaljustice.ThePresident'sbroadinterestinconfidentialityofcommunicationswillnotbevitiated
bydisclosureofalimitednumberofconversationspreliminarilyshowntohavesomebearingonthependingcriminalcases.
Weconcludethatwhenthegroundforassertingprivilegeastosubpoenaedmaterialssoughtforuseinacriminaltrialisbasedonlyonthegeneralizedinterestin
confidentiality.Itcannotprevailoverthefundamentaldemandsofdueprocessoflawinthefairadministrationofcriminaljustice.
D
WehaveearlierdeterminedthattheDistrictCourtdidnoterrinauthorizingtheissuanceofthesubpoena.IfaPresidentconcludesthatcompliancewithasubpoena
wouldbeinjurioustothepublicinteresthemayproperly,aswasdonehere,invokeaclaimofprivilegeonthereturnofthesubpoena.Uponreceivingaclaimofprivilege
fromtheChiefExecutive,itbecamethefurtherdutyoftheDistrictCourttotreatthesubpoenaedmaterialaspresumptivelyprivilegedandtorequiretheSpecial
ProsecutortodemonstratethatthePresidentialmaterialwas"essentialtothejusticeofthe[pendingcriminal]case."
E
Thoseissuesnowhavingbeendisposedof,thematterofimplementationwillrestwiththeDistrictCourt."[T]heguard,furnishedto[thePresident]toprotecthimfrom
beingharassedbyvexatiousandunnecessarysubpoenas,istobelookedforintheconductofa[district]courtafterthosesubpoenashaveissuednotinany
circumstancewhichistoprecedetheirbeingissued."Statementsthatmeetthetestofadmissibilityandrelevancemustbeisolatedallothermaterialmustbeexcised.It
iselementarythatincamerainspectionofevidenceisalwaysaprocedurecallingforscrupulousprotectionagainstanyreleaseorpublicationofmaterialnotfoundbythe
court,atthatstage,probablyadmissibleinevidenceandrelevanttotheissuesofthetrialforwhichitissought.
ItisthereforenecessaryinthepublicinteresttoaffordPresidentialconfidentialitythegreatestprotectionconsistentwiththefairadministrationofjustice.Theneedfor
confidentialityevenastoidleconversationswithassociatesinwhichcasualreferencemightbemadeconcerningpoliticalleaderswithinthecountryorforeignstatesmen
istooobvioustocallforfurthertreatment.

SECTION4.

http://www.batasnatin.com/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html

3/5

1/3/2017

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))

THEPRESIDENTANDTHEVICEPRESIDENTSHALLBEELECTEDBYDIRECTVOTEOFTHEPEOPLEFORATERMOFSIXYEARSWHICHSHALLBEGINAT
NOONONTHETHIRTIETHDAYOFJUNENEXTFOLLOWINGTHEDAYOFTHEELECTIONANDSHALLENDATNOONOFTHESAMEDATE,SIXYEARS
THEREAFTER.THEPRESIDENTSHALLNOTBEELIGIBLEFORANYREELECTION.NOPERSONWHOHASSUCCEEDEDASPRESIDENTANDHASSERVEDAS
SUCHFORMORETHANFOURYEARSSHALLBEQUALIFIEDFORELECTIONTOTHESAMEOFFICEATANYTIME.
NOVICEPRESIDENTSHALLSERVEFORMORETHANTWOSUCCESSIVETERMS.VOLUNTARYRENUNCIATIONOFTHEOFFICEFORANYLENGTHOFTIME
SHALLNOTBECONSIDEREDASANINTERRUPTIONINTHECONTINUITYOFTHESERVICEFORTHEFULLTERMFORWHICHHEWASELECTED.
UNLESSOTHERWISEPROVIDEDBYLAW,THEREGULARELECTIONFORPRESIDENTANDVICEPRESIDENTSHALLBEHELDONTHESECONDMONDAYOF
MAY.
THERETURNSOFEVERYELECTIONFORPRESIDENTANDVICEPRESIDENT,DULYCERTIFIEDBYTHEBOARDOFCANVASSERSOFEACHPROVINCEOR
CITY,SHALLBETRANSMITTEDTOTHECONGRESS,DIRECTEDTOTHEPRESIDENTOFTHESENATE.UPONRECEIPTOFTHECERTIFICATESOFCANVASS,
THEPRESIDENTOFTHESENATESHALL,NOTLATERTHANTHIRTYDAYSAFTERTHEDAYOFTHEELECTION,OPENALLTHECERTIFICATESINTHE
PRESENCEOFTHESENATEANDTHEHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESINJOINTPUBLICSESSION,ANDTHECONGRESS,UPONDETERMINATIONOFTHE
AUTHENTICITYANDDUEEXECUTIONTHEREOFINTHEMANNERPROVIDEDBYLAW,CANVASSTHEVOTES.
THEPERSONHAVINGTHEHIGHESTNUMBEROFVOTESSHALLBEPROCLAIMEDELECTED,BUTINCASETWOORMORESHALLHAVEANEQUALAND
HIGHESTNUMBEROFVOTES,ONEOFTHEMSHALLFORTHWITHBECHOSENBYTHEVOTEOFAMAJORITYOFALLTHEMEMBERSOFBOTHHOUSESOF
THECONGRESS,VOTINGSEPARATELY.
THECONGRESSSHALLPROMULGATEITSRULESFORTHECANVASSINGOFTHECERTIFICATES.
THESUPREMECOURT,SITTINGENBANC,SHALLBETHESOLEJUDGEOFALLCONTESTSRELATINGTOTHEELECTION,RETURNS,ANDQUALIFICATIONS
OFTHEPRESIDENTORVICEPRESIDENT,ANDMAYPROMULGATEITSRULESFORTHEPURPOSE.

