Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Atitiw v. Zamora G.R. No. 143374

    Uploaded by

    Angelo Yanga
    1) The case involved the ratification of the 1987 Constitution which mandated the creation of autonomous regions, including the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) through an organic act. President Aquino created CAR through EO 220 but the organic act was not approved. 2) The petitioners sought to declare null a provision in the 2000 General Appropriations Act that directed funds for CAR to wind up its operations instead of continuing its activities. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed provision was constitutional and did not constitute a rider. It also held that Congress could amend or repeal EO 220 and that the implementation of CAR is an executive function while sourcing funds is a legislative power.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Atitiw v. Zamora G.R. No. 143374

    Uploaded by

    Angelo Yanga
    2K views1 page
    1) The case involved the ratification of the 1987 Constitution which mandated the creation of autonomous regions, including the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) through an organic act. President Aquino created CAR through EO 220 but the organic act was not approved. 2) The petitioners sought to declare null a provision in the 2000 General Appropriations Act that directed funds for CAR to wind up its operations instead of continuing its activities. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed provision was constitutional and did not constitute a rider. It also held that Congress could amend or repeal EO 220 and that the implementation of CAR is an executive function while sourcing funds is a legislative power.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved the ratification of the 1987 Constitution which mandated the creation of autonomous regions, including the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) through an organic act. President Aquino created CAR through EO 220 but the organic act was not approved. 2) The petitioners sought to declare null a provision in the 2000 General Appropriations Act that directed funds for CAR to wind up its operations instead of continuing its activities. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed provision was constitutional and did not constitute a rider. It also held that Congress could amend or repeal EO 220 and that the implementation of CAR is an executive function while sourcing funds is a legislative power.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Atitiw v. Zamora G.R. No. 143374

    Uploaded by

    Angelo Yanga
    1) The case involved the ratification of the 1987 Constitution which mandated the creation of autonomous regions, including the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) through an organic act. President Aquino created CAR through EO 220 but the organic act was not approved. 2) The petitioners sought to declare null a provision in the 2000 General Appropriations Act that directed funds for CAR to wind up its operations instead of continuing its activities. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed provision was constitutional and did not constitute a rider. It also held that Congress could amend or repeal EO 220 and that the implementation of CAR is an executive function while sourcing funds is a legislative power.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Atitiw V. Zamora G.R. No.

    143374

    En Banc, J. Tinga

    Case Digest by: Gino Angelo P. Yanga

    Facts: The ratification of the 1987 Constitution ordains the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim
    Mindanao and in the Cordilleras mandating the Congress to enact organic acts pursuant to section 18 of
    article X of the Constitution. Thus, by virtue of the residual powers of President Cory Aquino she
    promulgated E.O 220 creating CAR. Then the congress enacted R.A 6766, an act providing for organic
    act for the cordillera autonomous region, a plebiscite was cast but was not approve by the people. The
    court declared that E.O 220 to be still in force and effect until properly repealed or amended. Later on
    February 15, 2000, President Estrada signed the General Appropriations Act of 2000 (GAA 2000) which
    includes the assailed special provisions, then issued an E.O 270 to extend the implementation of the
    winding up of operations of the CAR and extended it by virtue of E.O 328.

    The petitioners seek the declaration of nullity of paragraph 1 of the special provisions of RA 870 (GAA
    2000) directing that the appropriation for the CAR shall be spent to wind up its activities and pay the
    separation and retirement benefits of all the affected members and employees.

    Issue:

    1. Whether the assailed special provisions in RA 8760 is a rider and as such is unconstitutional.
    2. Whether the Philippine Government, through Congress, can unilaterally amend/repeal EO 220.
    3. Whether the Republic should be ordered to honor its commitments as spelled out in EO.220

    Ruling:

    In relation to article VI section 25(2) and section 26 the court said that xxx an appropriations bill covers a
    broader range of subject matter and therefore includes more details compared to an ordinary bill. The
    title of an appropriations bill cannot be any broader as it is since it is not feasible to come out with a title
    that embraces all the details included in an appropriations bill xxx. The assailed paragraph 1 of the
    RA8760 does not constitute a rider; it follows the standard that a provision in an appropriations bill must
    relate specifically to some particular appropriations.

    On the other hand, the contention that Congress cannot amend or repeal E.O 220 is rejected, there is no
    such thing as an irrepealable law. And nothing could prevent the Congress from amending or repealing
    the E.O. 220 because it is no different from any other law.

    The last issue, the court ruled that, the concept of separations of powers presupposes mutual respect.
    Therefore, the implementation of E.O. 220 is an executive prerogative while the sourcing of funds is
    within the powers of the legislature. In the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, the court cannot
    correct the acts of either the Executive or the Legislative in respect to policies concerning CAR.

    You might also like