1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of TV Channel 4 between the Lopez family and the government. The Executive Secretary entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Secretary had the authority to agree to arbitration and the agreement was valid. However, the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the agreement.
3. The Court also found that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not prevent the case, and the agreement to arbitrate was still enforceable despite the President's statements about the station.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of TV Channel 4 between the Lopez family and the government. The Executive Secretary entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Secretary had the authority to agree to arbitration and the agreement was valid. However, the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the agreement.
3. The Court also found that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not prevent the case, and the agreement to arbitrate was still enforceable despite the President's statements about the station.
1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of TV Channel 4 between the Lopez family and the government. The Executive Secretary entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Secretary had the authority to agree to arbitration and the agreement was valid. However, the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the agreement.
3. The Court also found that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not prevent the case, and the agreement to arbitrate was still enforceable despite the President's statements about the station.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of TV Channel 4 between the Lopez family and the government. The Executive Secretary entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Secretary had the authority to agree to arbitration and the agreement was valid. However, the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the agreement.
3. The Court also found that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not prevent the case, and the agreement to arbitrate was still enforceable despite the President's statements about the station.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Gascon vs. Arroyo (October 16, 1989) Facts: 1. The Lopez fa !"y !s the o#ner of $ te"ev!s!on stat!
ons, %hanne" $ & %hanne" ', #h!ch they have operate( thro)*h the A+,-%+. +roa(cast!n* %orporat!on $. /hen 0art!a" La# #as (ec"are( T1 %hanne" ' #as c"ose( by the !"!tary2 thereafter, !ts fac!"!t!es #ere ta3en over by the 4an"aon +roa(cast!n* ,yste #h!ch operate( !t as a co erc!a" T1 stat!on. 5n 1968, the T1 stat!on an( !ts fac!"!t!es #ere ta3en over by the .at!ona" 0e(!a 7ro()ct!on %enter, #h!ch operate( !t as the 0ahar"!3a +roa(cast!n* ,yste T1 '. After the 89,A :evo")t!on, the 7res!(ent!a" %o !ss!on on Goo( Govern ent (7%GG) se!ze( the afore ent!one( T1 ,tat!ons, an( thereafter, the Off!ce of e(!a Affa!rs too3 over the operat!on of T1 %hanne" '. ;. On Apr!" 16, 1986, the Lopez fa !"y, thro)*h the!r co)nse" re<)este( 7res!(ent A<)!no to or(er the ret)rn of T1 %hanne" $ & ' to the Lopez fa !"y. '. On =)ne 1;, 1986 the Lopez fa !"y a(e a #r!tten re<)est to 7%GG for the ret)rn of T1 %hanne" $. On =)ne 18, 1986, the 7%GG approve( the ret)rn of T1 stat!on %hanne" $ to the Lopez fa !"y. The ret)rn #as a(e on October 18, 1986. >. Thereafter the Lopez fa !"y re<)este( for the ret)rn of T1 %hanne" '. Act!n* )pon the re<)est, respon(ent 8?ec)t!ve ,ecretary, by the a)thor!ty of the 7res!(ent, entere( !nto #!th the A+,-%+. +roa(cast!n* %orporat!on an @A*ree ent to arb!trateA, p)rs)ant to #h!ch an Arb!trat!on %o !ttee #as create(. An( beca)se of the A*ree ent to arb!trate, pet!t!oners f!"e( the !nstant pet!t!on. The pet!t!oners #ante( to ann)" an( set as!(e the A*ree ent to Arb!trate. 5ss)es: 1. /hether or not the pet!t!oners have "e*a" stan(!n* to f!"e an !nstant caseB $. /hether or not the 8?ec)t!ve ,ecretary ha( the po#er an( a)thor!ty to enter !nto an A*ree ent to Arb!trateB ;. /hether or not ! )n!ty of the ,tate fro s)!t be !nvo3e( !n th!s caseB
