Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 285 views

    Planas Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    Louie Raotraot
    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review orders issued by the President if they are challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. In this case, Carmen Planas, a municipal board member, published a statement criticizing government officials, including the President. She was ordered to appear before the Civil Service Commission to explain her allegations. Planas argued the CSC had no jurisdiction over her as an elected official accountable only to her constituents. The Supreme Court found that while the acts of the Chief Executive within his jurisdiction cannot be directed or restrained by courts, the Court can inquire into the validity of executive acts when properly challenged. Ultimately, the Court ruled the CSC could take cognizance of the case since Planas made allegations against the administration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Planas Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    Louie Raotraot
    285 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review orders issued by the President if they are challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. In this case, Carmen Planas, a municipal board member, published a statement criticizing government officials, including the President. She was ordered to appear before the Civil Service Commission to explain her allegations. Planas argued the CSC had no jurisdiction over her as an elected official accountable only to her constituents. The Supreme Court found that while the acts of the Chief Executive within his jurisdiction cannot be directed or restrained by courts, the Court can inquire into the validity of executive acts when properly challenged. Ultimately, the Court ruled the CSC could take cognizance of the case since Planas made allegations against the administration

    Original Title

    2. Planas vs Gil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review orders issued by the President if they are challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. In this case, Carmen Planas, a municipal board member, published a statement criticizing government officials, including the President. She was ordered to appear before the Civil Service Commission to explain her allegations. Planas argued the CSC had no jurisdiction over her as an elected official accountable only to her constituents. The Supreme Court found that while the acts of the Chief Executive within his jurisdiction cannot be directed or restrained by courts, the Court can inquire into the validity of executive acts when properly challenged. Ultimately, the Court ruled the CSC could take cognizance of the case since Planas made allegations against the administration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    285 views2 pages

    Planas Vs Gil

    Uploaded by

    Louie Raotraot
    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review orders issued by the President if they are challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. In this case, Carmen Planas, a municipal board member, published a statement criticizing government officials, including the President. She was ordered to appear before the Civil Service Commission to explain her allegations. Planas argued the CSC had no jurisdiction over her as an elected official accountable only to her constituents. The Supreme Court found that while the acts of the Chief Executive within his jurisdiction cannot be directed or restrained by courts, the Court can inquire into the validity of executive acts when properly challenged. Ultimately, the Court ruled the CSC could take cognizance of the case since Planas made allegations against the administration

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Planas vs Gil

    Facts:
    In November 1938, Carmen Planas, then a municipal board member of
    Manila, published a statement criticizing the acts of certain government
    officials including Pres. Manuel Quezon in a newspaper. The following
    morning, she received a letter from Jorge Vargas (Secretary to the President)
    by order of the president directing her to report before the Civil Service
    Commission (CSC). She was directed to explain and prove her allegations.
    She appeared before the CSC but she questioned the jurisdiction of the CSC
    over the matter. She said that as an elective official, she is accountable for
    her political acts to her constituency alone, unless such acts constitute
    offenses punishable under our penal laws, and not to executive officials
    belonging to a party opposed to that to which petitioner is affiliated. Further,
    she contends that her statement in the newspaper was made by her as a
    private citizen and in the exercise of her right to discuss freely political
    questions and cannot properly be the subject of an administrative
    investigation; that the issue is only cognizable by courts of justice in case the
    contents of said statement infringe any provision of the Penal Code. The CSC,
    acting through Commissioner Jose Gil, however took cognizance of the case
    hence Planas appealed to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General replied
    for the CSC arguing that under the separation of powers marked by the
    Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction to review the orders of the Chief
    Executive which are of purely administrative in character.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction to review orders issued by the
    President.
    HELD: The acts of the Chief Executive performed within the limits of his
    jurisdiction are his official acts and courts will neither direct nor restrain
    executive action in such cases. The rule is non-interference. But from this
    legal premise, it does not necessarily follow that the SC is precluded from
    making an inquiry into the validity or constitutionality of his acts when these
    are properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. The classical
    separation of governmental powers viewed in the light of political philosophy

    is a relative theory of government. There is more truism and actuality in


    interdependence than in independence and separation of powers.
    In the present case, the President is not a party to the proceeding. He is
    neither compelled nor restrained to act in a particular way. The CSC is the
    party respondent and the theory is advanced by the Sol-Gen that because an
    investigation undertaken by him is directed by authority of the President of
    the Philippines, the SC has no jurisdiction over the present proceedings
    instituted by Planas. The argument is farfetched. A mere plea that a
    subordinate officer of the government is acting under orders from the Chief
    Executive may be an important averment, but is neither decisive nor
    conclusive upon this court. Like the dignity of his high office, the relative
    immunity of the Chief Executive from judicial interference is not in the nature
    of a sovereign passport for all the subordinate official and employees of the
    executive Department to the extent that at the mere invocation of the
    authority that it purports the jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the
    validity or legality of an executive order is necessarily abated or suspended.
    Nevertheless, SC ruled that the CSC can take cognizance of the case. Planas
    was not denied the right to voice out her opinion but since she made
    allegations against the administration it is but right for her to prove those
    allegations. The CSC has the right to elicit the truth.

    You might also like