Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Print/export Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects Wikidata item; ... Pages in category "Supreme Court of the Philippines cases"
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.
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Courts of Appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below.
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.
Lists of case law cover instances of case law, legal decisions in which the law was analyzed to resolve ambiguities for deciding current cases. They are organized alphabetically, by topic or by country.
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
A Filipino court case Template parameters [Edit template data] Parameter Description Type Status name name The short name of the case, which should preferably be the same as the article title. If the parameter is omitted, the article name is used. String optional Court court The name of the court that the case was heard in. Should be one of: SC (Supreme Court), RTC (Regional Trial Court), CA ...
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.