LAW SCHOOL HELP

BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001 FACTS : The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the constitutional requirement that “no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.” Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, “rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.”   Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a U.S. citi...

AKBAYAN YOUTH v. COMELEC G.R. No. 147066, 26 March 2001 BUENA, J.: FACT : 1.       Petitioners―representing the youth sector―seek to direct the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the 14 May 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, around four million youth failed to register on or before the 27 December 2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189. 2.       Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request for a Two-day Additional Registration of New Voters Only is submitted but was then denied by the COMELEC under Resolution No. 3584 on 8 February 2001. 3.       Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. 4.       Section 8 (System of Continuing Registration of Voters) of R.A. No. 8189 The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 p...

Fernandez vs HRET | GR No 187478 | December 21, 2009 Topic: House of Representatives > Residency Requirement  Facts:  On the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. In his Certificate of Candidacy, he indicated that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa City, Laguna. Private respondent sought the cancellation of petitioner’s COC and the latter’s disqualification as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence, because during past elections, he had declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his address, and Pagsanjan was located in the Fourth Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. Private respondent likewise claimed that petitioner maintained another house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was also outside the First District. The petition, however, was dismissed by COMELEC for lack of merit.  On June 27, 2007, petitioner was...

Montesclaros vs. COMELEC Case Summary / Notes FACTS: This is a petition that seeks to prevent the postponement of the May 6, 2002 elections, as well as to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK. The COMELEC is mandated by RA 7808 to supervise the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections. Accordingly, the COMELEC issued Resolutions 4713 and 4714 to govern the SK elections on May 6, 2002. On February 2002, petitioner Antoinette V.C. Monteclaros sent a letter to the COMELEC demanding that the SK elections be held as scheduled on May 6, 2002. (Note: Under RA 7808, SK elections should be scheduled on the first Monday of May, 1996 and every three years thereafter). Two days later, then COMELEC Chairman Alfredo Benipayo wrote identical letters to the Speaker of the House and the Senate President regarding the pending bills on the SK and Barangay elections, saying that it would be difficult to hold both elections simultaneously on May 20...

Compania de Tabacos v. City of Manila Facts: Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera) paid the City of Manila the fixed license fees prescribed by Ordinance 3358 for the years 1954 to 1957. In 1954, City Ordinance 3634 and 3816 were passed; where the term “general merchandise” found therein included all articles in Sections 123 to 148 of the Tax Code (thus, also liquor under Sedctions 133 to 135). The Tabacalera paid its wholesaler’s and retailer’s taxes. In 1954, the City Treasurer addressed a letter to an accounting firm, expressing the view that liquor dealers paying the annual wholesale and retail fixed tax under Ordinance 3358 are not subject to the wholesale aand retail deaklers’ taxes prescribed by City Ordinances 3634, 3301, and 3816. The Tabacalera, upon learning of said stopped including quarterly sworn declaratons required by the latter ordinances, and in 1957, demanded refunde of the alleged overpayment. The claim was disallowed. Issue: Whe...