This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At any rate, these US cases are only of persuasive value in the process of this Court's decision-making. "[They] are not relied upon as precedents, but as guides of interpretation."[267] Therefore, the ultimate analysis is on whether or not the condonation doctrine, as espoused in Pascual, and carried over in numerous cases after, can be held up against prevailing legal norms. Note that the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude this Court from revisiting existing doctrine. As adjudged in the case of Belgica, the stare decisis rule should not operate when there are powerful countervailing considerations against its application.[268] In other words, stare decisis becomes an intractable rule only when circumstances exist to preclude reversal of standing precedent.[269] As the Ombudsman correctly points out, jurisprudence, after all, is not a rigid, atemporal abstraction; it is an organic creature that develops and devolves along with the society within which it thrives.[270] In the words of a recent US Supreme Court Decision, "[w]hat we can decide, we can undecide."[271] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| This interpretation is illogical considering that, in order to win a bid, bidders could simply demand explanations ad infinitum. Government agencies would then be required to discuss each and every method of computation used in arriving at a valuation. As a result, the bidders would unduly exhaust the time, efforts, and resources of all participants in the process. Worse, this stance could open the courts to a multitude of suits assailing the iterations of the bidding evaluations. We cannot allow such distorted interpretation of the transparency requirement of public bidding, as an interpretation that causes inconvenience and absurdity is not favored.[27] | |||||
|
2009-02-04 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Such "executive control" is not absolute. The definition of the structure of the executive branch of government, and the corresponding degrees of administrative control and supervision is not the exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be effectively limited by the Constitution, by law, or by judicial decisions.[33] All the more in the matter of appellate procedure as in the instant case. Appeals are remedial in nature; hence, constitutionally subject to this Court's rule-making power. The Rules of Procedure was issued by the Court pursuant to | |||||