Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEJOMAR C. BINAY v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners likewise seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[16] that the tax deduction scheme adopted by the government is justified by police power.[17] They assert that "[a]lthough both police power and the power of eminent domain have the general welfare for their object, there are still traditional distinctions between the two"[18] and that "eminent domain cannot be made less supreme than police power."[19] Petitioners further claim that the legislature, in amending RA 7432, relied on an erroneous contemporaneous construction that prior payment of taxes is required for tax credit.[20]
	GR Nos. 186739-960 2013-04-17	LEOVEGILDO R. RUZOL v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, municipal governments are clothed with authority to enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon them by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, and ensure the protection of property in the municipality.[17]
	GR No. 131481 2011-03-16	BUKLOD NANG MAGBUBUKID SA LUPAING RAMOS v. E. M. RAMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[32] G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991,201 SCRA 508.
	GR No. 158562 2010-04-23	RAMON R. YAP v. VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In this regard, it is necessary for this Court to elaborate on the nature and meaning of the term "public purpose," in relation to disbursement of public funds. As understood in the traditional sense, public purpose or public use means any purpose or use directly available to the general public as a matter of right. Thus, it has also been defined as "an activity as will serve as benefit to [the] community as a body and which at the same time is directly related function of government."[12] However, the concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere, the idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been discarded.[13] In fact, this Court has already categorically stated that the term "public purpose" is not defined, since it is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards. It should be given a broad interpretation; therefore, it does not only pertain to those purposes that which are traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building roads and delivery of basic services, but also includes those purposes designed to promote social justice. Thus, public money may now be used for the relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian reform.[14] In short, public use is now equated with public interest,[15] and that it is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons.[16]
	GR No. 170656 2007-08-15	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. CARPIO MORALES, J.
Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, not repugnant to the Constitution, for the good and welfare of the people.[35] This power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex â"€ the welfare of the people is the supreme law.