Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    SCR 8

    Uploaded by

    Xennia Keizia Fernandez
    Julio Agcaoili was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1916 under Act No. 2041, which did not place age limits on justices. However, in 1923, Act No. 3107 established that justices must retire at age 65. Agcaoili argued this did not apply to him as his appointment was under the previous law. When he was removed from office, he filed a petition for quo warranto. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that Act No. 3107's age limit provision was not stated in the title and was therefore void as applied to him. The court ordered Agcaoili be restored to his position.

    Copyright:

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

    SCR 8

    Uploaded by

    Xennia Keizia Fernandez
    9 views1 page
    Julio Agcaoili was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1916 under Act No. 2041, which did not place age limits on justices. However, in 1923, Act No. 3107 established that justices must retire at age 65. Agcaoili argued this did not apply to him as his appointment was under the previous law. When he was removed from office, he filed a petition for quo warranto. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that Act No. 3107's age limit provision was not stated in the title and was therefore void as applied to him. The court ordered Agcaoili be restored to his position.

    Original Title

    scr8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Julio Agcaoili was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1916 under Act No. 2041, which did not place age limits on justices. However, in 1923, Act No. 3107 established that justices must retire at age 65. Agcaoili argued this did not apply to him as his appointment was under the previous law. When he was removed from office, he filed a petition for quo warranto. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that Act No. 3107's age limit provision was not stated in the title and was therefore void as applied to him. The court ordered Agcaoili be restored to his position.

    Copyright:

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

    SCR 8

    Uploaded by

    Xennia Keizia Fernandez
    Julio Agcaoili was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1916 under Act No. 2041, which did not place age limits on justices. However, in 1923, Act No. 3107 established that justices must retire at age 65. Agcaoili argued this did not apply to him as his appointment was under the previous law. When he was removed from office, he filed a petition for quo warranto. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that Act No. 3107's age limit provision was not stated in the title and was therefore void as applied to him. The court ordered Agcaoili be restored to his position.

    Copyright:

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

    KEYWORD/TOPIC

    FACTS Julio Agcaoili was appointed as justice of the peace in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, in
    1916 under Act No. 2041, which stated that justices of the peace shall hold office
    during good behavior. Act No. 3107, enacted in 1923, provided that justices of
    the peace shall serve until reaching the age of 65. A letter from the
    Undersecretary of Justice in 1923 informed Agcaoili that, due to his age, he
    ceased to be a justice of the peace under the new act.
    Agcaoili protested this decision, arguing that Act No. 3107 did not apply
    retroactively to justices appointed before its enactment and that Act No. 2041 did
    not include age limitations. Despite protests and requests for clarification,
    Agcaoili received no response from the Secretary of Justice. Eventually, to avoid
    potential criminal prosecution, Agcaoili relinquished his office as a justice of the
    peace, all the while protesting against the decision.
    The petition for quo warranto filed by Agcaoili was denied in the Court of First
    Instance on the grounds of prescription. Agcaoili appealed, arguing that the
    ISSUE WON the legislature can adopt a law that contains a provision not expressed in
    the title of the Act.

    RULING The court affirms that the provision in the Jones Law mandating a single subject
    expressed in the title is mandatory, not merely directory. It states that the violation
    of this provision renders any provision of the law to which no reference was made
    in the title as illegal and void. The court also refers to the reasoning behind this
    provision, emphasizing that it aims to prevent incongruous matters from being
    combined in a single bill and to avoid surprise or fraud on the legislature and the
    public.
    In the case being considered, Act No. 3107 was found to contain a provision not
    indicated in the title, specifically regarding the appointment of justices and
    auxiliary justices of the peace to serve until the age of sixty-five. Consequently,
    the court rules that this provision is illegal, void, and contrary to the mandatory
    nature of the Jones Law. As a result, the law (Act No. 3107) cannot be applied to
    justices and auxiliary justices of the peace appointed before March 17, 1923. The
    court also concludes that Julio Agcaoili, who was forcibly removed from his
    position as a justice of the peace, was unlawfully ousted and should be restored
    to his position without delay.
    The court further discusses the limitation or prescription of action in quo warranto
    proceedings, asserting that ordinary statutes of limitation do not apply to actions
    brought to enforce public rights. It argues that the principle of nullum tempus
    occurrit regi (no time runs against the king) applies in these cases, meaning that
    the lapse of time does not constitute a bar to such proceedings.
    Additionally, the court examines the statutory provisions (Section 216) in both
    English and Spanish versions of Act No. 190. It argues that based on the
    punctuation used and the subject matter discussed preceding and following the
    semicolon in the English version, the latter part of the section might refer solely to
    officers of corporations rather than public officers like Agcaoili. Even if applicable,

    You might also like