[CONSOLIDATED CASES] Genuino, et al. vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJ G.R. No. 197930 Macapagal-Arroyo vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJ G.R. No. 199034 Arroyo vs De Lima, as Secretary …Full description
[CONSOLIDATED CASES] Genuino, et al. vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJ G.R. No. 197930 Macapagal-Arroyo vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJ G.R. No. 199034 Arroyo vs De Lima, as Secretary …Full description
delima
syarat menjadi bidan delima
report on delima case studyFull description
delima
CrimLaw Case Digest
case
Delima Case 1Full description
form 4 pelayanan kebidananDeskripsi lengkap
Diagramas electrohidraulicos
Diagramas electrohidraulicos
Mini Case Study - A DelimaFull description
digest
Case digest on piercing the veil of corporate fiction
Full description
g
surat permohonanFull description
Deskripsi lengkap
Ilmu Penyakit DalamFull description
Ilmu Penyakit DalamFull description
Supremacy of the Constitution
Genuino vs Delima April 17, 2018 Case digest by: SMBonrustro
Facts:
The case is a consolidated case of Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against former DOJ Secretary Delima for for her issuance of DOJ circular circular no. 41. Series of 2010, known as the Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watchlist Orders (WLO) and Allow Departure Orders (ADO)” . The Petitioners
“
questions the constitutionality of this DOJ circular on the ground that it infringes the constitutional right to travel. The petitioners in these these consolidated cases cases are former President President Arroyo and her husband, husband, and Efraim and and Erwin Genuino. Former DOJ Secretary De lima issued HDO and WLO against petitioners on the ground that criminal charges of plunder, qualified theft and violation of the Omnibus Election Code were filed against them. Petitioners, particularly Spouses Arroyo, file temporary restraining order against the issued HDO and WLO of DOJ seeking relief and grant from court to allow them to travel so that former president Arroyo may seek medical treatment abroad. abroad. The court granted relief sought sought on a condition that petition will file a bond of PhP2M, an undertaking that petitioners shall report to Philippine consulate in the countries they are to visit (Germany, Singapore, USA, Italy, Spain and Austria) and shall appoint a representative to receive on their behalf subpoena, orders and other legal processes. Petitioners complied all the conditions Instead of following the order of the court, DOJ caused for the refusal to process the petitioners travel documents. documents. Hence, this case. Issue:
Whether or not the issued DOJ circular 41 infringes the constitutional rights of the petitioners to travel and thus an ultra vires to the constitution. Ruling of the Court:
The constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation; it is deemed written in every statute and contract. contract. If a law or administrative rule violates any norm of the constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. In this case, the right to travel is a guarantee of the constitution under the Bill of rights. There are allowable restrictions in the exercise of this right which are for the interest of national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law. The ground of the respondent in the issuance of DOJ circular 41 is for the petitioners to be present during the preliminary investigation of their cases which is outside the allowable restrictions provided by the constitution, hence, it is an ultra vires and has no effect.