PrivacyOfCommunicationandCorrespondence
batasnatin.com

Prev(/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1428grno163193june152004sixtosbrillantesjrvscomelec.html)
Next(/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1426solivenvsjudgemakasiar167scra393.html)

(http://www.firm.batasnatin.com/practiceareas/probonolegalservicesforlaborersnoreallyitsfree.html)

http://www.batasnatin.com/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html

4/5

1/3/2017

UNITEDSTATESv.NIXON,(418U.S.683(1974))

(http://www.firm.batasnatin.com)
Visitthesite'sLawFirmbyclickingtheaboveimagetoavailofFreeLegalAdviceorforustoassistyouinyourlegalneeds.

PopularinPoliticalandInternationalLaw:
SUGGESTEDANSWERSTOBAREXAMINATIONINPOLITICALLAWARRANGEDBYTOPIC(19872006)(/notesvault/80politicalandpublicinternational
law/207suggestedanswerstobarexaminationinpoliticallawarrangedbytopic19872006.html)
CONSTITUTIONALLAWIREVIEWER(/notesvault/80politicalandpublicinternationallaw/1607constitutionallawireviewer.html)
1987PhilippinesConstitutionAudioCodals(/audiocodals/95politicalandinternationallaw/15611987philippinesconstitutionaudiocodals.html)
LocalGovenrmentCodeBook2LocalTaxationandFiscalMatters(Sections128383)(/lawlibrary/textoflawsandstatutes/64politicallaws/226localgovenrment
codebook2localtaxationandfiscalmatterssections128383.html)
LocalGovernmentCodeBook4MiscellaneousandFinalProvisions(Sections511536)(/lawlibrary/textoflawsandstatutes/64politicallaws/228local
governmentcodebook4miscellaneousandfinalprovisionssections511536.html)
LocalGovenrmentCodeBook1GeneralProvisions(Sections1127)(/lawlibrary/textoflawsandstatutes/64politicallaws/224localgovenrmentcodebook1
generalprovisionssections1127.html)
LocalGovenrmentCodeBook3LocalGovernmentUnits(Sections384510)(/lawlibrary/textoflawsandstatutes/64politicallaws/227localgovenrmentcode
book3localgovernmentunitssections384510.html)
RepublicActNo.8553,AMENDINGSECTION41(B)OFREPUBLICACTNO.7160(/lawlibrary/textoflawsandstatutes/64politicallaws/229republicactno8553
amendingsection41bofrepublicactno7160.html)

(http://www.firm.batasnatin.com/freelegaladvice/index.html)

BATASnatinPhilippineLawLibrary(http://www.batasnatin.com/)isisbroughttoyoubyLibayan&Associates(http://www.firm.batasnatin.com/)isfullserviceLawFirmprovidingallkindsoflegal
services.Forallyourlegalneedspleasecontactus:
Email:atty.libayan@gmail.com|GlobeMobile:(+63)9159546080|SmartMobile:(+63)9495898377|Landline:(+63)23594203

http://www.batasnatin.com/lawlibrary/politicalandpublicinternationallaw/constitutionallaw/1427unitedstatesvnixon418us6831974.html

5/5