Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved.
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.
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.
Thus, while the Civil Code seeks to govern all aspects of private law in the Philippines, a Republic Act such as Republic Act No. 9048 would concern itself with a more limited field, as in that case, the correction of entries in the civil registry. Still, the amendment of Philippine legal codes is accomplished through the passage of Republic Acts.
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.
These lists contain detailed tables about each term since 1999, including which justices filed the court's opinion, dissenting and concurring opinions in each case, and information about justices joining opinions.
At the early years of the American Rule in the Philippines, lawlessness was rampant and criminal activities were at large. Governor-General James Francis Smith, with the consent of the Philippine Commission, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the provinces of Batangas and Cavite.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) An Arizona law that authorizes local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws is preempted by federal law. Arizona law enforcement may inquire about a resident's legal status during lawful encounters, but the state may not implement its own immigration laws. National Federation of Independent ...