Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Moreover, as already discussed by the Court in Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections.[67]
	GR No. 175368 2013-04-11	LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PERALTA, J.
To start, the Court finds that petitioner has legal standing to file this petition because it is tasked under Section 504 of the Local Government Code of 1991 to promote local autonomy at the provincial level;[17] adopt measures for the promotion of the welfare of all provinces and its officials and employees;[18] and exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as the league may prescribe for the welfare of the provinces.[19]
	GR No. 192088 2012-10-09	INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE v. POWER SECTOR ASSETS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The OGCC cited COA Circular No. 89-296 which provides that government property or assets that are no longer serviceable or needed "may be transferred to other government entities/agencies without cost or at an appraised value upon authority of the head or governing body of the agency or corporation, and upon due accomplishment of an Invoice and Receipt of Property." Pointing out the absence of any prohibition under R.A. No. 9136 and its IRR for PSALM to transfer the AHEPP to another government instrumentality, and considering that MWSS is allowed under its charter to acquire the said facility, the OGCC expressed the view that PSALM may, "in the interest of stemming a potential water crisis, turn over the ownership, operations and management of the Angat Facility to a qualified entity, such as the MWSS, without need of public bidding as the latter is also a government entity."[41]
	GR NO. 171396 2006-05-03	PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Comelec,[57] the Court reiterated the "direct injury" test with respect to concerned citizens' cases involving constitutional issues. It held that "there must be a showing that the citizen personally suffered some actual or threatened injury arising from the alleged illegal official act."