Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE SOTTO v. COMELEC ET AL.

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2011-11-22	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
For resolution are the (1) Motion for Clarification and Partial Reconsideration dated July 21, 2011 filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI); (2) Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated July 20, 2011 filed by public respondents Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); (3) Motion for Reconsideration dated July 19, 2011 filed by private respondent Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA); (4) Motion for Reconsideration dated July 21, 2011 filed by respondent-intervenor Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Movement, Inc. (FARM); (5) Motion for Reconsideration dated July 21, 2011 filed by private respondents Noel Mallari, Julio Suniga, Supervisory Group of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (Supervisory Group) and Windsor Andaya (collectively referred to as "Mallari, et al."); and (6) Motion for Reconsideration dated July 22, 2011 filed by private respondents Rene Galang and AMBALA.[2]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Markedly, Section 10 of EO 229 [26] allows corporate landowners, as an alternative to the actual land transfer scheme of CARP, to give qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase shares of stocks of the corporation under a stock ownership arrangement and/or land-to-share ratio.
	GR No. 191560 2011-03-29	LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. ALEJANDRO S. URRO BRION, J.
Both parties dwelt lengthily on the issue of constitutionality of the respondents' appointments in light of E.O. No. 2 and the subsequent filing before the Court of several petitions questioning this Executive Order. The parties, however, appear to have overlooked the basic principle in constitutional adjudication that enjoins the Court from passing upon a constitutional question, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on some other ground.[31] In constitutional law terms, this means that we ought to refrain from resolving any constitutional issue "unless the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case."
	GR NO. 162243 2006-11-29	HEHERSON ALVAREZ SUBSTITUTED BY ELISEA G. GOZUN v. PICOP RESOURCES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with PICOP that this constitutional issue cannot be decided upon in this case. This Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality unless it is the very lis mota. It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may raise its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for consideration until such question will be unavoidable.[115]