This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Records disclosed that as early as December 2005, following the decision of PSALM's Board of Directors to commence the sale process of the AHEPP along with Magat and AmlanHEPPs in August 2005, MWSS was actively cooperating and working with PSALM regarding the proposed Protocol for the Privatization of the AHEPP, specifically on the terms and conditions for the management, control and operation of the Angat Dam Complex taking into consideration the concerns of its concessionaires. A Technical Working Group (TWG) similar to that formed for the Operation and Management Agreement of Pantabangan and Magat dams was created, consisting of representatives from PSALM, MWSS and other concerned agencies, to formulate strategies for the effective implementation of the privatization of AHEPP and appropriate structure for the operation and management of the Angat Dam Complex.[38] | |||||
|
2011-03-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,[8] the Court held that, "What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly."[9] In Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino,[10] quoting Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[11] the Court held that, "This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."[12] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[13] the Court held that, "No one is allowed to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly."[14] | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In order that a petition for mandamus may be given due course, it must be instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right.[3] However, if the petition is anchored on the people's right to information on matters of public concern, any citizen can be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right.[4] There is no need to show any special interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and, as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws.[5] | |||||
|
2008-10-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The MOA-AD further provides for the sharing of minerals on the territorial waters between the Central Government and the BJE, in favor of the latter, through production sharing and economic cooperation agreement.[44] The activities which the Parties are allowed to conduct on the territorial waters are enumerated, among which are the exploration and utilization of natural resources, regulation of shipping and fishing activities, and the enforcement of police and safety measures.[45] There is no similar provision on the sharng of minerals and allowed activities with respect to the internal waters of the BJE. | |||||
|
2008-09-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| US jurisprudence clearly guards against the dangers of allowing Congress access to all papers relating to a negotiation with a foreign power. In this jurisdiction, the recent case of Akbayan Citizens Action Party, et al. v. Thomas G. Aquino, et al.[39] upheld the privileged character of diplomatic negotiations. In Akbayan, the Court stated: Privileged character of diplomatic negotiations | |||||