Posts

Showing posts with the label Judicial Power

Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...

Case Digest: Fernando Lopez v. Gerardo Roxas (G.R. No. L-25716)

Lopez v. Roxas |  No. L-25716 (Phil) | July 28, 1966 |  Concepcion, C.J. |  Topic:  Courts. Who interprets the Constitution and the law?  Judicial power defined. | FACTS : Petitioner Lopez and respondent Roxas were VP candidates on November 9, 1965.  Lopez won the election with a plurality of 26,724 votes more over respondent Roxas.  On 1/6/1966, respondent filed with the Presidential Tribunal (PET), Election Protest No. 2.  Respondent contests petitioner herein as official winner of VP. On 2/22/1966, petitioner presents to the Supreme Court, a preliminary injunction against aforementioned Tribunal from hearing and deciding the contest, questioning the constitutionality of RA No. 1793, or “An act constituting an independent presidential electoral tribunal.” ISSUES and HELD : Whether or not said Tribunal is “unconstitutional” and that all proceedings taken by it are a nullity. [No]   Section 1 of the RA No. 1793 provides that: “There shall be ...

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)