Skip to main content

KMU vs. NEDA GR no. 167798 April 19, 2006

KMU vs. NEDA , GR no. 167798 , April 19, 2006

FACTS:
In April 13, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo issued Executive Order 420 requiring all government agencies and government-owned corporations to streamline and harmonize their Identification Systems. The purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability and ensure compatibility and provide convenience to the people served by government entities.
Petitioners allege that EO420 is unconstitutional because it constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of the government. Furthermore, they allege that EO420 infringes on the citizen’s rights to privacy.

ISSUE: In issuing EO 420, did the president make, alter or repeal any laws?

RULING:
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs, as well as insures efficiency, reliability, compatibility and user-friendliness in the implementation of current ID systems of government entities under existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation.
.
by: Karissa Faye Tolentino
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv
3 comments
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (
Post a Comment
Read more

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc
1 comment
Read more