Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Poli Rev - GarciaVsDrilon

    Uploaded by

    KarolM.
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether Family Courts have the authority to consider the constitutionality of statutes. The Court ruled that Family Courts, as special courts equivalent to Regional Trial Courts, do have jurisdiction to resolve issues of constitutionality. The Constitution grants judicial review powers not only to the Supreme Court but to all lower courts as well. Therefore, the petitioner in this case should have raised his constitutional challenges to the law before the Family Court first before bringing the issue to the Court of Appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    Poli Rev - GarciaVsDrilon

    Uploaded by

    KarolM.
    33 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether Family Courts have the authority to consider the constitutionality of statutes. The Court ruled that Family Courts, as special courts equivalent to Regional Trial Courts, do have jurisdiction to resolve issues of constitutionality. The Constitution grants judicial review powers not only to the Supreme Court but to all lower courts as well. Therefore, the petitioner in this case should have raised his constitutional challenges to the law before the Family Court first before bringing the issue to the Court of Appeals.

    Original Title

    Poli Rev_GarciaVsDrilon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether Family Courts have the authority to consider the constitutionality of statutes. The Court ruled that Family Courts, as special courts equivalent to Regional Trial Courts, do have jurisdiction to resolve issues of constitutionality. The Constitution grants judicial review powers not only to the Supreme Court but to all lower courts as well. Therefore, the petitioner in this case should have raised his constitutional challenges to the law before the Family Court first before bringing the issue to the Court of Appeals.

    Copyright:

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

    Poli Rev - GarciaVsDrilon

    Uploaded by

    KarolM.
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether Family Courts have the authority to consider the constitutionality of statutes. The Court ruled that Family Courts, as special courts equivalent to Regional Trial Courts, do have jurisdiction to resolve issues of constitutionality. The Constitution grants judicial review powers not only to the Supreme Court but to all lower courts as well. Therefore, the petitioner in this case should have raised his constitutional challenges to the law before the Family Court first before bringing the issue to the Court of Appeals.

    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

    MANALAYSAY, KAROL M.

    Jesus Garcia Vs Hon. Ray Alan T. Drilon, and Rosalie J. Garcia


    for herself in behalf of Minor ChildrenG.R. NO. 179267, June 25, 2013
    Justice Perlas-Bernabe

    Facts:
    Rosalie filed for herself and in behalf of her minor children a petition for issuance of a
    Temporary Protection Order against her husband Jesus pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claims to
    be a victim of physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of
    marital infidelity on the part of Jesus, with threats of deprivation of custody for her children and
    of financial support.
    RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order on March 24, 2006 effective for 30 days. Upon
    motion of Rosario, RTC issued an amended TPO effective for 30 days.
    Jesus filed an Opposition to the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Renewal of the TPO seeking the
    denial of the renewal of the TPO on the grounds that it did not (1) comply with the three-day
    notice rule, and (2) contain a notice of hearing. Subsequently. He moved for the modification of
    the TPO to allow him visitation rights to his children.
    On August 23, 2006 RTC renewed the TPO effective for 30 days
    In Sept 23, it was again extended for another 10 days and gave Jesus a period of 5 days within
    which to show cause why the TPO should not be extended or modified.
    Jesus failed to respond and it was again extended to 30 days.
    Jesus no longer submitted the required comment arguing that it would only be an “exercise in
    futility”
    Jesus filed before CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and temporary
    restraining order, challenging the constitutionality of RA 9262 for being violative of the due
    process and the equal protection clauses, and the validity of the modified TPO issued in the civil
    case for being “an unwanted product of an invalid law”
    CA dismissed the petition for failure to raise the constitutional issue in his pleadings before the
    Trial Court in the civil case. Secondly, the challenge to the validity of RA 9262 through a petition
    for prohibition seeking to annul the protection order issued by the RTC constituted a collateral
    attack on the said law.
    In defending his failure to attack the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 before the RTC of Bacolod
    City, petitioner argues that the Family Court has limited authority and jurisdiction that is
    "inadequate to tackle the complex issue of constitutionality.
    Issue:
    WON Family Courts have authority to consider the constitutionality of a statute.
    MANALAYSAY, KAROL M.

    Ruling:
    At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as
    Regional Trial Courts. Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial Courts
    designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of VAWC.
    It is settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, "this authority
    being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid
    and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law." The Constitution
    vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law,
    treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance,
    or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.
    We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA that, "plainly the Constitution contemplates that the
    inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for
    it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such
    constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads in
    part as follows:
    SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
    xxx
    2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
    Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
    a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
    agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
    in question.
    xxxx

    You might also like