This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-11-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Tan v. Barrios,[14] this Court, in applying the operative fact doctrine, held that despite the invalidity of the jurisdiction of the military courts over civilians, certain operative facts must be acknowledged to have existed so as not to trample upon the rights of the accused therein. Relevant thereto, in Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34,[15] it was ruled that "military tribunals pertain to the Executive Department of the Government and are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the legislature for the President as Commander-in-Chief to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives."[16] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and Dinagat filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Decision. In its Resolution[12] dated May 12, 2010,[13] the Court denied the said motions.[14] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy[57] or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.[58] | |||||