Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 601 views

    Alalayan V NPC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    This document summarizes a case that challenged Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043 as unconstitutional. Section 3 provided powers to the National Power Corporation regarding electricity contracts. The challenge argued Section 3 was a rider unrelated to the purpose of the act, which was to increase NAPOCOR's capital stock. The Supreme Court upheld Section 3 as constitutional, finding the title of an enactment only needs to generally inform readers of the law's nature and scope, not fully catalog all details.

    Copyright:

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

    Alalayan V NPC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    601 views1 page
    This document summarizes a case that challenged Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043 as unconstitutional. Section 3 provided powers to the National Power Corporation regarding electricity contracts. The challenge argued Section 3 was a rider unrelated to the purpose of the act, which was to increase NAPOCOR's capital stock. The Supreme Court upheld Section 3 as constitutional, finding the title of an enactment only needs to generally inform readers of the law's nature and scope, not fully catalog all details.

    Original Description:

    Const Law Case

    Original Title

    Alalayan v NPC 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?

    This document summarizes a case that challenged Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043 as unconstitutional. Section 3 provided powers to the National Power Corporation regarding electricity contracts. The challenge argued Section 3 was a rider unrelated to the purpose of the act, which was to increase NAPOCOR's capital stock. The Supreme Court upheld Section 3 as constitutional, finding the title of an enactment only needs to generally inform readers of the law's nature and scope, not fully catalog all details.

    Copyright:

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

    Alalayan V NPC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    This document summarizes a case that challenged Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043 as unconstitutional. Section 3 provided powers to the National Power Corporation regarding electricity contracts. The challenge argued Section 3 was a rider unrelated to the purpose of the act, which was to increase NAPOCOR's capital stock. The Supreme Court upheld Section 3 as constitutional, finding the title of an enactment only needs to generally inform readers of the law's nature and scope, not fully catalog all details.

    Copyright:

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

    24 SCRA 172 Political Law Title Must Express One Subject

    In 1961, Republic Act No. 3043 (An Act to Further Amend Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Twenty, as Amended by Republic Act Numbered Twenty
    Six Hundred and Forty One) was passed. This law amended the charter of NAPOCOR (National Power Corporation). Section 3 of RA 3043 provides that:

    a. contractors being supplied by NAPOCOR shall not exceed an annual profit of 12%;

    b. if they do, they shall refund such excess to their customers;

    c. that NAPOCOR has the power to renew all existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply of energy.

    Santiago Alalayan and the Philippine Power and Development Company (PPDC) assailed the said provision.They averred that Section 3 is a rider because first, it
    was not included in the title of the amending law nor was it included in the amended law. Second, the main purpose of RA 3043 was to increase the capital stock
    of NAPOCOR hence Alalayan et al believed that Section 3 was not germane to RA 3043.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Section 3 of RA 3043 is constitutional.

    HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court simply ruled that the Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such precision as
    to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it
    inform the legislators, the persons interested in the subject of the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operation.
    And this, to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill, study and discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the
    legislators.

    You might also like