This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-10-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| During the height of the Muslim Empire, early Muslim jurists tended to see the world through a simple dichotomy: there was the dar-ul-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar-ul-harb (the Abode of War). The first referred to those lands where Islamic laws held sway, while the second denoted those lands where Muslims were persecuted or where Muslim laws were outlawed or ineffective.[27] This way of viewing the world, however, became more complex through the centuries as the Islamic world became part of the international community of nations. | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases,[41] the Court upheld the standing of citizens who filed suits, wherein the "transcendental importance" of the constitutional question justified the granting of relief. In spite of these rulings, the Court, in Domingo v. Carague,[42] dismissed the petition when petitioners therein failed to show any present substantial interest. It demonstrated how even in the cases in which the Court declared that the matter of the case was of transcendental importance, the petitioners must be able to assert substantial interest. Present substantial interest, which will enable a party to question the validity of the law, requires that a party sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[43] It is distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or inconsequential interest.[44] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The above factual findings of the COMELEC supported by evidence, are accorded, not only respect, but finality.[13] This is so because "the conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws."[14] Its acts, therefore, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.[15] | |||||
|
2003-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While the impeachment mechanism is by constitutional design a sui generis political process, it is not impervious to judicial interference in case of arbitrary or capricious exercise of the power to impeach by Congress. It becomes the duty of the Court to step in, not for the purpose of questioning the wisdom or motive behind the legislative exercise of impeachment powers, but merely to check against infringement of constitutional standards. In such circumstance, legislative actions "might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence."[8] I must, of course, hasten to add by way of a finale the nature of the power of judicial review as elucidated in Angara v. Electoral Commission[9] - | |||||