Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Case Digest Arroyo Vs Cir-Downloaded From DigestPH

    Uploaded by

    dumayagrodel04

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest Arroyo Vs Cir-Downloaded From DigestPH

    Uploaded by

    dumayagrodel04
    1 views2 pages

    Original Title

    case_digest_arroyo_vs_cir-Downloaded_from_DigestPH

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest Arroyo Vs Cir-Downloaded From DigestPH

    Uploaded by

    dumayagrodel04

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Digest.

    ph
    Stay Connected
    Facebook: (facebook.com/DigestPH)
    LinkedIn: (linkedin.com/company/digestph)

    Title
    Arroyo vs. Cir

    Case Ponente Decision Date


    G.R. No. 127255 MENDOZA, J. Jun 26, 1998

    This case involves a petition seeking a rehearing and reconsideration of the Court's
    decision dismissing the petitioners' petition for certiorari and prohibition. The
    petitioners argue that their question during the approval of a conference committee
    report was ignored and that there was a disregard for certain rules of the House of
    Representatives. The Court, however, finds that the petitioners did not follow
    proper parliamentary procedure and that the rules allegedly violated are internal
    rules of procedure, not constitutional requirements. The Court denies the motion
    for rehearing and reconsideration.

    Case Digest (G.R. No. 127255)

    Doctrine:

    The court emphasizes the importance of following parliamentary rules and procedures,
    including obtaining recognition from the chair before speaking. It also explains that the
    practice of asking for objections to the approval of a conference committee report is a
    well-established part of parliamentary law.

    Facts:

    The petitioners raised a question during the approval of a conference committee report in
    the House of Representatives.

    They argue that their question was ignored and that there was a disregard for certain rules
    of the House.
    Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s Arguments:

    - The question raised by one of the petitioners was a privileged question or a point of
    order.
    - The chair should have stated the motion and asked for individual votes instead of asking
    if there were objections.
    - There was a disregard for certain rules of the House.

    Respondent’s/Defendant’s Arguments:

    - The petitioner did not follow proper parliamentary procedure and did not obtain
    recognition from the chair before speaking.
    - The practice of asking for objections to the motion for approval of a conference
    committee report is well-established and is part of parliamentary law.
    - The rules allegedly violated are internal rules of procedure, not constitutional
    requirements.

    Issues and Ruling:

    1. Whether the question raised by the petitioner was a privileged question or a point
    of order. NO. The petitioner did not follow proper parliamentary procedure and did not
    obtain recognition from the chair before speaking.

    2. Whether there was a disregard for certain rules of the House. NO. The practice of
    asking for objections to the motion for approval of a conference committee report is well-
    established and is part of parliamentary law. The rules allegedly violated are internal rules
    of procedure, not constitutional requirements.

    Dispositive:

    The motion for rehearing and reconsideration is denied with finality.

    Other Notes:

    n/a

    Uploaded by: Digest Team

    You might also like