Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONGRESSMAN GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Before us is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify COMELEC's Notice to Remove Campaign Materials[2] dated February 22, 2013 and letter[3] issued on February 27, 2013.
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
It has also long been observed, however, that in times of social disquietude or political instability, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated.[87] In order to address this, the Constitution impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same time, allows it to cross the line of separation but only at a very limited and specific point to determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches are null because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion.[88] Thus, while the Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of discretion results.[89] The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment to protect those cherished rights and principles embodied in the Constitution.
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
It is also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of mandatory sex education in schools should not be allowed as it is an affront to their religious beliefs.[41]
	GR No. 197676 2014-02-04	REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Constitution[4] requires as a condition precedent for the exercise of judicial power the existence of an actual controversy between litigants. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible to judicial resolution.[5] The controversy must be justiciable definite and concrete touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.[6] In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other; that is, it must concern a real and not a merely theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.[7] An actual case is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.[8]
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
It is basic that courts will not delve into matters of constitutionality unless unavoidable, when the question of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case, meaning, that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional issue raised is determined. This rule finds anchorage on the presumptive constitutionality of every enactment. Withal, to justify the nullification of a statute, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. A doubtful or speculative infringement would simply not suffice.[98]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
(1) there is an actual case or controversy; (2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi; and (3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. [108]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Lis mota - the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake judicial review - means that the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised is determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative. [169]