Consti 101614

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

1/23

G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC., petitioner ,

vs.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION an !"# $OARD OF TE%T$OO&S, respondents.

The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU assailed the constit!tionalit" of Act #o. $%&' as

aended b" Act #o. 3&%5 and Coon)ealth Act #o. 1*&. These la)s so!ght to reg!late the o)nership of private

schools in the co!ntr". +t is provided b" these la)s that a perit sho!ld first be sec!red fro the ecretar" of

-d!cation before a person a" be granted the right to o)n and operate a private school. This also gives the

ecretar" of -d!cation the discretion to ascertain standards that !st be follo)ed b" private schools. +t also providesthat the ecretar" of -d!cation can and a" ban certain tetboo/s fro being !sed in schools.

PACU contends that the right of a citi0en to o)n and operate a school is g!aranteed b" the Constit!tion, and an" la)

re!iring previo!s governental approval or perit before s!ch person co!ld eercise said right, ao!nts to

censorship of previo!s restraint, a practice abhorrent to o!r s"ste of la) and governent. PACU also avers that

s!ch po)er granted to the ecretar" of -d!cation is an !nd!e delegation of legislative po)er2 that there is !nd!e

delegation beca!se the la) did not specif" the basis or the standard !pon )hich the ecretar" !st eercise said

discretion2 that the po)er to ban boo/s granted to the ecretar" ao!nts to censorship.

ISSUE' hether or not Act #o, $%&' as aended is !nconstit!tional.

HELD' #o. +n the first place, there is no 4!sticiable controvers" presented. PACU did not sho) that it s!ffered an"

in4!r" fro the eercise of the ecretar" of -d!cation of s!ch po)ers granted to hi b" the said la).

econd, the tate has the po)er to reg!late, in fact control, the o)nership of schools. The Constit!tion provides for

state control of all ed!cational instit!tions even as it en!erates certain f!ndaental ob4ectives of all ed!cation to

)it, the developent of oral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and vocational efficienc", and

instr!ction in the d!ties of citi0enship. The tate control of private ed!cation )as intended b" the organic la).

Third, the tate has the po)er to ban illegal tetboo/s or those that are offensive to ilipino orals. This is still part of

the po)er of control and reg!lation b" the tate over all schools.

$$$. TA# 6, 7ACAPA8A

4!dicial revie) for ad4!dication

1 | J o h a nC O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W 1

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

2/23

• Tan et. al (as tapa"ers filed a petition for declarator" relief assailing the validit" of the AU:- -+;O

:-OUT+O# )hich deals )ith the a!thorit" of the 19%1 Constit!tional Convention to declare that it has nopo)er to consider and adopt proposals )hich see/ to revise the constit!tion thro!gh the adoption of a ne) forof governent. Under the :esol!tion, the Con

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

3/23

7A:+A#O, :. 6. CO7--C, digested

Posted b" Pi!s 7orados on #oveber 1&, $&11

8.:. #o. 11*'$%2 $D$ C:A $13, 7arch %, 1995 (Constitutional Law – Requirements in challenging the

constitutionality of the law)

ACT= Petitioners s!ing as ta pa"ers, assail a provision (ec 51 of :A #o. %*59 (An Act Converting the

7!nicipalit" of 7a/ati +nto a @ighl" Urbani0ed Cit" to be /no)n as the Cit" of 7a/ati on the gro!nd that the sae

attepts to alter or restart the >3An Act Converting the 7!nicipalit" of 7a/ati into a @ighl" Urbani0ed Cit" to be /no)n as the Cit"

of 7a/ati?. Another petition )hich contends the !nconstit!tionalit" of :.A. #o. %*5D )as also filed b" ohn @.

Osena as a senator, tapa"er and concerned citi0en.

