In Tiu v. Dizon, the Supreme Court held that Ruben Tiu’s detention remained lawful because the conditional pardon granted by former President Arroyo was incomplete without the necessary pardon papers. Additionally, Tiu’s classification as a penal colonist did not automatically reduce his sentence without presidential approval.
In In re Petition for Judicial Clemency of Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., the Supreme Court denied Judge Romillo’s request for reinstatement and retirement benefits, emphasizing its exclusive authority over judicial discipline and the inapplicability of executive clemency to judicial officials.
In re Petition for Judicial Clemency of Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. [December 8, 2008] Read More »
In People vs. Salle, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that a conditional pardon cannot be granted to an accused while their appeal is pending, as the conviction is not yet final. This ensures the separation of powers, preventing executive interference in judicial matters.
In Torres vs. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that a convict who violates the conditions of a conditional pardon can be rearrested and recommitted without a new court conviction. The President’s determination of such a violation is sufficient for recommitment, emphasizing the executive’s authority in pardon matters.
In Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is not constitutionally required to convene in joint session following a presidential declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, unless it intends to revoke such proclamation.
Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines [July 25, 2017] Read More »
In Lansang vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary can review the factual basis of the President’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure it meets constitutional requirements, affirming the system of checks and balances among government branches.
In Sarmiento vs. Mison, the Supreme Court ruled that the President can appoint the Commissioner of Customs without needing the Commission on Appointments’ approval, as the position is not among those requiring such consent under the Constitution.
In Banda vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to amend Executive Orders concerning executive agencies, affirming the validity of Executive Order No. 378, which removed the National Printing Office’s exclusive jurisdiction over government printing services. The Court found no violation of employees’ security of tenure.
In Ocampo vs. Medialdea, the Supreme Court upheld President Duterte’s directive to inter former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, ruling it did not violate the Constitution or laws. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the decision.
In Funa vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that Department of Transportation and Communications Undersecretary Maria Elena Bautista’s concurrent designation as Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority violated the constitutional prohibition against holding multiple government positions, as it was not an ex officio role.
