Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNOR EMILIO M.R. OSMENA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Chavez v. National Housing Authority,[35] the Court held that pending the enactment of an enabling law, the release of information through postings in public bulletin boards and government websites satisfies the constitutional requirement, thus: It is unfortunate, however, that after almost twenty (20) years from birth of the 1987 Constitution, there is still no enabling law that provides the mechanics for the compulsory duty of government agencies to disclose information on government transactions. Hopefully, the desired enabling law will finally see the light of day if and when Congress decides to approve the proposed "Freedom of Access to Information Act." In the meantime, it would suffice that government agencies post on their bulletin boards the documents incorporating the information on the steps and negotiations that produced the agreements and the agreements themselves, and if finances permit, to upload said information on their respective websites for easy access by interested parties. Without any law or regulation governing the right to disclose information, the NHA or any of the respondents cannot be faulted if they were not able to disclose information relative to the SMDRP to the public in general.[36] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 196271 2012-02-28	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
We came to the same conclusion in Osmeña v. Commission on Elections,[6] where we unequivocally stated that "the Constitution has mandated synchronized national and local elections."[7] Despite the length and verbosity of their motions, the petitioners have failed to convince us to deviate from this established ruling.
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
This Court was not left behind in recognizing the synchronization of the national and local elections as a constitutional mandate. In Osmeña v. Commission on Elections,[14] we explained: It is clear from the aforequoted provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the terms of office of Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, the local officials, the President and the Vice-President have been synchronized to end on the same hour, date and year -- noon of June 30, 1992.
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Section 18, Article X of the Constitution plainly states that "The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by the majority of the votes case by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose." With these wordings as standard, we interpret the requirement to mean that only amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-essential to the creation of autonomous regions - i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned in the Constitution which Congress must provide for in the Organic Act - require ratification through a plebiscite. These amendments to the Organic Act are those that relate to: (a) the basic structure of the regional government; (b) the region's judicial system, i.e., the special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction; and, (c) the grant and extent of the legislative powers constitutionally conceded to the regional government under Section 20, Article X of the Constitution.[36]
	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
These provisions support the conclusion that no elections may be held on any other date for the positions of President, Vice President, Members of Congress and local officials, except when so provided by another Act of Congress, or upon orders of a body or officer to whom Congress may have delegated either the power or the authority to ascertain or fill in the details in the execution of that power.[63]
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In any event, the Court in more than one instance has taken a liberal stance as far as standing is concerned. This is especially true when important constitutional issues are at stake. The cases of Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. v. Gimenez,[52] Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,[53] Guingona, Jr. v. Carague,[54] Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR),[55] Osmeña v. Commission on Elections,[56] Carpio v. Executive Secretary,[57] Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr.,[58] Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,[59] and Agan v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[60] bear witness to the liberal attitude of the Court on locus standi.