This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered superior to executive agreements. Treaties are products of the acts of the Executive and the Senate[215] unlike executive agreements, which are solely executive actions.[216] Because of legislative participation through the Senate, a treaty is regarded as being on the same level as a statute.[217] If there is an irreconcilable conflict, a later law or treaty takes precedence over one that is prior.[218] An executive agreement is treated differently. Executive agreements that are inconsistent with either a law or a treaty are considered ineffective.[219] Both types of international agreement are nevertheless subject to the supremacy of the Constitution.[220] | |||||
|
2015-07-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| d. Part-time public health workers/consultants are entitled to one-half (1/2) of the prescribed rates received by full-time public health workers.[6] | |||||
|
2011-02-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The first element of customary international law, i.e., "established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States,"[113] does not, under the premises, appear to be obtaining as reflected in this simple reality: As of October 12, 2010, only 114[114] States have ratified the Rome Statute, subsequent to its coming into force eight (8) years earlier, or on July 1, 2002. The fact that 114 States out of a total of 194[115] countries in the world, or roughly 58.76%, have ratified the Rome Statute casts doubt on whether or not the perceived principles contained in the Statute have attained the status of customary law and should be deemed as obligatory international law. The numbers even tend to argue against the urgency of establishing international criminal courts envisioned in the Rome Statute. Lest it be overlooked, the Philippines, judging by the action or inaction of its top officials, does not even feel bound by the Rome Statute. Res ipsa loquitur. More than eight (8) years have elapsed since the Philippine representative signed the Statute, but the treaty has not been transmitted to the Senate for the ratification process. | |||||
|
2009-12-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III,[116] we held that: Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law. [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A view has been advanced that unprotected speech refers only to pornography,[43] false or misleading advertisement,[44] advocacy of imminent lawless action, and expression endangering national security. But this list is not, as some members of the Court would submit, exclusive or carved in stone. Without going into specifics, it may be stated without fear of contradiction that US decisional law goes beyond the aforesaid general exceptions. As the Court has been impelled to recognize exceptions to the rule against censorship in the past, this particular case constitutes yet another exception, another instance of unprotected speech, created by the necessity of protecting the welfare of our children. As unprotected speech, petitioner's utterances can be subjected to restraint or regulation. | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying that Chairperson Consoliza P. Laguardia and two other members of the adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case.[6] Two days after, however, petitioner sought to withdraw[7] his motion for reconsideration, followed by the filing with this Court of a petition for certiorari and prohibition,[8] docketed as G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued. | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| On June 14, 2005, NTC held a dialogue with the Board of Directors of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP). NTC allegedly assured the KBP that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the right to information. Accordingly, NTC and KBP issued a Joint Press Statement which states, among others, that:[12] | |||||