Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. ALEJANDRO S. URRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Every time a constitutional issue is brought before the Court, the issue of locus standi is raised to question the personality of the parties invoking the Court's jurisdiction. The Court has routinely made reference to a liberalized stance when it comes to petitions raising issues of transcendental importance to the country. Invariably, after some discussions, the Court would eventually grant standing.[28]
	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
When the constitutionality of a law is put in issue, judicial review may be availed of only if the following requisites concur: "(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) the existence of personal and substantial interest on the part of the party raising the [question of constitutionality]; (3) recourse to judicial review is made at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the [question of constitutionality] is the lis mota of the case."[32]
	GR No. 196271 2012-02-28	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
The power to appoint has traditionally been recognized as executive in nature.[25] Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution describes in broad strokes the extent of this power, thus: Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. [emphasis ours]
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
At the outset, the power to appoint is essentially executive in nature, and the limitations on or qualifications to the exercise of this power should be strictly construed; these limitations or qualifications must be clearly stated in order to be recognized.[73] The appointing power is embodied in Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, which states:
	GR No. 168053 2011-09-21	REBECCA T. ARQUERO v. CA PERALTA, J.
In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must prove that he is entitled to the subject public office. In other words, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested position.[46] Otherwise, the person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and the action for quo warranto may be dismissed.[47] It is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office.[48]