You're currently signed in as:
User

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2013-06-25
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In its Order[29] dated September 26, 2006, the trial court extended the aforequoted TPO for another ten (10) days, and gave petitioner a period of five (5) days within which to show cause why the TPO should not be renewed, extended, or modified. Upon petitioner's manifestation,[30] however, that he has not received a copy of private respondent's motion to modify/renew the TPO, the trial court directed in its Order[31] dated October 6, 2006 that petitioner be furnished a copy of said motion. Nonetheless, an Order[32] dated a day earlier, October 5, had already been issued renewing the TPO dated August 23, 2006. The pertinent portion is quoted hereunder: x x x x
2013-04-11
PERALTA, J.
On August 8, 2005, MGB R-III Director Cabantog, who was the concurrent Chairman of the PMRB, endorsed to the Provincial Governor of Bulacan, Governor Josefina M. dela Cruz, the aforesaid Applications for Quarry PermitĀ  that had apparently been converted to Applications for Small-Scale Mining Permit of Eduardo D. Mercado, Benedicto S. Cruz, Gerardo R. Cruz and Lucila S. Valdez (formerly Liberato Sembrano).[10]
2010-02-10
PERALTA, J.
However, the IRR went beyond the criteria prescribed by Section 461 of the Local Government Code when it added the italicized portion above stating that "[t]he land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands." Nowhere in the Local Government Code is the said provision stated or implied. Under Section 461 of the Local Government Code, the only instance when the territorial or land area requirement need not be complied with is when there is already compliance with the population requirement. The Constitution requires that the criteria for the creation of a province, including any exemption from such criteria, must all be written in the Local Government Code.[21] There is no dispute that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and the rules and regulations implementing the said law, the basic law prevails, because the rules and regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.[22]