Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN v. MARGARITO B. TEVES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
With due respect, I disagree with the overbroad statement that Congress may dictate as to how the President may exercise his/her power of executive clemency. The form or manner by which the President, or Congress for that matter, should exercise their respective Constitutional powers or prerogatives cannot be interfered with unless it is so provided in the Constitution. This is the essence of the principle of separation of powers deeply ingrained in our system of government which "ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere."[33] Moreso, this fundamental principle must be observed if non-compliance with the form imposed by one branch on a co-equal and coordinate branch will result into the diminution of an exclusive Constitutional prerogative.
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
In addition, R.A. No. 5921,[66] approved on June 21, 1969, contained provisions relative to "dispensing of abortifacients or anti-conceptional substances and devices." Under Section 37 thereof, it was provided that "no drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician."
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
In addition, R.A. No. 5921,[66] approved on June 21, 1969, contained provisions relative to "dispensing of abortifacients or anti-conceptional substances and devices." Under Section 37 thereof, it was provided that "no drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician."
	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA 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]