This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court tried to seek guidance from the pronouncement in the case of Virata v. Sandiganbayan,[106] that the "PCGG Charter (composed of Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14) does not violate the equal protection clause." The decision, however, was devoid of any discussion on how such conclusory statement was arrived at, the principal issue in said case being only the sufficiency of a cause of action. | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President under Section 31 is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest meaning attributable to the term "restructure"- an "alteration of an existing structure." Evidently, the PTC was not part of the structure of the Office of the President prior to the enactment of Executive Order No. 1. As held in Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Executive Secretary,[46] | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The President's power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well recognized. It flows from the faithful-execution clause of the Constitution under Article VII, Section 17 thereof.[56] As the Chief Executive, the president represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has the authority to directly assume the functions of the executive department.[57] | |||||
|
2007-12-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The 1991 Virata-Mapa Doctrine[42] prescribes a motion for a bill of particulars, not a motion to dismiss, as the remedy for perceived ambiguity or vagueness of a complaint for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth,[43] which was similarly worded as the complaint in this case. That doctrine provided protective precedent in favor of respondent when he filed his motion for a bill of particulars. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The constitutionality of laws is presumed. To justify nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful or arguable implication; a law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.[19] Even this Court does not decide a question of constitutional dimension, unless that question is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case and is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.[20] | |||||