Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BAYAN MUNA v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 169777 2006-04-20	SENATE OF PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioners Bayan Muna et al. in G.R. No. 169659, after their motion for extension to file memorandum[27] was granted, subsequently filed a manifestation[28] dated March 14, 2006 that it would no longer file its memorandum in the interest of having the issues resolved soonest, prompting this Court to issue a Resolution reprimanding them.[29]
	GR NO. 169777 2006-04-20	SENATE OF PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondents counter that there is no case or controversy, there being no showing that President Arroyo has actually withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the invited officials.[56] These officials, they claim, merely communicated to the Senate that they have not yet secured the consent of the President, not that the President prohibited their attendance.[57] Specifically with regard to the AFP officers who did not attend the hearing on September 28, 2005, respondents claim that the instruction not to attend without the President's consent was based on its role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not on E.O. 464.
	GR NO. 169777 2006-04-20	SENATE OF PHILIPPINES v. EDUARDO R. ERMITA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondents counter that there is no case or controversy, there being no showing that President Arroyo has actually withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance of the invited officials.[56] These officials, they claim, merely communicated to the Senate that they have not yet secured the consent of the President, not that the President prohibited their attendance.[57] Specifically with regard to the AFP officers who did not attend the hearing on September 28, 2005, respondents claim that the instruction not to attend without the President's consent was based on its role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not on E.O. 464.