Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Court of Appeals: Rappler Inc. v. SEC (CA-G.R. SP No. 154292) Pasig City RTC Branch 265: People of the Philippines v. Maria Ressa (R-PSG-19-00737-CR) Alleged defamation: Manila RTC Branch 46: People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR) Alleged tax evasion: Pasig City RTC Branch 165: People of the
On March 31, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 7–5, denied the first motion for reconsideration. [3] The second motion for reconsideration was denied on April 28, 2009. [4] On December 21, 2009, the Court, by a vote of 6-4 reversed its November 18, 2008, decision and declared the Cityhood Laws as constitutional.
Pages in category "Supreme Court of the Philippines cases" The following 23 pages are in this category, out of 23 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. B.
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.
On March 11, 2008, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued the first writ of amparo for a journalist. [50] The Supreme Court issued the writ on behalf of publisher Nilo Baculo Sr. of the community newsletter Traveler’s News in Calapan city, Oriental Mindoro. Baculo filed an application for the writ when he learned of a plan to kill him ...
On May 10, the Comelec's en banc, in a vote of 6-0-1, upheld its earlier dismissal of two sets of similar cases—or a total of four appeals or petitions filed as early as November 2021—that sought to bar Marcos from the 2022 presidential race because of his conviction in a 1990s tax case.
The top decisions by the Supreme Court of 2024 covered presidential immunity for President-elect Trump, ... Read On The Fox News App ... 2024, overruled the 1984 landmark decision in Chevron v ...
It said that the decision of the Governor-General is his duty on his part, and that the court cannot question the acts of the executive and legislative branches of government. Simply put, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a political question that courts cannot decide upon.