This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (2) Petition for Prohibition,[6] filed by the Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. Maria Concepcion S. Noche[7] and several others[8] in their personal capacities as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn (ALFI); | |||||
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Because all laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality, courts will uphold a law's validity if any set of facts may be conceived to sustain it.[87] On its face, we find that there are at least two conceivable bases to sustain the subject regulation's validity absent clear and convincing proof that it is unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory. Congress may have legitimately concluded that business establishments have the capacity to absorb a decrease in profits or income/gross sales due to the 20% discount without substantially affecting the reasonable rate of return on their investments considering (1) not all customers of a business establishment are senior citizens and (2) the level of its profit margins on goods and services offered to the general public. Concurrently, Congress may have, likewise, legitimately concluded that the establishments, which will be required to extend the 20% discount, have the capacity to revise their pricing strategy so that whatever reduction in profits or income/gross sales that they may sustain because of sales to senior citizens, can be recouped through higher mark-ups or from other products not subject of discounts. As a result, the discounts resulting from sales to senior citizens will not be confiscatory or unduly oppressive. | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court has clarified that the constitutional guarantee of local autonomy in the Constitution [Art. X, Sec. 2] refers to the administrative autonomy of local government units or, cast in more technical language, the decentralization of government authority.[35] It does not make local governments sovereign within the State.[36] Administrative autonomy may involve devolution of powers, but subject to limitations like following national policies or standards,[37] and those provided by the Local Government Code, as the structuring of local governments and the allocation of powers, responsibilities, and resources among the different local government units and local officials have been placed by the Constitution in the hands of Congress[38] under Section 3, Article X of the Constitution. | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner asserts that what is involved here is a devolved power. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the power to regulate small-scale mining has been devolved to all provinces. In the exercise of devolved powers, departmental approval is not necessary.[30] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Basco v. PAGCOR[14] points to PD 1869 as the source of authority for PAGCOR to regulate and centralize all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or law, thus: P.D. 1869 was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government to "regulate and centralize thru an appropriate institution all games of chance authorized by existing franchise or permitted by law" (1st Whereas Clause, PD 1869). As was subsequently proved, regulating and centralizing gambling operations in one corporate entity - the PAGCOR, was beneficial not just to the Government but to society in general. It is a reliable source of much needed revenue for the cash strapped Government. It provided funds for social impact projects and subjected gambling to "close scrutiny, regulation, supervision and control of the Government" (4th Whereas Clause, PD 1869). | |||||
|
2008-11-18 |
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. | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Thus, in line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi when a case involves an issue of overarching significance to our society,[22] we therefore brush aside technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of this petition,[23] seeing as it involves a challenge to the most exalted of all the civil rights, the freedom of expression. The petition raises other issues like the extent of the right to information of the public. It is fundamental, however, that we need not address all issues but only the most decisive one which in the case at bar is whether the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press. | |||||
|
2005-11-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The fundamental criterion is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute. Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[56] Those who petition this Court to declare a law, or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearly establish the basis therefor. Otherwise, the petition must fail. | |||||