This case has been cited 21 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| These are the specific safeguards laid down by the Court when it exercises its power of judicial review.[105] Guided by these pillars, it may invoke the power only when the following four stringent requirements are satisfied: (a) there is an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality is the lis mota of the case.[106] Of these four, the first two conditions will be the focus of our discussion. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| One of the requirements for this court to exercise its power of judicial review is the existence of an actual controversy. This means that there must be "an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion."[24] As emphasized by this court in Information Technology Foundation of the Phils. v. Commission on Elections:[25] | |||||
|
2014-04-22 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Petitioners share the Chief Justice's concern for the overall impact of those penalties, being one degree higher than those imposed on ordinary crimes, including the fact that the prescriptive periods for the equivalent cybercrimes have become longer.[6] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSG asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congress and respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of a majoritarian democratic process"[75] and "characterized by an inordinate amount of transparency."[76] The OSG posits that the authority of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments, in particular, with Congress.[77] It further asserts that in view of the Court's ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,[78] the remedies of certiorari and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the validity of the acts of the legislature.[79] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.[255] Moreover, in determining whether the words used in a statute are vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that is, every part of it must be construed together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[256] | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| [44] Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 16-48; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 7-9. | |||||
|
2014-04-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be declared unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that the government sponsored contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law, violates the right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is mandated to protect and promote. Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo ante the situation prior to the passage of the RH Law must be maintained."[73] It explains: x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and contraceptives per se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and Republic Act No. 4729, the sale and distribution of contraceptives are prohibited unless dispensed by a prescription duly licensed by a physician. What the Petitioners find deplorable and repugnant under the RH Law is the role that the State and its agencies the entire bureaucracy, from the cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the remotest areas of the country is made to play in the implementation of the contraception program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The State then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread dissemination of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning methods, devices and supplies.[74] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms.[7] But Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,[8] the act of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no freedom to destroy other people's computer systems and private documents. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable searches[16] and seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.[17] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited commercial communications, also known as "spam." The term "spam" surfaced in early internet chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One who repeats the same sentence or comment was said to be making a "spam." The term referred to a Monty Python's Flying Circus scene in which actors would keep saying "Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam" when reading options from a menu.[35] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| There is "actual malice" or malice in fact[41] when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.[42] The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice.[43] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem effect [9] or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to prevent the State from legislating criminal laws because they instill such kind of fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing socially harmful conduct.[10] Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section 4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the free exercise of one's constitutional rights. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable government intrusion.[18] | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| However, the latest pronouncement of this court on the doctrine was the case of Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council.[143] In it, this court, while reiterating Justice Mendoza's opinion as cited in the Romualdez cases, explained further the difference between a "facial" challenge and an "as applied" challenge. | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In restricting the overbreadth doctrine to free speech claims, the Court, in at least two cases, observed that the US Supreme Court has not recognized an overbreadth doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment, and that claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words. In Virginia v. Hicks, it was held that rarely, if ever, will an overbreadth challenge succeed against a law or regulation that is not specifically addressed to speech or speech-related conduct. Attacks on overly broad statutes are justified by the "transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression."[144] (Emphasis and underscoring originally supplied) | |||||
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and will accordingly refrain from that behavior, even though some of it is protected.[149] | |||||
|
2013-11-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or controversy.[120] This is embodied in Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which pertinently states that "[j]udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable x x x." Jurisprudence provides that an actual case or controversy is one which "involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute."[121] In other words, "[t]here must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence."[122] Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of "ripeness," meaning that the questions raised for constitutional scrutiny are already ripe for adjudication. "A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action."[123] "Withal, courts will decline to pass upon constitutional issues through advisory opinions, bereft as they are of authority to resolve hypothetical or moot questions."[124] | |||||
|
2013-09-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Assailed in this petition for certiorari[1] are the April 23, 2012[2] and July 31, 2012[3] Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 92 (RTC) in Special Civil Action (SCA) No. Q-07-60778, denying petitioners' motion to dismiss (subject motion to dismiss) based on the following grounds: (a) that the Court had yet to pass upon the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 9372,[4] otherwise known as the "Human Security Act of 2007," in the consolidated cases of Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council[5] (Southern Hemisphere); and (b) that private respondents' petition for declaratory relief was proper. | |||||
|
2013-07-16 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The parties who assail the constitutionality or legality of a statute or an official act must have a direct and personal interest. They must show not only that the law or any governmental act is invalid, but also that they sustained or are in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that they suffer thereby in some indefinite way. They must show that they have been or are about to be denied some right or privilege to which they are lawfully entitled or that they are about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.[58] | |||||
|
2013-07-16 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As regards the other concerned artists and academics as well as the CAP, their claim of deep concern for the preservation of the country's rich cultural and artistic heritage, while laudable, falls short of the injury in fact requirement of standing. Their assertion constitutes a generalized grievance shared in a substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens.[62] Nor can they take refuge in their status as taxpayers as the case does not involve any illegal appropriation or taxation. A taxpayer's suit is proper only when there is an exercise of the spending or taxing power of the Congress.[63] | |||||
|
2012-02-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, on June 6, 2011, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10149,[15] otherwise known as the "GOCC Governance Act of 2011." Section 11 of RA 10149 expressly authorizes the President to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs. | |||||