ISSUES'

1. hether ection $ of :.A. #o. %*5D delineated the land areas of the proposed cit" of 7a/ati violating

sections % and D5& of the ocal 8overnent Code on specif"ing etes and bo!nds )ith technical descriptions

$. hether ection 51, Article E of :.A. #o. %*5D collides )ith ection *, Article E and ection %, Article 6+ of

the Constit!tion stressing that the" ne) cit"Bs ac!isition of a ne) corporate eistence )ill allo) the inc!bent

a"or to etend his ter to ore than t)o eec!tive ters as allo)ed b" the Constit!tion

3. hether the addition of another legislative district in 7a/ati is !nconstit!tional as the reapportionent

cannot be ade b" a special la)

HELD(RULING'


http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/mariano-jr-vs-comelec-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/mariano-jr-vs-comelec-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

4/23

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

5/23

#o 7eber of the @o!se of :epresentatives shall serve for ore than three consec!tive ters. 6ol!ntar"

ren!nciation of the office for an" length of tie shall not be considered as an interr!ption in the contin!it" of his

service for the f!ll ter for )hich he )as elected.

This challenge on the controvers" cannot be entertained as the preise on the iss!e is on the occ!rrence of an"

contingent events. Considering that these events a" or a" not happen, petitioners erel" pose a h"pothetical

iss!e )hich has "et to ripen to an act!al case or controvers". 7oreover, onl" 7ariano aong the petitioners is a

resident of Tag!ig and are not the proper parties to raise this abstract iss!e.

1. ection 5(1, Article 6+ of the Constit!tion clearl" provides that the Congress a" be coprised of not ore

than t)o h!ndred fift" ebers,unless otherwise provided by law . As th!s )orded, the Constit!tion did not

precl!de Congress fro increasing its ebership b" passing a la), other than a general reapportionent of the

la).

8.:. #o. 15$$95 !l" 9, $&&$

7ontesclaros, et al vs. Coelec, et al

Fa)!s'

Petitioners so!ght to prevent the postponeent of the $&&$ H election to a later date since doing so a" render

the !n!alified to vote or be voted for in vie) of the age liitation set b" la) for those )ho a" participate. The H

elections )as postponed since it )as deeed Ioperationall" ver" diffic!ltI to hold both H and aranga" elections

si!ltaneo!sl" in 7a" $&&$. Petitioners also so!ght to en4oin the lo)ering of age for ebership in the H.

+ss!e=

hether or not there )as grave ab!se of discretion ao!nting to lac/ or ecess of 4!risdiction ip!table to

respondents.

H#*'

The Co!rt held that, in the present case, there )as no act!al controvers" re!iring the eercise of the po)er of

4!dicial revie).

hile see/ing to prevent a postponeent of the 7a" ', $&&$ H elections, petitioners are nevertheless aenable to

a resetting of the H elections to an" date not later than !l" 15, $&&$. :A #o. 91'D has reset the H elections to

!l" 15, $&&$, a date acceptable to petitioners. Under the sae la), Congress erel" restored the age re!ireent

in P; #o. '*D, the original charter of the H, )hich fied the ai! age for ebership in the H to "o!ths less


8/9/2019 Consti 101614

6/23

than 1* "ears old. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the peranence of the age re!ireent !nder ection

D$D of the ocal 8overnent Code of 1991.

:A 91'D )hich resets and prescribes the !alifications of candidates and voters for the H elections )as held to beapplicable on the !l" 15 $&&$ election. +tBs constit!tionalit" not having been assailed in the first place.

The Co!rt r!led that petitioners had no personal and s!bstantial interest in aintaining this s!it, that the petition

presented no act!al 4!sticiable controvers", that petitioners did not cite an" provision of la) that is alleged to be

!nconstit!tional, and that there )as no grave ab!se of discretion on the part of p!blic respondents.

8on0ales v #arvasa8.:. #o. 1D&*35, A!g!st 1D, $&&&acts=

On ;eceber 9, 1999, a petition for prohibition and anda!s )as filed assailing theconstit!tionalit" of thecreation of the Preparator" Coission on Constit!tional :efor(PCC: and of the positions of presidentialcons!ltants, advisers and assistants. +n his capacit" as citi0en and as tapa"er, he see/s to en4oin the Coissionon A!dit fro passing in a!dit ependit!res for the PCC: and the presidentialcons!ltants,advisersandassistants. Petitioner also pra"s that the -ec!tive ecretar" be copelled thro!gh aanda!s to f!rnish the petitioner )ith inforation re!esting the naes of eec!tive officials holding!ltiple positions in governent, copies of their appointents and a list of the recipientsof l!!r" vehicles sei0ed b"the !rea! of C!stos and t!rned over to 7alacaJang.+ss!e=

hether or not petitioner possesses the re!isites of filing a s!it as a citi0en and as tapa"er.

