Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 192803 2013-12-10	ALLIANCE FOR RURAL v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
In Veterans Federation Party v. Commission on Elections,[37] we reversed the Commission on Elections' ruling that the respondent parties, coalitions, and organizations were each entitled to a party-list seat despite their failure to reach the 2% threshold in the 1998 party-list election. Veterans also stated that the 20% requirement in the Constitution is merely a ceiling.
	GR No. 193643 2013-01-29	ANTONIO D. DAYAO v. COMELEC REYES, J.
Section 6 clearly does not require that an opposition to the petition for registration be previously interposed so that a complaint for cancellation can be entertained. Since the law does not impose such a condition, the COMELEC, notwithstanding its delegated administrative authority to promulgate rules for the implementation of election laws, cannot read into the law that which it does not provide. The poll body is mandated to enforce and administer election-related laws. It has no power to contravene or amend them.[23]
	GR No. 176579 2012-10-09	HEIRS OF WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
Albeit trying not to appear to, the majority actually finds fault in the wisdom of, or motive behind, the provision in question through "highly unlikely scenarios of clinical extremes," to borrow from Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC.[71] It is submitted that the flip side of the ponencia's hypothetical illustration, which will be exhaustively elucidated in this opinion, is more anomalous and prejudicial to Filipino interests.
	GR No. 179271 2009-04-21	ARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System.[6]
	GR NO. 172103 2007-04-13	CITIZENS' BATTLE v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
The COMELEC, sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers for the Party-List System, issued Resolution No. NBC 04-004[3] promulgated on June 2, 2004, which proclaimed petitioner CIBAC as one of those which qualified to occupy a seat in Congress having received the required two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list representatives. Based on Party-List Canvass Report No. 19,[4] CIBAC received a total number of 493,546 votes out of the 12,627,852 votes cast for all the party-list participants, which, by applying the formula adopted by the Supreme Court in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC,[5] resulted in a percentage of 3.9084.[6] In the computation for additional seats for the parties, the COMELEC adopted a simplified formula of one additional seat per additional 2%, thereby foreclosing the chances of CIBAC to gain an additional seat under the party-list system for having received less than what was prescribed by the poll body.[7]
	GR No. 168056 2005-09-01	CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX LAW AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that the judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political or social ills; We should not forget that the Constitution has judiciously allocated the powers of government to three distinct and separate compartments; and that judicial interpretation has tended to the preservation of the independence of the three, and a zealous regard of the prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is not the guardian of the others and that, for official wrong-doing, each may be brought to account, either by impeachment, trial or by the ballot box.[100] The words of the Court in Vera vs. Avelino[101] holds true then, as it still holds true now. All things considered, there is no raison d'être for the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9337.
	GR Nos. 146710-15 2001-03-02	JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO PUNO, J.
On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. At 2:30 p.m., petitioner agreed to the holding of a snap election for President where he would not be a candidate. It did not diffuse the growing crisis. At 3:00 p.m., Secretary of National Defense Orlando Mercado and General Reyes, together with the chiefs of all the armed services went to the EDSA Shrine.[22] In the presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of thousands of cheering demonstrators, General Reyes declared that "on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we wish to announce that we are withdrawing our support to this government."[23] A little later, PNP Chief, Director General Panfilo Lacson and the major service commanders gave a similar stunning announcement.[24] Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their posts.[25] Rallies for the resignation of the petitioner exploded in various parts of the country. To stem the tide of rage, petitioner announced he was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the highly controversial second envelop.[26] There was no turning back the tide. The tide had become a tsunami.