CASE DIGEST#1. Facts only.issue and held copy from your
researchERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVESG.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003.
Facts:On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a
Resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to conduct an
investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of
disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). On June 2, 2003,
former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment complaint
against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate
Justices. The complaint was endorsed and was referred to the House
Committee in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the
Constitution.
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that
the first impeachment complaint was sufficient in form, but voted
to dismiss the same on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. On October 23, 2003, a second impeachment complaint was
filed against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the
alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by
above-mentioned House Resolution. This second impeachment complaint
was accompanied by a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed
by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House of
Representatives.
#2. Facts, issue and held..incomplete in the notes.G.R. No.
L-32717 November 26, 1970AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMELEC
FACTS:Petitioner Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the
Constitutional Convention. He filed a special civil action against
the respondent COMELEC when the latter informed him through a
telegram that his certificate of candidacy was given due course but
he was prohibited from using jingles in his mobile units equipped
with sound systems and loud speakers. The petitioner accorded the
order to be violative of his constitutional right to freedom of
speech. COMELEC justified its prohibition on the premise that the
Constitutional Convention act provided that it is unlawful for the
candidates to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample
ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters,
fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or
materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes,
and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin. COMELEC
contended that the jingle or the recorded or taped voice of the
singer used by petitioner was a tangible propaganda material and
was, under the above statute, subject to confiscation.ISSUE:Whether
or not the usage of the jingle by the petitioner form part of the
prohibition invoked by the COMELEC.
HELD:The Court held that the general words following any
enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or
class as those specifically referred to. The COMELECs contention
that a candidates jingle form part of the prohibition, categorized
under the phrase and the like, could not merit the courts approval
by principle of Ejusdem Generis. It is quite apparent that what was
contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind
referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for
the candidate responsible for its distribution.
Furthermore, the COMELEC failed to observe construction of the
statute which should be in consonance to the express terms of the
constitution. The intent of the COMELEC for the prohibition may be
laudable but it should not be sought at the cost of the candidates
constitutional rights.
#3
