This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| A number of significant amendments to the 1947 MBA were made.[45] With respect to its duration, the parties entered into the Ramos-Rusk Agreement of 1966, which reduced the term of the treaty from 99 years to a total of 44 years or until 1991.[46] Concerning the number of U.S. military bases in the country, the Bohlen-Serrano Memorandum of Agreement provided for the return to the Philippines of 17 U.S. military bases covering a total area of 117,075 hectares.[47] Twelve years later, the U.S. returned Sangley Point in Cavite City through an exchange of notes.[48] Then, through the Romulo-Murphy Exchange of Notes of 1979, the parties agreed to the recognition of Philippine sovereignty over Clark and Subic Bases and the reduction of the areas that could be used by the U.S. military.[49] The agreement also provided for the mandatory review of the treaty every five years.[50] In 1983, the parties revised the 1947 MBA through the Romualdez-Armacost Agreement.[51] The revision pertained to the operational use of the military bases by the U.S. government within the context of Philippine sovereignty,[52] including the need for prior consultation with the Philippine government on the former's use of the bases for military combat operations or the establishment of long-range missiles.[53] | |||||
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The decision of the Court has underscored that the exercise of the power to augment shall be strictly construed by virtue of its being an exception to the general rule that the funding of PAPs shall be limited to the amount fixed by Congress for the purpose.[14] Necessarily, savings, their utilization and their management will also be strictly construed against expanding the scope of the power to augment.[15] Such a strict interpretation is essential in order to keep the Executive and other budget implementors within the limits of their prerogatives during budget execution, and to prevent them from unduly transgressing Congress' power of the purse.[16] Hence, regardless of the perceived beneficial purposes of the DAP, and regardless of whether the DAP is viewed as an effective tool of stimulating the national economy, the acts and practices under the DAP and the relevant provisions of NBC No. 541 cited in the Decision should remain illegal and unconstitutional as long as the funds used to finance the projects mentioned therein are sourced from savings that deviated from the relevant provisions of the GAA, as well as the limitation on the power to augment under Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. In a society governed by laws, even the best intentions must come within the parameters defined and set by the Constitution and the law. Laudable purposes must be carried out through legal methods.[17] | |||||
|
2014-08-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As previously mentioned, Chief Justice Sereno raised the issues of Jardeleza's alleged extra-marital affair and acts of insider-trading for the first time only during the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC. As can be gleaned from the minutes of the June 30, 2014 meeting, the inclusion of these issues had its origin from newspaper reports that the Chief Justice might raise issues of "immorality" against Jardeleza.[32] The Chief Justice then deduced that the "immorality" issue referred to by the media might have been the incidents that could have transpired when Jardeleza was still the General Counsel of San Miguel Corporation. She stated that inasmuch as the JBC had the duty to "take every possible step to verify the qualification of the applicants," it might as well be clarified.[33] | |||||