This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The president’s power of control “of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices” gives him the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials and employees[149] from the Cabinet Secretary down to the lowliest clerk[150] or altogether ignore their recommendations.[151] | |||||
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Also, in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,[26] we have reminded that:The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.[27] | |||||
|
2014-11-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As jurisprudence elucidates, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.[18] In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.[19] | |||||
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[10] Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged, and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance."[11] However, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.[12] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In this connection, it bears adding that while the scope of judicial power of review may be limited, the Constitution makes no distinction as to the kind of legislation that may be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form of social legislation or otherwise. The reason is simple and goes back to the earlier point. The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the executive branches, since its duty is not to review their collective wisdom but, rather, to make sure that they have acted in consonance with their respective authorities and rights as mandated of them by the Constitution. If after said review, the Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the actions under review.[90] This is in line with Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which expressly provides: Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Lest it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court does not have the unbridled authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional violation. Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.[96] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On March 19, 2013, after considering the issues and arguments raised, the Court issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), enjoining the effects and implementation of the assailed legislation for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days, or until July 17, 2013.[62] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners' objection is that the issuance of subpoenas is a judicial function. But it is well-settled that the power to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial function. Executive agencies have the power to issue subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory powers.[98] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The prevailing rule in constitutional litigation is that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry,[117] namely: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[118] Of these requisites, case law states that the first two are the most important[119] and, therefore, shall be discussed forthwith. | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| "Pork Barrel" is political parlance of American-English origin.[3] Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master.[4] This practice was later compared to the actions of American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.[5] While the advent of refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator's district and constituents.[6] In a more technical sense, "Pork Barrel" refers to an appropriation of government spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.[7] Some scholars on the subject further use it to refer to legislative control of local appropriations.[8] | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It cannot be denied that most government actions are inspired with noble intentions, all geared towards the betterment of the nation and its people. But then again, it is important to remember this ethical principle: "The end does not justify the means." No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed. The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its enshrined principles.[12] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The concept of equal protection has been laid down in Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010:[75] | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to "investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the government"[23] and to "submit its report and recommendations to the President."[24] The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having the power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases. As the Court ruled in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights,[25] and later reiterated in Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission:[26] | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Petitioner goes on to assail E.O. 13 as violative of the equal protection clause pointing to the arbitrariness of limiting the IAD-ODESLA's investigation only to presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions in the government. The equal protection of the laws is a guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.[29] It is embraced under the due process concept and simply requires that, in the application of the law, "all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed."[30] The equal protection clause, however, is not absolute but subject to reasonable classification so that aggrupations bearing substantial distinctions may be treated differently from each other. This we ruled in Farinas v. Executive Secretary,[31] wherein we further stated that | |||||
|
2011-12-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's duly constituted authorities. In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.[36] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The oft-cited De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank [162] discussed the effect to be given to a legislative or executive act subsequently declared invalid: x x x It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequent litigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative or executive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the government organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. | |||||