Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARSADI M. DISOMANGCOP v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Even assuming that RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 did in fact amend RA No. 9054, the supermajority (2/3) voting requirement required under Section 1, Article XVII of RA No. 9054[32] has to be struck down for giving RA No. 9054 the character of an irrepealable law by requiring more than what the Constitution demands.
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
During the height of the Muslim Empire, early Muslim jurists tended to see the world through a simple dichotomy: there was the dar-ul-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar-ul-harb (the Abode of War). The first referred to those lands where Islamic laws held sway, while the second denoted those lands where Muslims were persecuted or where Muslim laws were outlawed or ineffective.[27] This way of viewing the world, however, became more complex through the centuries as the Islamic world became part of the international community of nations.
	GR No. 177597 2008-07-16	BAI SANDRA S. A. SEMA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The purpose of the writ of Certiorari is to correct grave abuse of discretion by "any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions."[21] On the other hand, the writ of Mandamus will issue to compel a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person to perform an act "which the law specifically enjoins as a duty."[22] True, the COMELEC did not issue Resolution No. 7902 in the exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial functions.[23] Nor is there a law which specifically enjoins the COMELEC to exclude from canvassing the votes cast in Cotabato City for representative of "Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato City." These, however, do not justify the outright dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 177597 because Sema also prayed for the issuance of the writ of Prohibition and we have long recognized this writ as proper for testing the constitutionality of election laws, rules, and regulations.[24]
	GR No. 170626 2008-03-03	SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY OF BRGY. DON MARIANO MARCOS v. PUNONG BARANGAY MARTINEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The 1987 Constitution is explicit in defining the scope of judicial power. It establishes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of acts of the political departments. It speaks of judicial prerogative in terms of duty.[21] Paragraph 2, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, provides that:Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis provided.) The doctrine of separation of powers is not absolute in its application; rather, it should be applied in accordance with the principle of checks and balances. The removal from office of elective officials must not be tainted with partisan politics and used to defeat the will of the voting public. Congress itself saw it fit to vest that power in a more impartial tribunal, the court. Furthermore, the local government units are not deprived of the right to discipline local elective officials; rather, they are prevented from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal.