This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The U.S. Legislature subsequently crafted another law called the Tydings-McDuffie Act or the Philippine Independence Act of 1934. Compared to the old Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act, the new law provided for the surrender to the Commonwealth Government of "all military and other reservations" of the U.S. government in the Philippines, except "naval reservations and refueling stations."[34] Furthermore, the law authorized the U.S. President to enter into negotiations for the adjustment and settlement of all questions relating to naval reservations and fueling stations within two years after the Philippines would have gained independence.[35] Under the Tydings-McDuffie Act, the U.S. President would proclaim the American withdrawal and surrender of sovereignty over the islands 10 years after the inauguration of the new government in the Philippines.[36] This law eventually led to the promulgation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In addition to the determinants in Francisco, it must also be shown that there is a clear or imminent threat to fundamental rights. In an opinion in Imbong v. Ochoa:[43] | |||||
|
2014-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected parties. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action. This entrustment is consistent with the republican system of checks and balances.[35] | |||||