This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the present case, Rep. Tupas, public respondent informs, did not, in fact, vote and merely presided over the proceedings when it decided on the sufficiency of form and substance of the complaints.[29] | |||||
|
2008-09-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Anent the third argument, respondent Committees contend that their Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (the "Rules") are beyond the reach of this Court. While it is true that this Court must refrain from reviewing the internal processes of Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, however, when a constitutional requirement exists, the Court has the duty to look into Congress' compliance therewith. We cannot turn a blind eye to possible violations of the Constitution simply out of courtesy. In this regard, the pronouncement in Arroyo v. De Venecia[56] is enlightening, thus:"Cases both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals. | |||||
|
2006-10-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In sum, the issue of whether the petitioners have complied with the constitutional requirement that the petition for initiative be signed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters therein, involves contentious facts. Its resolution will require presentation of evidence and their calibration by the COMELEC according to its rules. During the oral argument on this case, the COMELEC, through Director Alioden Dalaig of its Law Department, admitted that it has not examined the documents submitted by the petitioners in support of the petition for initiative, as well as the documents filed by the oppositors to buttress their claim that the required number of signatures has not been met. The exchanges during the oral argument likewise clearly show the need for further clarification and presentation of evidence to prove certain material facts.[104] | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.[11] Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.[12] | |||||
|
2005-09-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| 3) Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections 27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125,[7] 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No. 1950, violates Article VI, Section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives G.R. No. 168730 | |||||
|
2003-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| [9] 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936). | |||||