Categories
- (417 SCRA 554) (1)
- 146 SCRA 446 (1)
- 149164-73 : December 10 (1)
- 151 SCRA 279 (1)
- 1980 Iran hostage crisis (1)
- 1982 (1)
- 1993 (1)
- 2001 (1)
- 2002 (3)
- 2002 Montesclaros (1)
- 2003 (2)
- 2004 (1)
- 2004 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. MOJICA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (1)
- 2006 (1)
- 2007 (1)
- 2009 (2)
- 2010 (2)
- 2011 (1)
- 2011 JOSE R. CATACUTAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (1)
- 301 SCRA 298 (1)
- 68 SCRA 62 (1)
- A.M. No. 53-MJ (1)
- Absentee Voting (1)
- Alih vs. Castro (1)
- Ambil vs Sandiganbayan (1)
- Ampatuan (1)
- Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec (1)
- Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Comelec (1)
- Ang Ladlad vs Comelec (1)
- Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (3)
- Apelado vs. People (1)
- April 13 (1)
- April 8 (1)
- ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ vs. People of the Philippines (1)
- August 31 (1)
- August 4 (1)
- Automated ELections System (1)
- Aznar vs. Garcia (1)
- Bayan Muna vs. Comelec (1)
- Bellis vs. Bellis (2)
- Brillantes vs. Comelec (1)
- Caltex vs. Palomar (1)
- CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN (1)
- case digest (27)
- Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia (1)
- CASE DIGEST: DONALD MEAD VS. CFI (1)
- Catacutan vs. People (1)
- CFI July 20 (1)
- Citizenship of Poe (1)
- class suit (1)
- Codilla vs. de Venecia (1)
- COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES (1)
- COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES UNION (1)
- Comelec vs Español (1)
- compensation (2)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Consunji vs. Court of Appeals (1)
- Corpus vs. Cabaluna (1)
- Correlation and Distinction (1)
- criminal law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- December 10 (1)
- Dibaratun vs. Comelec (1)
- Dibaratun vs. Comelec and Abubakar (1)
- Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel (1)
- Dual Citizens (1)
- Election 2013 (1)
- Election case (13)
- eminent domain (1)
- Environmental Law (2)
- Estrada vs. Arroyo (1)
- Estrada vs. Desierto (1)
- et al (2)
- et al vs. Comelec (2)
- et al vs. Paño G.R. No. L-69803 (1)
- et al. vs. COMELEC (1)
- FAQ on Martial Law (1)
- FAQ on the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1)
- February 10 (1)
- Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation (1)
- fruit of the poisonous tree (1)
- G. R. No. 149803. January 31 (1)
- G. R. No. 161824 (1)
- G.R. No 101083 (1)
- G.R. No 146710-15 (1)
- G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto (1)
- G.R. No 170180 (1)
- G.R. No 182178 (1)
- G.R. No L-64261 (1)
- G.R. No. 148334 (1)
- G.R. No. 110097 (1)
- G.R. No. 110592 (1)
- G.R. NO. 12809620 (1)
- G.R. No. 135551 (1)
- G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo (1)
- G.R. No. 147589 (1)
- G.R. No. 147613 (1)
- G.R. No. 150605 (1)
- G.R. No. 150605 December 10 (1)
- G.R. No. 152295 (1)
- G.R. No. 154198 (1)
- G.R. No. 161434 (1)
- G.R. No. 161634 (1)
- G.R. No. 162759 (1)
- G.R. No. 163193 (1)
- G.R. No. 166973 (2)
- G.R. No. 170365 February 2 (1)
- G.R. No. 172602 (1)
- G.R. No. 175457 (1)
- G.R. No. 175482 (1)
- G.R. No. 175991 (1)
- G.R. No. 178788 (1)
- G.R. No. 180363 April 28 (1)
- G.R. NO. 183871. Rubrico vs. Arroyo (1)
- G.R. no. 190581 (1)
- G.R. No. 73681 (1)
- G.R. No. 95939 (1)
- G.R. no. 97347 (1)
- G.R. No. L-19671 (1)
- G.R. No. L-23678 (1)
- G.R. No. L-30642 (1)
- G.R. No. L-32717 (1)
- G.R. No. L-41958 (1)
- G.R. No. L-48926 (1)
- G.R. No. L-63915 (1)
- Go vs. Sandiganbayan (1)
- GR No. 137873 (1)
- gr no. 146710-15 digest (1)
- GR No. L-30061 (1)
- habeas corpus (1)
- Holy Name University (1)
- Inc. vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE (1)
- Iran hostage Crisis (1)
- Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles couple (1)
- January 20 (1)
- January 21 (1)
- Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff (1)
- Judgment of 24 May 1980 (1)
- July 30 (1)
- July 6 (1)
- July 9 (1)
- June 15 (1)
- June 26 (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Just compensation (1)
