This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The applicability of the operative fact doctrine to executive acts was further explicated by this Court in Rieta v. People, [164] thus: Petitioner contends that his arrest by virtue of Arrest Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) No. 4754 was invalid, as the law upon which it was predicated -- General Order No. 60, issued by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos -- was subsequently declared by the Court, in Tañada v. Tuvera, 33 to have no force and effect. Thus, he asserts, any evidence obtained pursuant thereto is inadmissible in evidence. | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Manila Motor Co., Inc., v. Flores [257] and De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank, [258] cited by the ponencia, and Republic v. Herida, [259] and Republic v. CFI, [260] cited by Justice Brion, all involve the application of the debt moratorium laws. In those cases, the Court held that during the period from the effectivity of the debt moratorium laws until they were struck down as unconstitutional in Rutter v. Esteban, [261] the parties could not be faulted for relying on the belief that the payment of debts was suspended by virtue of the debt moratorium laws. In Fernandez v. P. Cuerva & Co., [262] another case relied on by the ponencia, another statute the Reorganization Law was the invalid act declared by the Court. In Rieta v. People, [263] also relied on by the ponencia, again another statute General Order No. 60 issued by former President Ferdinand Marcos under his martial law legislative power was invalidated. | |||||
|
2007-08-15 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the petitioner Solicitor General argues that the existence of the various agreements implementing the SMDRP is an operative fact that can no longer be disturbed or simply ignored, citing Rieta v. People of the Philippines.[90] | |||||