Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[6] According to Oposa, the case should be called Oposa with Factoran because his friend Kuya Jun Factoran, a human rights lawyer, actually encouraged to sue the government using his name as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and to include the dozens of children as real-parties-in-interest, while it was the ...
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the ...
Eventually, the Philippine legal system emerged in such a way that while the practice of codification remained popular, the courts were not barred from invoking principles developed under the common law, [1] or from employing methods of statutory construction in order to arrive at an interpretation of the codal provisions that would be binding ...
The court is composed of 68 associate justices headed by a presiding justice. These are divided into 23 divisions of 3 members, 17 of which are based in Manila and hear cases from Luzon, 3 of which are based in Cebu City and hear cases from the Visayas, and 3 which are based in Cagayan de Oro and hear cases from Mindanao.
The Court of Tax Appeals (Filipino: Hukuman ng Apelasyon sa Buwis [2]) is the special court of limited jurisdiction, and has the same level with the Court of Appeals.The court consists of 8 Associate Justices and 1 Presiding Justice.
He disagreed with the government's position that the APA does not authorize universal vacatur of a rule, in which a court voids a regulation even as applied to those not involved in the case. He said that the statutory provision directing courts to "set aside [unlawful] agency action" allows courts to vacate regulations—distinguishing vacatur ...
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel , [ note 1 ] 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines , via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
[1] There are examples of judges both applying and rejecting use of the rule under similar facts. [2] The rule is typically bound by "common sense" [ 3 ] and is flexible enough to avoid application that "would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the ...