Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Limbona v. Mangelin

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Adora
    The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings of the Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) on November 2, 1987 that declared the seat of Speaker Limbona vacant were null and void. The Court found that Limbona was not afforded due process, as he was not informed of the charges against him or given a chance to defend himself. Additionally, the expulsion appeared to be an act of vengeance by other Assembly members. While Limbona may have incorrectly called a recess, the respondents did not call attention to this mistake. Therefore, the Court reinstated Limbona as a member and Speaker of the Sangguniang Pampook.

    Copyright:

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

    Limbona v. Mangelin

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Adora
    105 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings of the Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) on November 2, 1987 that declared the seat of Speaker Limbona vacant were null and void. The Court found that Limbona was not afforded due process, as he was not informed of the charges against him or given a chance to defend himself. Additionally, the expulsion appeared to be an act of vengeance by other Assembly members. While Limbona may have incorrectly called a recess, the respondents did not call attention to this mistake. Therefore, the Court reinstated Limbona as a member and Speaker of the Sangguniang Pampook.

    Original Description:

    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?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings of the Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) on November 2, 1987 that declared the seat of Speaker Limbona vacant were null and void. The Court found that Limbona was not afforded due process, as he was not informed of the charges against him or given a chance to defend himself. Additionally, the expulsion appeared to be an act of vengeance by other Assembly members. While Limbona may have incorrectly called a recess, the respondents did not call attention to this mistake. Therefore, the Court reinstated Limbona as a member and Speaker of the Sangguniang Pampook.

    Copyright:

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

    Limbona v. Mangelin

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Adora
    The Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings of the Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) on November 2, 1987 that declared the seat of Speaker Limbona vacant were null and void. The Court found that Limbona was not afforded due process, as he was not informed of the charges against him or given a chance to defend himself. Additionally, the expulsion appeared to be an act of vengeance by other Assembly members. While Limbona may have incorrectly called a recess, the respondents did not call attention to this mistake. Therefore, the Court reinstated Limbona as a member and Speaker of the Sangguniang Pampook.

    Copyright:

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

    LIMBONA v.

    MANGELIN
    G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989
    SARMIENTO, J.:

    FACTS:

    Limbona was appointed as a member of the Sangguniang Pampook on Sept. 24, 1986, and was
    elected speaker of the Regional Legislative Assembly on March 12, 1987. Two members of the
    assembly filed their certificates for candidacy in the congressional elections but later withdrew. On
    Oct. 21, 1987, Limbona and Razul (Pampook Speaker of RXI) were invited by Datu Guimid Matalam
    (Chair of the Committee on Muslim Affairs of the HoR) to consultations and dialogues on the recent
    and present political developments and other issues affection RIX and XII. Limbona, however, stated
    that there shall be no session in November as “our presence in the house committee hearing of
    Congress take precedence over any pending business in Batasang Pampook.” Despite this, on Nov.
    2, 1987, the Assembly held session in defiance of Limbona’s advice. Declaring a quorum, the
    Speaker Pro-Tempore was authorized to preside. Following this was the motion to declare the seat of
    the Speaker vacant, and all in attendance voted in the affirmative. Limbona prays that the judgment
    be rendered declaring the proceedings held by the respondents of their session on Nov. 2, 1987 as
    null and void.

    The petitioner maintains that the proceedings are null and void on the grounds that:
     The decisions of the Assembly do not stand as it was on recess.

    The respondent maintains that the motion to declare the position as vacant is valid on the grounds
    that:
     Limbona caused to be prepared and signed the payment of salaries and emoluments of Odin
    Abdula despite the withdrawal of his candidacy for Congressman. Further, no request for
    reinstatement by Adbula was made. This means that Limbona is paying w/o authority from the
    assembly—an usurpation of its power.
     Petition is moot and academic because these should have been resolved within the Assembly
    and not before the Supreme Court

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the decisions made by the assembly on Nov. 2, 1987 were null and void; whether or
    not Limbona should be reinstated as speaker.
    RULING: Sangguniang Pampook is enjoined to REINSTATE the petitioner as Member of
    Sangguniang RXII and REINSTATE him as Speaker thereof.
    (1) The expulsion in question is of no force and effect. No showing that the Sanggunian had
    conducted an investigation, and whether or not the petitioner had been heard in his defense
    assuming that he was given the opportunity to do so.
    (2) It does not seem that the petitioner was made aware of his graft and corruption charges, and it
    cannot be said therefore that he was accorded any opportunity to rebut their accusations—
    charges are leveled to mere accusations that cannot warrant expulsion.
    (3) Resolution appears strongly to be a bare act of vendetta by other Assemblymen against the
    petitioner.
    (4) The fact that the case was filed by the petitioner to the Supreme Court and not just within the
    confines of the Assembly does not justify expulsion. Further, access to judicial remedies is
    guaranteed by the Constitution. Unless the recourse amounts to malicious prosecution, no
    one may be punished for seeking redress in the courts (also, the case is under the jurisdiction
    of the Supreme Court because the autonomous region only bears decentralization of
    administration).
    (5) While the Court agrees that the Speaker could not have validly called a recess since the
    Assembly had yet to convene on Nov. 1, the two sessions in question is still invalidated
    because upon calling of the recess, it was not a settled matter whether or not the petitioner
    could do so—it does not appear that the respondents called his attention to his mistake.
    (6) The Court will not tolerate the petitioner’s behavior in the event that he orders recesses in the
    future in violation of the Rules, or otherwise prevent the lawful meetings thereof. Should this
    happen, the Court is certain that it is armed with enough coercive remedies to thwart
    obstructive moves by the petitioner.

    You might also like