Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARNEL P. MISOLAS v. BENJAMIN V. PANGA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181704 2011-12-06	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On this score, we hold that R.A. No. 9335 is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial.[45]
	GR No. 133640 2005-11-25	RODOLFO S. BELTRAN v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AZCUNA, J.
As for determining whether or not the shutdown of commercial blood banks will truly serve the general public considering the shortage of blood supply in the country as proffered by petitioners, we maintain that the wisdom of the Legislature in the lawful exercise of its power to enact laws cannot be inquired into by the Court. Doing so would be in derogation of the principle of separation of powers.[53]
	GR No. 132527 2005-07-29	COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION v. RUBEN TORRES AZCUNA, J.
As this Court enters upon the task of passing on the validity of an act of a co-equal and coordinate branch of the Government, it bears emphasis that deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the time-honored principle that a statute is presumed to be valid.[8] This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each other's acts.[9] Hence, to doubt is to sustain. The theory is that before the act was done or the law was enacted, earnest studies were made by Congress, or the President, or both, to insure that the Constitution would not be breached.[10] This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one.[11] In other words, before a statute or a portion thereof may be declared unconstitutional, it must be shown that the statute or issuance violates the Constitution clearly, palpably and plainly, and in such a manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Court.[12]