'. %an the conven!n* of %on*ress an( the (ec"arat!on of the 7res!(ent that 7T1-' sha"" re a!n as the !nfor at!on ar of the *overn ent ren(er !neffect!ve an( )nenforceab"e the A*ree ent to Arb!trate. :)"!n*: 1. The pet!t!oners have no "e*a" stan(!n* $. The e?ec)t!ve ,ecretary ha( the po#er an( a)thor!ty to enter !nto an A*ree ent to Arb!trateB ;. .o, ! )n!ty of the ,tate canCt be !nvo3e( !n th!s case '. .o, the conven!n* of %on*ress an( the (ec"arat!on of the 7res!(ent that 7T1-' sha"" re a!n as the !nfor at!on ar of the *overn ent canCt ren(er !neffect!ve an( )nenforceab"e the A*ree ent to Arb!trate. :at!o: 1. The pet!t!oners have not sho#n that they have "e*a" !nterest !n T1 %hanne" ' an( that they #!"" be a(verse"y affecte( !f an( #hen the sa!( te"ev!s!on stat!on !s ret)rne( to the Lopez fa !"y s!nce the pet!t!on #as not an act!on to <)est!on the const!t)t!ona"!ty or va"!(!ty of a stat)te or "a#. +eca)se the %o)rt on"y reco*n!ze the r!*ht of a ta?payer to f!"e an act!on <)est!on!n* the va"!(!ty or const!t)t!ona"!ty of a stat)te or "a# on the theory that the e?pen(!t)re of p)b"!c f)n(s by an off!cer of the *overn ent for the p)rpose of a( !n!ster!n* or ! p"e ent!n* an )nconst!t)t!ona" or !nva"!( "a#, const!t)tes a !sapp"!cat!on of s)ch f)n(s. A"so )n(er :A 866 part!es ay a"so resort to arb!trat!on #h!ch !s a )ch faster #ay of sett"!n* the!r controversy, co pare( to ho# "on* !t #o)"( ta3e !f they #ere to *o to co)rt. $. Dn(er the 7rov!s!ona" %onst!t)t!on (Free(o %onst!t)t!on), #h!ch #as !n force an( effect #hen the A*ree ent to Arb!trate #as s!*ne( by the part!es, the 7res!(ent e?erc!se( both the "e*!s"at!ve an( e?ec)t!ve po#ers of the Govern ent. As %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve, the 7res!(ent #as ass!ste( by a %ab!net co pose( of ,ecretar!es. The 0e bers of the cab!net as hea(s of the var!o)s (epart ents, are ass!stants an( a*ents of the %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve, an(, e?cept !n cases #here the %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve !s re<)!re( by the %onst!t)t!on or the "a# to act !n person, or #here the e?!*enc!es of the s!t)at!on (e an( that he act persona""y, the )"t!far!o)s e?ec)t!ve an( a( !n!strat!ve
f)nct!ons of the %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve are perfor e( by an( thro)*h the e?ec)t!ve (epart ents. ,o the acts of the hea(s of s)ch (epart ents, perfor e( !n re*)"ar co)rse of b)s!ness, are, )n"ess (!sapprove( or reprobate( by the %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve, pres) pt!ve"y the acts of the %h!ef 8?ec)t!ve. 8?ec)t!ve ,ecretary ha(, therefore, the po#er an( a)thor!ty to enter !nto the A*ree ent to Arb!trate as he acte( !n beha"f of the 7res!(ent #hen she s!*ne( !t. Eence the a*ree ent !s va"!( an( b!n(!n* )pon the :ep)b"!c of the 7h!"!pp!nes as a party thereto. ;. 5 )n!ty of the ,tate fro s)!t canCt be !nvo3e( !n th!s case beca)se !t !s once he"( by the co)rt !n a prev!o)s case that @#here the *overn ent ta3es property fro a pr!vate "an(o#ner fro p)b"!c )se #!tho)t *o!n* thro)*h the "e*a" process of e?propr!at!on or ne*ot!ate( sa"e, the a**r!eve( party ay proper"y a!nta!n a s)!t a*a!nst the *overn ent #!tho)t thereby v!o"at!n* the (octr!ne of *overn enta" ! )n!ty fro s)!t #!tho)t !ts consent. Th!s !s beca)se the (octr!ne of *overn enta" ! )n!ty fro s)!t cannot serve as an !nstr) ent for perpetrat!n* an !nF)st!ce to a c!t!zen. '. At the t! e of the s!*n!n* of the sa!( a*ree ent, the 7res!(ent #as e?erc!s!n* both the "e*!s"at!ve an( e?ec)t!ve po#ers of the *overn ent, an( s!nce the a*ree ent !s va"!(, !t !s enforceab"e an( !rrevocab"e, save )pon the *ro)n(s as e?!st at "a# for the revocat!on of any contract. .ote: :ea( conc)rr!n* op!n!on
