Case Digest (G.R. No. 104732) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Flores et al. v. Drilon and Gordon, G.R. No. 104732, decided on June 22, 1993, petitioners Roberto A. Flores, Daniel Y. Figueroa, Rogelio T. Palo, Domingo A. Jadloc, Carlito T. Cruz and Manuel P. Reyes, all taxpayers and employees at the former U.S. facility in Subic Bay, challenged Section 13(d), proviso of R.A. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992). Under that proviso, the Mayor of Olongapo City—then Richard J. Gordon—was to serve as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) for its first year. The petition, filed directly with the Supreme Court, sought a writ of prohibition, preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin what they alleged were unconstitutional appointments made on April 3, 1992, in violation of Article IX-B, Section 7(1) of the 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 16’s vesting of appointment power in the President, and Section 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibiting appoin Case Digest (G.R. No. 104732) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Nature of the Petition
- An original petition filed by taxpayers, U.S. Facility employees, and members of the Filipino Civilian Employees Association.
- Prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order to prevent expenditures on salaries and operational expenses.
- Statutory Provision Challenged
- Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), Sec. 13(d): empowers the President to appoint a professional manager as SBMA Administrator/Chairman.
- Proviso: “For the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority.”
- Petitioners’ Grounds
- Alleged violation of Art. IX-B, Sec. 7 (no elective official eligible for appointment during tenure).
- Alleged usurpation of the President’s appointment power under Art. VII, Sec. 16.
- Alleged breach of the Omnibus Election Code (Sec. 261(g)) for appointment within the prohibited pre-election period.
Issues:
- Constitutional Eligibility
- Does the proviso violate Art. IX-B, Sec. 7’s prohibition on appointing elective officials during their tenure?
- Appointment Authority
- Does Congress, by mandating the Mayor’s appointment, unlawfully limit the President’s discretion under Art. VII, Sec. 16?
- Election Code Compliance
- Was the appointment of Mayor Gordon within the 45-day blackout period in violation of Sec. 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)