Araullo, Sean Russel T.

JPL
HT402ITM Worksheet #2

WorkSheet #2
Case: Angara vs Electoral Commission
Main Issue: The major problem in the Angara vs. Electoral Commission case was how to read
the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines' meaning of "qualified electors." Jose Angara, a
candidate for the Senate, was disqualified because he did not have the legal qualifications to run
for office. This was the main issue of the case.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court agreed with Jose Angara and said that the Senate Electoral
Tribunal, not the Electoral Commission, has the power to decide if a member is qualified. In the
end, the ruling made it possible for Angara to become a Senator.

Remarks: The Angara vs. voting Commission case is important in the history of Philippine law
because it set a major standard for how voting bodies should be able to do their jobs. In
particular, it brought up the idea of "separation of powers" and the Electoral Commission's limits
when it comes to checking candidates' credentials. The fact that Jose P. Laurel is involved in this
case shows how much he cares about the rule of law and fair voting in the Philippines.

Case: Marcos vs Nalundasan

Main Issue: The killing of Julio Nalundasan, a political competitor of Ferdinand Marcos, was
the primary source of contention in this case. During the national elections that took place on
September 21, 1935, Nalundasan was murdered at his home in Batac, which is located in the
province of Ilocos Norte. At the time of the alleged murder, Ferdinand Marcos was a law
student. He was suspected of carrying out the crime.

Court Decision: Throughout the course of the trial, Jose P. Laurel represented Marcos as his
defense attorney. Even though there was evidence against Marcos, Laurel was able to
successfully defend him, and the court ultimately decided that Marcos was not guilty of the
murder allegations. The fact that Marcos was able to continue his rise to power in Philippine
politics was made possible by the acquittal, which was a significant turning point in his early
political career.

Remarks: It is important to note that the case brought to light Laurel's legal expertise and her
ability to defend clients. The fact that he was able to successfully defend Marcos catapulted him
to the forefront of public attention and contributed to his reputation in the legal scene.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that certain historians and critics have, in the years after
the trial, cast doubt on the impartiality of the proceedings and the grounds that led to Marcos'
acquittal.

Case: Calalang vs Williams

Main Issue: Calalang vs. Williams (70 Phil. 726) was a case that centered on the validity of a
legislation that required motor vehicles in Manila to have specific safety equipment. In
specifically, the statute required the installation of a mechanical device that is commonly referred
Araullo, Sean Russel T. JPL
HT402ITM Worksheet #2

to as the "kalesa" or "carriage meter." Petitioner Valeriano P. Calalang challenged this

legislation, Republic Act No. 399, saying that it violated the equal protection section of the
Constitution since it only applied to motor vehicles and not to other kinds of transportation such
as animal-drawn vehicles like the "kalesa." According to the petitioner, the law was challenged
because it only applied to motor vehicles.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court, with Jose P. Laurel serving as Chief Justice, ruled that
Republic Act No. 399 is constitutional and affirmed its validity. In its reasoning, the court
determined that there was a significant difference between motor vehicles and vehicles that were
dragged by animals. As mechanical contraptions, motor vehicles are subject to regulation in
order to ensure the safety and welfare of the general public. In its decision, the court noted that
the equal protection provision does not mandate complete equality but rather stipulates that all
individuals must be treated in the same manner under situations and circumstances that are
comparable to one another.

Remarks: The view that Chief Justice Laurel expressed in this particular case brought to light
the notion that the state had the ability to pass laws for the purpose of promoting public safety
and welfare. The line of reasoning that he presented emphasized the concept that laws have the
ability to discriminate between different categories of individuals, provided that the
categorization is founded on significant differences and serves a valid purpose for society.

Case: Ang Tibay vs CIR

Main Issue: Ang Tibay vs. CIR was a case in which the primary question that needed to be
answered was whether or not the employer, Ang Tibay, had legitimate reasons to fire employees
without fair cause.

Court Decision: Ang Tibay was awarded the victory in a ruling that was written by Chief Justice
José Abad Santos and handed down by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Due to the fact that
Ang Tibay had shown adequate proof of the workers' misbehavior, notably the theft that they had
committed, the court decided that the firing of the employees was legal.

Remarks: One of the most noteworthy features of this case is the idea that is commonly referred
to as the "Ang Tibay doctrine." With the establishment of this concept, the conditions for lawful
dismissal were defined, with an emphasis placed on the necessity of sufficient evidence and due
process in matters involving employment termination. It established the requirements for fair
labor practices and safeguarded the rights of workers, making it a fundamental component of
Philippine labor law.

Case: Cuevo vs Barredo

Main Issue: At the heart of the Cuevo vs. Barredo case was the question of whether or not the
President had the authority to dismiss members of the judicial system from their positions. The
specific argument that was raised was whether or not President Ferdinand Marcos has the right to
dismiss Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee from their
posts on the Supreme Court.
Araullo, Sean Russel T. JPL
HT402ITM Worksheet #2

Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court, which was led by Chief Justice José P. Laurel,
issued a decision that was favorable to President Marcos. By emphasizing the concept of
separation of powers and the President's prerogative to guarantee the proper running of
government institutions, the ruling affirmed the President's authority to dismiss members of the
judiciary from their positions.

Remarks: The role that José P. Laurel played in this case is noteworthy because it demonstrated
his conformity with the policies and interpretations of presidential authority that were
implemented by the Marcos administration. Laurel's detractors frequently cite to the decisions he
made during this time period as indications of his collaboration with the Marcos government,
which was notorious for its authoritarian inclinations. Laurel's admirers, on the other hand,
contend that his actions were governed by legal principles and his knowledge of the Constitution
at the time.