This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that the PMA turned a blind eye on the CHR's recommendations. The CHR, they note, is a constitutional body mandated by the 1987 Constitution to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights, and to conduct investigative monitoring of economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly of vulnerable sectors of society. Further, it was contended that the results of CHR's investigation and recommendations are so persuasive that this Court, on several occasions like in the cases of Cruz v. Sec. of Environment & Natural Resources[221] and Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections,[222] gave its findings serious consideration. It is not, therefore, too late for the Court to hear what an independent and unbiased fact-finding body has to say on the case. | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Claiming that petitioner continued to deprive them of financial support; failed to faithfully comply with the TPO; and committed new acts of harassment against her and their children, private respondent filed another application[24] for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. She alleged inter alia that petitioner contrived a replevin suit against himself by J-Bros Trading, Inc., of which the latter was purportedly no longer president, with the end in view of recovering the Nissan Patrol and Starex Van used by private respondent and the children. A writ of replevin was served upon private respondent by a group of six or seven policemen with long firearms that scared the two small boys, Jessie Anthone and Joseph Eduard.[25] | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The third guideline in Ang Bagong Bayani expresses the proscription against the registration of religious groups as party-list groups. The idea is that the government acts for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.[193] Despite the prohibition, members of a religious group may be nominated as representative of a marginalized and underrepresented sector. The prohibition is directed only against religious sectors registering as a political party[194] because the government cannot have a partner in legislation who may be driven by the dictates of faith which may not be capable of rational evaluation. | |||||
|
2011-11-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| And as aptly stated by Chief Justice Renato Corona in his Dissenting Opinion in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC:[72] | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A significant portion of the Common Compliance is devoted to a discussion of the merits of respondents' charge of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo. Relying on University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals[52] and foreign materials and jurisprudence, respondents essentially argue that their position regarding the plagiarism charge against Justice Del Castillo is the correct view and that they are therefore justified in issuing their Restoring Integrity Statement. Attachments to the Common Compliance included, among others: (i) the letter dated October 28, 2010 of Peter B. Payoyo, LL.M, Ph.D.,[53] sent to Chief Justice Corona through Justice Sereno, alleging that the Vinuya decision likewise lifted without proper attribution the text from a legal article by Mariana Salazar Albornoz that appeared in the Anuario Mexicano De Derecho Internacional and from an International Court of Justice decision; and (ii) a 2008 Human Rights Law Review Article entitled "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law" by Michael O'Flaherty and John Fisher, in support of their charge that Justice Del Castillo also lifted passages from said article without proper attribution, but this time, in his ponencia in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections.[54] | |||||