:atio ;ecidendi=

The Co!rt r!led that the petitioner did not have standing to bring s!it as citi0en. Petitioner did not in factsho) )hat partic!lari0ed interest the" have to bring the s!it. As civic leaders, the" stillfall short of the re!ireents toaintain action. Their interest in assailing the -O does not present to be of a direct and personal character.!rtherore, the" do not s!stain or are iniediate danger of s!staining soe direct in4!r" as a res!lt of itsenforceent.As tapa"ers, petitioners cannot attac/ the -O. There is no appropriation granted froCongress b!tonl" an a!thori0ation b" the president. There being eercise b" Congress of itstaing and spending po)er, petitionercannot be allo)ed to !estion the PCC:Bs creation. The petitioner has failed to sho) that he is a real part" ininterest.ith regards to the petitionerBs re!est of disclos!re to p!blic inforation, the Co!rt !pheld thatciti0ens a"invo/e before the co!rts the right to inforation. hen a anda!s proceeding involves the assertion of a p!blicright, the re!ireent of personal interest is satisfied b" the ere fact that the petitioner is a citi0en. The !preeCo!rt disissed the petition )ith the eception that respondent -ec!tive ecretar" is ordered to f!rnish petitioner )ith the inforation re!ested

&

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

7/23

previo!sl" sei0ed b" the !rea! of C!stos and t!rned over to the Office of the President. Petitioner filed this

petition to copel the -ec!tive ecretar" to ans)er his letter.

HELD' +t is the d!t" of the -ec!tive ecretar" to ans)er the letter of the petitioner. The letter deals )ith atters of

p!blic concern, appointents to p!blic offices and !tili0ation of p!blic propert". The -ec!tive ecretar" is obliged toallo) the inspection and cop"ing of appointent papers.

Al!nan et al. vs 7irasol et al. !l" 31, 199%8.:. #o. 1&*399

This is a petition for revie) on certiorari of the ;ecision dated an!ar" 19, 1993 of the :egional Trial Co!rt,ranch 3', 7anila n!llif"ing an order of the ;+8, )hich cancelled the general elections for the H dated ;eceberD, 199$ in the Cit" of 7anila on the gro!nd that the elections previo!sl" held on 7a" $', 199& served the p!rpose ofthe first H !nder the 8C of 1991 (:.A. %1'&.On epteber 1*, 199$, the ;+8 iss!ed a resol!tion thro!gh then ecretar" :afael 7. Al!nan +++eepting the Cit" of 7anila fro holding its H election on ;eceber D, 199$. This )as iss!ed in relation to the

letter of osh!e :. antiago, acting president of the H Cit" ederation of 7anila. +n its resol!tion, the ;+8 stated=KAL close eaination of . . . :A %1'& )o!ld readil" reveal the intention of the legislat!re to eeptfro the forthcoing angg!niang Habataan elections those /abataang baranga" chapters )hicha" have cond!cted their elections )ithin the period of an!ar" 1, 19** and an!ar" 1, 199$!nder P 33%. 7anifestl" the ter of office of those elected H officials have been correspondingl"etended to coincide )ith the ter of office of those )ho a" be elected !nder :A %1'&.

:espondents filed a petition for certiorari and anda!s in the :TC of 7anila, )hich then iss!ed anin4!nction ordering petitioners to desist fro ipleenting the order of the ;+8.