- LACSON VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (1)
- Lahar Project (1)
- Law professors (1)
- Martial Law (2)
- mead vs. argel (1)
- Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR (1)
- MUTUC VS. COMELEC (1)
- National Power Corporation vs. Benjamin Ong Co (2)
- National WAter and Air pollution Control Commission (1)
- Nicolas-Lewis (1)
- Nolasco (1)
- non-impairment of contracts clause (1)
- NPC VS ONG CO (1)
- oblicon (1)
- Party list System (1)
- People s. Regalario (1)
- PEOPLE VS. ASTORGA (1)
- PEOPLE VS. BRACAMONTE (1)
- People vs. Fukuzume (1)
- People vs. Jabinal (1)
- people vs. taraya (1)
- PEOPLE VS. VELASCO (1)
- private international law (1)
- probable cause (1)
- Public International Law (1)
- RA 3019 (3)
- ra 6395 (1)
- ra8974 (1)
- Renvoi (1)
- Renvoi Doctrine (1)
- Resolution 6712 (1)
- Right of suffrage (1)
- Rulloda vs. Comelec (1)
- Search and Seizure (3)
- Secretary Justice vs. Catolico (1)
- SOSITO vs. AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (1)
- Statcon (1)
- Statutory Construction (1)
- Stephen Tibagong vs. People of the Philippines (1)
- Substitution of Candidates (1)
- Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1)
- Suspension on the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1)
- Tañada vs. Tuvera (1)
- Tecson vs. Comelec (1)
- Tenchavez vs. Escaño (1)
- Teves vs. Comelec (1)
- The Renvoi Doctrine (1)
- Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (1)
- Timber License Agreement (1)
- Tolentino and Mojica vs. Comelec (1)
- United Airlines vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1)
- US vs. Iran (1)
- warrant of arrest (1)
DEFINE A “WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS”?
ANS. A writ of habeas corpus is defined as a
writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the
body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of
his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court of
judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
Habeas
corpus when translated means “produce the body”. If a writ of habeas corpus is
issued by the court, the court is basically ordering a person who has detained
another to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place, and
to show sufficient cause for holding in custody the individual so detained.
WHAT IS THE “PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS?”
ANS. The privilege
of the writ is the further order from the court to release an individual if it
finds his detention without legal cause or authority.
WHAT THEN MAY BE SUSPENDED: THE WRIT OR THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT?
ANS. It is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (not the writ itself)
WHO MAY SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE?
ANS. The President
CLICK HERE TO READ THE CONTINUATION
FOR WORDPRESS READERS, CLICK HERE
WHAT IS “MARTIAL LAW”?
BRIEFLY:
Martial law is founded on necessity and is essentially police power
exceptionally exercised by the executive with the aid of the military, the
latter being called upon to assist in the maintenance of peace and order and
the enforcement of legal norms. The purpose thereof being the preservation of
the public safety and good order in times when the domination of lawless
elements cannot be stopped by civil authorities.
WHO CAN DECLARE “MARTIAL LAW?
ANS. The President as
commander-in-chief pursuant to Art VII, Sec 18 of the 1987 Constitution.
WHAT IS THE “COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF” CLAUSE?
The
Constitution declares the President, a civilian, as the Commander-in –Chief of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (the power covers the Philippine National
Police (PNP).
The
reason behind this provision is to ensure the supremacy of the civil authorities
over the military forces of the government.
The
President has control and direction of the conduct of war and, when necessary,
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion, or rebellion. However, it is
only in this sense that the president may be referred to as a military officer.
