Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    ALMARIO VS. ALBA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sheryl Ogoc
    Alex Almario sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would allow voters to approve or reject proposed amendments to the Constitution. Question 3 involved allowing "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring public lands, while Question 4 involved the government undertaking land and social reform programs. However, unlike a previous case, Almario did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite entirely but only asked for more time for voters to study the questions. The Supreme Court held that this was a political question beyond the court's power to adjudicate, and that whether the proposals were unwise or unnecessary was a matter for voters alone to decide.

    Copyright:

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

    ALMARIO VS. ALBA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sheryl Ogoc
    94 views1 page
    Alex Almario sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would allow voters to approve or reject proposed amendments to the Constitution. Question 3 involved allowing "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring public lands, while Question 4 involved the government undertaking land and social reform programs. However, unlike a previous case, Almario did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite entirely but only asked for more time for voters to study the questions. The Supreme Court held that this was a political question beyond the court's power to adjudicate, and that whether the proposals were unwise or unnecessary was a matter for voters alone to decide.

    Original Description:

    ALMARIO VS. ALBA case digest

    Original Title

    ALMARIO VS. ALBA case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Alex Almario sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would allow voters to approve or reject proposed amendments to the Constitution. Question 3 involved allowing "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring public lands, while Question 4 involved the government undertaking land and social reform programs. However, unlike a previous case, Almario did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite entirely but only asked for more time for voters to study the questions. The Supreme Court held that this was a political question beyond the court's power to adjudicate, and that whether the proposals were unwise or unnecessary was a matter for voters alone to decide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views1 page

    ALMARIO VS. ALBA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sheryl Ogoc
    Alex Almario sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would allow voters to approve or reject proposed amendments to the Constitution. Question 3 involved allowing "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring public lands, while Question 4 involved the government undertaking land and social reform programs. However, unlike a previous case, Almario did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite entirely but only asked for more time for voters to study the questions. The Supreme Court held that this was a political question beyond the court's power to adjudicate, and that whether the proposals were unwise or unnecessary was a matter for voters alone to decide.

    Copyright:

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

    Alex Almario vs Manuel Alba

    127 SCRA 69 – Political Law – Amendment to the Constitution – Political Question


    In January 1984, a plebiscite was to be held to allow the voters to either approve or reject
    amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Batasang Pambansa. The proposed
    amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be answered by simple YES or
    NO answers.
    Alex Almario and some other concerned groups seek to enjoin the submission in the said
    plebiscite  of Questions No. 3 (“grant” as an additional mode of acquiring lands belonging to
    the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the government of a land reform program and
    a social reform program) to the people for ratification or rejection on the ground that there
    has been no fair and proper submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v.
    COMELEC.
    However, unlike in the case of Tolentino vs COMELEC, Almario et al do not seek to prohibit
    the holding of the plebiscite but only ask for more time for the people to study the meaning
    and implications of the said questions/proposals until the nature and effect of the proposals
    are fairly and properly submitted to the electorate.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date.
    HELD: No. This is a political question. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the
    proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether
    or not “grant” of public land and “urban land reform” are unwise or improvident or whether or
    not the proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can
    decide. The questions are presented for their determination.
    Assuming that a member or some members of the Supreme Court may find undesirable any
    additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land reform program, the remedy is
    to vote “NO” in the plebiscite but not to substitute his or their aversion to the proposed
    amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to express their own likes or
    dislikes.
    Further, Almario et al have failed to make out a case that the average voter does not know
    the meaning of “grant” of public land or of “urban land reform.”

    You might also like