This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-10-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As Muslim States entered into treaties with their neighbors, even with distant States and inter-governmental organizations, the classical division of the world into dar-ul-Islam and dar-ul-harb eventually lost its meaning. New terms were drawn up to describe novel ways of perceiving non-Muslim territories. For instance, areas like dar-ul-mua'hada (land of compact) and dar-ul-sulh (land of treaty) referred to countries which, though under a secular regime, maintained peaceful and cooperative relations with Muslim States, having been bound to each other by treaty or agreement. Dar-ul-aman (land of order), on the other hand, referred to countries which, though not bound by treaty with Muslim States, maintained freedom of religion for Muslims.[28] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events,[26] so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[27] Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case[28] or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[29] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Lacson v. Perez,[58] the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), is not a real party-in-interest as it had not demonstrated any injury to itself or to its leaders, members or supporters. | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Once before, the President on May 1, 2001 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion through Proclamation No. 38 and General Order No. 1. On that occasion, "'an angry and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons' assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang."[20] Petitions were filed before this Court assailing the validity of the President's declaration. Five days after such declaration, however, the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v. Perez and accompanying cases[21] precluded this Court from addressing the constitutionality of the declaration. | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Only petitioners Rep. Suplico et al. and Sen. Pimentel, as Members of Congress, have standing to challenge the subject issuances. In Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, [22] this Court recognized that:To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. | |||||