Trial of the case ens!ed and a ;ecision )as iss!ed holding that the (1 the ;+8 had no po)er to IeeptIthe Cit" of 7anila fro holding H elections on ;eceber D, 199$ beca!se !nder Art. +E, C, M$(1 of the Constit!tion

the po)er to enforce and adinister Iall la)s and reg!lations relative to the cond!ct of an election, plebiscite,initiative, referend!, and recallI is vested solel" in the CO7--C2 ($ the CO7--C had alread" in effectdeterined that there had been no previo!s elections for H b" calling for general elections for H officers in ever"baranga" )itho!t eception2 and (3 the IeeptionI of the Cit" of 7anila )as violative of the e!al protection cla!seof the Constit!tion beca!se, according to the ;+8Ns records, in 5,&&& baranga"s H elections )ere held bet)eenan!ar" 1, 19** and an!ar" 1, 199$ b!t onl" in the Cit" of 7anila, )here there )ere *9% baranga"s, )as there noelections held on ;eceber D, 199$.

Petitioners so!ght this revie) on certiorari. The" insist that the Cit" of 7anila, having alread" cond!ctedelections for the H on 7a" $', 199&, )as eepted fro holding elections on ;eceber D, 199$. +n s!pport of theircontention, the" cite M53$(d of the ocal 8overnent Code of 1991, )hich provides that=

All seats reserved for the pederas"on ng ga sangg!niang /abataan in the different sangg!niangshall be deeed vacant !ntil s!ch tie that the sangg!niang /abataan chairen shall have been

elected and the respective pederas"on presidents have been selected= Provided, That, electionsfor the /abataang baranga" cond!cted !nder atas Pabansa lg. 33% at an" tie bet)eenan!ar" 1, 19** and an!ar" 1, 199$ shall be considered as the first elections provided for in thisCode. The ter of office of the /abataang baranga" officials elected )ithin the said period shall beetended correspondingl" to coincide )ith the ter of office of those elected !nder this Code.

+ss!e= hether the case has been oot and acadeic.


8/9/2019 Consti 101614

8/23

@eld= The !pree Co!rt held that the iss!e is not oot and it is necessar" in fact to decide the case on the iss!esraised b" the parties. The case coes )ith the r!le that co!rts )ill decide a !estion other)ise oot and acadeic ifit is >capable of repetition and "et evade revie).?

:e4ecting the contention of being oot and acadeic, the !pree Co!rt in the o!thern Pacific Terinalcase held=

The !estion involved in the orders of the +nterstate Coerce Coission are !s!all" contin!ing

(as are anifestl" those in the case at bar, and these considerations o!ght not to be, as the"ight be, defeated, b" shortKLhen, as here, pregnanc" is a significantfact the litigation, the noral $''

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

9/23

@eld=

On the first iss!e, the !pree Co!rt r!led that tLhe principal relief petitioners are pra"ing for is the disclos!re of the

contents of the P-PA prior to its finali0ation bet)een the t)o tates parties,? p!blic disclos!re of the tet of the

P-PA after its signing b" the President, d!ring the pendenc" of the present petition, has been largel" rendered ootand acadeic.

The tet of the P-PA having then been ade accessible to the p!blic, the petition has becoe oot and acadeic

to the etent that it see/s the disclos!re of the >f!ll tet? thereof.

The petition is not entirel" oot, ho)ever, beca!se petitioners see/ to obtain, not erel" the tet of the P-PA, b!t

also the Philippine and apanese offers in the co!rse of the negotiations.

7oving on to the second iss!e, The !pree Co!rt :!led that ;iploatic negotiations, therefore, are recogni0ed as

privileged in this 4!risdiction, the P-PA negotiations constit!ting no eception. +t bears ephasis, ho)ever, that s!ch

privilege is onl" pres!ptive. or as enate v. -rita holds, recogni0ing a t"pe of inforation as privileged does not

ean that it )ill be considered privileged in all instances. Onl" after a consideration of the contet in )hich the clai

is ade a" it be deterined if there is a p!blic interest that calls for the disclos!re of the desired inforation, strong

eno!gh to overcoe its traditionall" privileged stat!s.

