Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v.Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system.
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines about the validity of the cityhood laws of 16 municipalities in the Philippines. The case clarifies the requirements for the conversion of a municipality into a component city .
Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) Supreme Court [1999] 1 SCR 497: Charter of Rights, section 15(1) (Equality rights) Establishes the "Law test" for identifying Charter-prohibited discrimination. Canada (AG) v Hislop: Supreme Court: 2007 SCC 10: Charter of Rights, section 15 (Equality rights)
– The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America agree that all cases at law concerning the Government and people of the Philippines which, in accordance with section 7 (6) of the Independence Act of 1934, are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States of America at the date of the granting of the independence of ...
Division Superintendent (219 SCRA 256, G.R. No. 95770 et al. (1993) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines concerning freedom of religion in schools.
This page was last edited on 11 January 2021, at 09:44 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012, becoming effective on October 3. [6] Among the actions criminalized by this law is "cyberlibel". [6] Six days after the law commenced, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation.
In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus (Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court). Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' [1] Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.