This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Once again the Court is asked to draw a carefully drawn balance in the incessant conflicts between rights and regulations, liberties and limitations, and competing demands of the different segments of society. Here, we are confronted with the need to strike a workable and viable equilibrium between a constitutional mandate to maintain free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, together with the aim of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and forums among candidates,[2] on one hand, and the imperatives of a republican and democratic state,[3] together with its guaranteed rights of suffrage,[4] freedom of speech and of the press,[5] and the people's right to information,[6] on the other. | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying that Chairperson Consoliza P. Laguardia and two other members of the adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case.[6] Two days after, however, petitioner sought to withdraw[7] his motion for reconsideration, followed by the filing with this Court of a petition for certiorari and prohibition,[8] docketed as G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued. | |||||