The President does not enlist in, nor is he inducted or drafted into forces; “he
is not subject to court martial or other military discipline.”Swartz, The Powers of the President, p.215
(1963)
The
net effect of Article II, Section 3, when read with Article VII, Section 18, is
that a civilian President holds supreme military authority and is the
ceremonial, legal, and administrative head of the armed forces. The Constitution
does not require that the President must be possessed of military training and
talents, but as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to direct military
operations and to determine military strategy. Normally, he would be expected
to delegate the actual command of the armed forces to military experts; but the
ultimate power is his. “As Commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the
movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to
employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and
subdue the enemy.” Fleming v. Page, 9 How
603, 615 U.S. (1850)
WHAT POWER DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE OVER THE
MILITARY?
ANS. Since the President is
commander-in-chief of the Armed forces, she can demand obedience from military
officers. Military officers who disobey or ignore her command can be subjected
to court martial proceeding. Thus, for instance, the President as
Commander-in-Chief may prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying
before a legislative inquiry, a military officer who disobeys the President’s
directive may be made to answer before a court martial. (see Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, April 15, 2006).
IN WHAT INSTANCES CAN THE PRESIDENT DECLARE
MARTIAL LAW? (GROUNDS)
Ans. Martial Law depends on two factual
bases: (1) the existence of invasion or rebellion, and (2) the requirements of
public safety. (Art. VII, Sec 18 of the
1987 Constitution)
CLICK THE HYPERLINK TO READ THE CONTINUATION ON FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON MARTIAL LAW
FOR WORDPRESS, CLICK HERE.
G.R. No 101083
Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR
July 30, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioner minors, represented by their parents, contended that the granting of the TLAs (Timber License Agreement) by respondent DENR was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. RTC dismissed the class suit on the ff grounds: 1)lack of cause of action; 2)the issue involved a political question and 3)the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause.
ISSUES:
Whether or not minors had the legal personality to initiate the suit.
Whether or not the case was justiciable.
Whether or not the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause
RULING: Click HERE to see ruling for Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR
Whether or not the case was justiciable.
Whether or not the relief sought would violate the non-impairment of contracts clause
RULING: Click HERE to see ruling for Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR
###Also, please follow our community for more updates :
FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
CASE DIGEST: Minors of the Philippines vs. DENR
Posted on
Thursday, October 13, 2016
G.R. No. L-41958
Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel Argel, CFI
July 20, 1982
FACTS:
Petitioner Donald Mead assailed the legal personality of the Provincial Fiscal to file an information against him for his alleged violation of RA No. 3931 or An Act Creating a National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission. Petitioner averred that the National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission created under the said law has the authority to hear cases involving violations under the same.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the filing of the information by the provincial fiscal was proper.
RULING: Click HERE to see ruling for Mead vs. Argel, CFI
G.R. No. 166973
National Power Corporation vs. Benjamin Ong Co
February 10, 2009
Facts:
Petitioner expropriated respondent’s property for its Lahar Project, a project for public use.
Petitioner established its claim on RA 6395, allowing it to exercise the right to eminent domain.
Complaint was filed at the RTC on June 27, 2001. On 25 March 2002, petitioner obtained a writ of possession and on 15 April 2002 it took possession of the property.
RTC ordered the compensation of the full market value of the land valued at P1,179,000.00, with interest at 6% per annum beginning 15 April 2002, the date of actual taking, until full payment. RA 8974 sets forth the payment of land’s full market value as distinguished to RA 6395 which entitles the land owner to only 10% of market value.
Petitioner argues that compensation should only be an easement fee and not the total value and that computation of compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint (Rule 67).
Issues:
Whether or not compensation will be governed by provisions on RA 6395 or RA 8974. Who will determine?
Whether or not value of the property should be reckoned as of the filing of the complaint or actual taking of the land.
HELD: See Ruling for NPC vs. Ong Co HERE
ALSO... PLEASE Follow our community for more updates :
FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS ^_^
HELD: See Ruling for NPC vs. Ong Co HERE
ALSO... PLEASE Follow our community for more updates :
FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS ^_^
Click HERE for the entire discussion about the Renvoi Doctrine.
###Also, please follow our community for more updates :
FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
The Renvoi Doctrine
Posted on
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Category
Location:
Tagbilaran City, Philippines