Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    IN RE - Bermudez

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    1. The petitioner, Atty. Saturnino Bermudez, asked the Supreme Court for a declaratory relief regarding Section 5 of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution which extended the term of the incumbent President and Vice President. 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a cause of action, as the petition amounted to a suit against the incumbent President Corazon Aquino. 3. Under the doctrine of executive immunity, Presidents cannot be sued during their term in office. The Court upheld this doctrine and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    IN RE - Bermudez

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    1K views2 pages
    1. The petitioner, Atty. Saturnino Bermudez, asked the Supreme Court for a declaratory relief regarding Section 5 of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution which extended the term of the incumbent President and Vice President. 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a cause of action, as the petition amounted to a suit against the incumbent President Corazon Aquino. 3. Under the doctrine of executive immunity, Presidents cannot be sued during their term in office. The Court upheld this doctrine and dismissed the petition.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    IN RE- Bermudez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The petitioner, Atty. Saturnino Bermudez, asked the Supreme Court for a declaratory relief regarding Section 5 of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution which extended the term of the incumbent President and Vice President. 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a cause of action, as the petition amounted to a suit against the incumbent President Corazon Aquino. 3. Under the doctrine of executive immunity, Presidents cannot be sued during their term in office. The Court upheld this doctrine and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    IN RE - Bermudez

    Uploaded by

    Harold Q. Gardon
    1. The petitioner, Atty. Saturnino Bermudez, asked the Supreme Court for a declaratory relief regarding Section 5 of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution which extended the term of the incumbent President and Vice President. 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a cause of action, as the petition amounted to a suit against the incumbent President Corazon Aquino. 3. Under the doctrine of executive immunity, Presidents cannot be sued during their term in office. The Court upheld this doctrine and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    IN RE: SATURNINO V.

    BERMUDEZ, petitioner.
    G.R. No. 76180 October 24, 1986

    PER CURIAM

    Facts:

    Atty. Saturnino Bermudez asks for declaratory relief regarding Section 5 of Article XVIII of
    the proposed 1986 Constitution, which provides

    Sec. 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in
    the February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby
    extended to noon of June 30, 1992.

    The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this
    Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1992.

    According to Bermudez, the "is not clear" and vague as to whom it refers, he then
    asks the Court "to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as
    to who, among the present incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President
    Salvador Laurel and the elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M.
    Tolentino being referred to under the said Section 7 (sic) of ARTICLE XVIII of the
    TRANSITORY PROVISIONS of the proposed 1986 Constitution refers to, . ...

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright for lack or jurisdiction and lack
    for cause of action and that the petition amounts in effect as a suit against the incumbent
    President.

    ISSUE: WON the petition can prosper since it amounts in effect as suit against the incumbent
    President.

    HELD: The petition is dismissed petition and amounts in effect as a suit against the
    incumbent President. The Constitution clearly states that Presidents are immune from suit
    or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure.

    Furthermore, the Court held that there can be no question that President Corazon C. Aquino
    and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel are the incumbent and legitimate President and Vice-
    President of the Republic of the Philippines which is in effective control of the entire country
    so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government as
    people, the community of nations, and the eleven members of the of the Court recognized
    the legitimacy of her present government.

    Nevertheless, executive immunity dates back to the cases of governor generals.


    The subsistence of this doctrine under the 1987 Constitution was confirmed in
    Soliven vs Judge Makasiar which assumed that indeed the president, Cory Aquino
    in this case, enjoys immunity. The Court said: “The rationale for the grant to the
    President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
    Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction,
    considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside
    from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undivided attention.
    But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the
    office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person
    in the President’s behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the
    President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to
    prevent the case from proceeding against such accused.”

    Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/76532/executive-
    immunity#ixzz6jKQtmj7b
    Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

    You might also like