The co!rt adopted also the doctrine in P7P v. 7anglap!s, herein petitioners )ere see/ing inforation fro the

PresidentBs representatives on the state of the then on

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

10/23

not delegated an" s!ch po)er to the President. (3 :ep. !plico et al. v. President 7acapagal<Arro"o and -ec!tive ecretar" :o!lo, petitioners contending that there )as !s!rpation of thepo)er of Congress granted b" ection $3 ($, Article 6+ of the Constit!tion. (D Pientel v. :o!lo,et al, petitioner fears that the declaration of a state of rebellion Iopens the door to the!nconstit!tional ipleentation of )arrantless arrestsI for the crie of rebellion.Iss/#'

hether or #ot Proclaation #o. D$% and 8eneral Order #o. D are constit!tionalQhether or #ot the petitioners have a legal standing or loc!s standi to bring s!itQH#*' The Co!rt rendered that the both the Proclaation #o. D$% and 8eneral Order #o. D areconstit!tional. ection 1*, Article 6++ does not epressl" prohibit declaring state or rebellion. ThePresident in addition to its Coander

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

11/23

On ebr!ar" $D, $&&', as the ilipino nation celebrated the $&th Anniversar" of the -;A People Po)er +,

President Arro"o iss!ed PP 1&1%, ipleented b" 8.O. #o. 5, declaring a state of national eergenc", th!s=

NO;, THEREFORE, +, 8loria 7acapagal

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

12/23

$. as the )arrantless search and sei0!re on the/aily Tri0une1s officescond!cted p!rs!ant to PP 1&1% validQ

III. THE RULING

2The Court partially #R,%T3/ the petitions$4

1. NO the warrantless arrests of petitioners !avid et al. made pursuant to "" 1#1$ were NO%

valid.

KLearches, sei0!res and arrests are no3

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

13/23

;avid )as not )earing the s!b4ect t

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

14/23

reason of the lifting of PP 1&1% b" virt!e of the declaration of PP 1&$1. The ol

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

15/23

the po)er to declare 7artial a). The onl" criterion for the eercise of the calling

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

16/23

paid b" s!bscribers before s!ch channels can be transitted as feeds to a s!bscriberBs T6 set )hich has

been installed )ith a ;rea satellite.

Ashall provide ade!ate p!blic service tie to enable the governent, thro!gh the said broadcasting stations,

to reach the pop!lation on iportant p!blic iss!es2 provide at all ties so!nd and balanced prograing2 proote

p!blic participation s!ch as in co!nit" prograing2 assist in the f!nctions of p!blic inforation and ed!cation.

The >7!st

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

17/23

ACT=

Petitioner Antonio errano )as hired b" respondents 8allant 7aritie ervices, +nc. and 7arlo) #avigation Co.,+nc., !nder a PO-A

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

18/23

To ilipino )or/ers, the rights g!aranteed !nder the foregoing constit!tional provisions translate to econoic sec!rit"and parit".

Upon c!rsor" reading, the s!b4ect cla!se appears faciall" ne!tral, for it applies to all Os. @o)ever, a closereaination reveals that the s!b4ect cla!se has a discriinator" intent against, and an invidio!s ipact on, Os at

t)o levels=

irst, Os )ith eplo"ent contracts of less than one "ear vis

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

19/23

p!blicl" o)ned since s!ch art)or/s are in fact o)ned b" the 7etropolitan 7!se! of 7anila o!ndation, a non<

profit, non

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

20/23

b!ilding of the net)or/2 that P87C is a ere lessor of the net)or/ it )ill b!ild as evidenced b" the nat!re of the

contract agreed !pon, i.e., Contract of ease.

ISSUE' hether or not Hilosba"an is correct.

HELD' Res, b!t onl" on iss!es $, 3, and D.

1. On the iss!e of nationalit", it sees that P87CBs foreign o)nership )as red!ced to D&V tho!gh.

$. On iss!es $, 3, and D, ection 1 of :.A. #o. 11'9, as aended b" .P. lg. D$, prohibits the PCO fro

holding and cond!cting lotteries >in collaboration, association or 4oint vent!re )ith an" person, association, copan"

or entit", )hether doestic or foreign.? There is !ndo!btedl" a collaboration bet)een PCO and P87C and not

erel" a contract of lease. The relations bet)een PCO and P87C cannot be defined sipl" b" the designation

the" !sed, i.e., a contract of lease. P!rs!ant to the )ordings of their agreeent, P87C at its o)n epense

shall /0*, o=#3a!#, an

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

21/23

enforcing that obligation in a partic!lar case.

