Back

ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA- GARAFIL, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 206290] ATTY. DINDO G. VENTURANZA, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CLARO A. ARELLANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, AND RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 209138] IRMA A. VILLANUEVA AND FRANCISCA B. ROSQUITA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 212030] EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., RESPONDENT. [CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BRION, J.]

ATTY. CHELOY E. VELICARIA- GARAFIL, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 206290] ATTY. DINDO G. VENTURANZA, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CLARO A. ARELLANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL, AND RICHARD ANTHONY D. FADULLON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 209138] IRMA A. VILLANUEVA AND FRANCISCA B. ROSQUITA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 212030] EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, PETITIONER, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., RESPONDENT. [CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BRION, J.]

G.R. No. 203372 | 2015-06-16

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
 
BRION, J.:
 
I was the original Member-in-Charge assigned to this case and in this capacity, submitted a draft Opinion to the Court, which draft the Court did not approve in an 8 to 6 vote in favor of the present ponente.
 
Due to the close 8-6 vote, I find it appropriate to simply reiterate in this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion the legal arguments and positions that I had originally submitted to the Court en banc for its consideration.
 
The present consolidated cases stemmed from the petitioners’ presidential appointments that were revoked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) No. 2,...