This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSG asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congress and respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of a majoritarian democratic process"[75] and "characterized by an inordinate amount of transparency."[76] The OSG posits that the authority of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments, in particular, with Congress.[77] It further asserts that in view of the Court's ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,[78] the remedies of certiorari and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the validity of the acts of the legislature.[79] | |||||