Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 .
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.
Carpio tersely put the judgment in this manner: "In summary, we rule that Section 19, Article VI of RA 9054, insofar as it grants to the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and cities, is void for being contrary to Section 5 of Article VI and Section 20 of Article X of the Constitution, as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance ...
"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.
An Act creating three (3) additional Shari'a Judicial Districts and twelve (12) Shari'a Circuit Courts therein, and appropriating funds therefor, amending for the purpose Articles 138, 147, and 150 of Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as the "Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines [82]", as amended, and the relevant ...
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.
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.
The Court was divided upon the decision, having a vote of 6-4 (one justice died a month before its promulgation). But it was later on accepted as valuable jurisprudence, starting with the subsequent case of People of the Philippines v. Geronimo (100 Phil. Reports 90). The case is now a standard case study in Philippine law schools.