Congress !ndo!btedl" has a right to inforation fro the eec!tive branch )henever it is so!ght in aid of legislation.

+f the eec!tive branch )ithholds s!ch inforation on the gro!nd that it is privileged, it !st so assert it and state the

reason therefor and )h" it !st be respected.

The infir provisions of -.O. D'D, ho)ever, allo) the eec!tive branch to evade congressional re!ests for

inforation )itho!t need of clearl" asserting a right to do so andSor proffering its reasons therefor. " the ereepedient of invo/ing said provisions, the po)er of Congress to cond!ct in!iries in aid of legislation is fr!strated.

G.R. No. 556 Nov#>ISSION ON HU>AN RIGHTS E>PLOYEES ASSOCIATION BCHREA, petitioner VS

CO>>ISSION ON HU>AN RIGHTS BCHR, respondent

Ponente= Chico

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

22/23

8/9/2019 Consti 101614

23/23

!rispr!dence also s!pports this po)er granted to the ;7. P:A vs es!sito . !nag, 6ictorino Cr!0 vs Co!rt of

Appeals, +ntia r., vs COA

On the ista/en preise that C@: belongs to the species of constit!tional coissions, the Constit!tion and

Chapter 5 sections $D and $' oo/ ++ of the Adinistrative code ention onl" 3 constit!tional coissions, the CC,the CO7-C and the COA. +n fact, the C@: is considered as Other odiesB. +ts being eber of the CA8 does

not grant it fiscal a!tono" beca!se fiscal a!tono" can onl" be granted b" the Constit!ion.

-ven ass!ing en arg!endo that the C@: en4o"s fiscal a!tono", all governent offices !st, all the sae /o)to)

to the alar" tandardi0ation a), for )hich its adinistration has been given b" Congress to the ;7.

A!tootive +nd!str" or/ers Alliance (A+A vs. :o!lo8.:. #o. 15%5&9, an!ar" 1*, $&&5

acts=

The A!tootive +nd!str" or/ers Alliance (A+A and its Affiliated Unions filed apetition for !pree Co!rt

to eercise its po)er of 4!dicial revie) to declare -ec!tiveOrder #o. 1*5 !nconstit!tional.The petitioners contended

that -O 1*5 violated their rights and interests as labor !nionsand as tapa"ers. " the said -O, the adinistrative

s!pervision over the #ational abor :elations Coission (#:C, its regional branches and all its personnel

incl!ding theeec!tive labor arbiters and labor arbiters )as transferred fro the #:C Chairpersonto the ecretar"

of abor and -plo"ent.Claiing that the iss!es does not pose an act!al case or controvers", respondentscontend

that the petitioners have not specificall" cited ho) -O #o. 1*5 has pre4!diced or threatened to pre4!dice their rights

and eistence as labor !nions and as tapa"ers.!rtherore, the" arg!ed that the petitioners lac/ed legal standing

to challenge the validit" of said -O, not even in their capacit" as tapa"ers, considering that labor !nions are eept

fro pa"ing taes.

+ss!e=hether or not petitioners have legal standing to assail the validit" of -O 1*5.

:ation ;ecidendi=

egal standing or loc!s standi is defined as a Ipersonal and s!bstantial interest in the case s!ch that the

part" has s!stained or )ill s!stain direct in4!r" as a res!lt of the governental act that is being challenged.I ince

petitioners have not sho)n that the" have s!stained or are in danger of s!staining an" personal in4!r" d!e to -O #o.

1*5, it cannot be said that the aforeentioned -O )ill pre4!dice their rights and interests. Onl"#:C personnel, the

s!b4ect of the ecretar" of aborBs disciplinar" a!thorit", have adirect and specific interest in this iss!e.+n their

capacit" as tapa"ers, petitioners also do not have legal standing on this

iss!esince there is no ention of an established disb!rseent of p!blic f!nds incontravention of la) or the

Constit!tion.The !pree Co!rt disissed the petition for lac/ of erit. The challenging of -O 1*5Bsconstit!tionalit"

have to )ait for the proper part" in a proper case before the co!rt a"intervene and entertain.


Documents

Consti 101614