This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is pointless to discuss the matter at length in these instant cases of transcendental importance in view of the Court's pronouncement, in Magallona v. Ermita.[103] There it held that the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of statutes, notwithstanding the following defects:In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners. | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As far back as Tañada v. Angara, [91] the Court has unequivocally declared that certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials, as there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. This ruling was later on applied in Macalintal v. COMELEC,[92] Aldaba v. COMELEC,[93] Magallona v. Ermita,[94] and countless others. In Tañada, the Court wrote: In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation of constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide. [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| "Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American-English origin.[3] Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.[4] This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.[5] While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator's district and constituents.[6] In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.[7] Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations.[8] | |||||