Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Maria Lourdes Sereno. Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 727 Phil. 28 (2014), is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines handed down on February 18, 2014. When the Congress of the Philippines passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the bill was immediately controversial, especially its strict penalties for the new crime of ...
Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3][4]: 36.
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno [note 1] (G. R. No. 237428), [3] [4] [5] which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file ...
The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; [2] colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema (also used in formal writing), is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, [3] an Act which abolished the Real ...
The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and ...
Doctrine. The adequate and independent state ground doctrine states that when a litigant petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of a state court which rests upon both federal and non-federal (state) law, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the case if the state ground is (1) “adequate” to support the ...
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the lower court's decision. [1] In a similar case, Dr. Shakeel Kahn was charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), for overprescribing Schedule II drugs. The United States provided the same argument, and Kahn rebutted with the same defense that he acted in "good faith." As in Ruan v.