Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE C. MIRANDA v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 203974 2014-04-22	AURELIO M. UMALI v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
First, the Court's pronouncement in Miranda vs. Aguirre[11] is apropos and may be applied by analogy. While Miranda involves the downgrading, instead of upgrading, as here, of an independent component city into a component city, its application to the case at bar is nonetheless material in ascertaining the proper treatment of conversions. In that seminal case, the Court held that the downgrading of an independent component city into a component city comes within the purview of Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution.
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Miranda v. Aguirre,[74] this Court granted the petition for a writ of prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8528 converting the city of Santiago, Isabela, from an independent component city to a component city.
	GR NO. 164171 2006-02-20	EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The established rule that the constitutionality of a law or administrative issuance can be challenged by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement[11] has been satisfied in the instant case. The broad subject of the prohibited importation is "all types of used motor vehicles." Respondents would definitely suffer a direct injury from the implementation of EO 156 because their certificate of registration and tax exemption authorize them to trade and/or import new and used motor vehicles and spare parts, except "used cars."[12] Other types of motor vehicles imported and/or traded by respondents and not falling within the category of used cars would thus be subjected to the ban to the prejudice of their business. Undoubtedly, respondents have the legal standing to assail the validity of EO 156.