 |
Philippine
Laws
1987
Constitution, New Laws,
Republic Acts, other..
Legal
Documents
Affidavits, Contracts,
Quitclaim,
other...
Legal
Directory
Law Firms/Offices,
Law
Schools,
Lawyers, other... |
Philippine
Jurisprudence
Case Book, 1901-1999,
1996-2004,
Case Feature, other...
Legal
Information
Law Professor,
Law
News,
Bar Results, other...
Law Links
Supreme Court,
IBP,
House of Reps,other... |
ABOGADOMO.COM
NEWS
The
Latest Legal News and Views
|
| |
SUPREME COURT DISMISSES
"CON-ASS" PETITIONS
The Supreme Court
has dismissed two petitions seeking to nullify House Resolution 1109, which
seeks to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly, for being premature
and for lack of locus standi. In an en banc resolution penned by Chief
Justice Reynato Puno, the Supreme Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction
over the petitions filed by Oliver Lozano and Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano
and Louis C. Biraogo, declaring that "the fitness of petitioners’ case
for the exercise of judicial review is grossly lacking.
|
|
LEGAL
Q & A
We
provide answers to legal queries!
|
| Q:
What
are the factors in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has
been violated?
A: In ascertaining
whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the
following factors must be considered: (1) the length of delay; (2) the
reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right
by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. (Tello
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165781, June 5, 2009)
For more Legal Q &
A, click here!
|
|
Powered
by: TANJUTCO LAW OFFICE
|
Case
Feature.... |
EN BANC
G.R. No. 187883
June 16, 2009
ATTY.
OLIVER O. LOZANO and ATTY. EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO vs. SPEAKER PROSPERO
C. NOGRALES, Representative, Majority, House of Representatives
G.R. NO. 187910
June 16, 2009
LOUIS
"BAROK" C. BIRAOGO vs. SPEAKER PROSEPRO C. NOGRALES, Speaker of the House
of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines
HELD:
"In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise
of judicial review is grossly lacking. In the first place, petitioners
have not sufficiently proven any adverse injury or hardship from the act
complained of. In the second place, House Resolution No. 1109 only
resolved that the House of Representatives shall convene at a future time
for the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
No actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of procedure have
yet been adopted. More importantly, no proposal has yet been made,
and hence, no usurpation of power or gross abuse of discretion has yet
taken place. In short, House Resolution No. 1109 involves a quintessential
example of an uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated,
or indeed may not occur at all. The House has not yet performed a positive
act that would warrant an intervention from this Court."....read
more
Plus:
Recent Jurisprudence:
DECISION
ON ROMULO NERI CASE
DECISION
ON ERAP PLUNDER CASE
DECISION
ON PP 1017
DECISION
ON CALIBRATED PREEMPTIVE RESPONSE (CPR)
DECISION
ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 464
Read
other notable Supreme Court decisions
Read
Supreme Court News
Flash
Visit
the Official Website of the Supreme
Court of the Philippines
Read
more cases
|
The
Law Professor.... |
"Hello,
Garci!"...Read the Law Professor as he discusses
the Anti-Wiretapping Law!
-
Recent
Articles by the Law Professor

-
More
Legal Information

|
Law
Spotlight.... |
Republic Act No. 9502
UNIVERSALLY
ACCESSIBLE CHEAPER AND QUALITY MEDICINES ACT OF 2008
(from sc.judiciary.gov.ph)
-
More
Laws

-
Law
Updates

|
Legal
Doctrines... |
COMMERCIAL
LAW:INSURANCE; INSURABLE INTEREST IN PROPERTY
It has also been
held that the test of insurable interest in property is whether the assured
has a right, title or interest therein that he will be benefited by its
preservation and continued existence or suffer a direct pecuniary loss
from its destruction or injury by the peril insured against. If the defendants
were to be regarded as only a lessee, logically the lessor who asserts
ownership will be the one directly benefited or injured and therefore the
lessee is not supposed to be the assured as he has no insurable interest.
-
More
Legal Doctrines

|
|

|
|
LEGAL NOTICES
|
FOR
MEMBERS OF THE BAR:
FOR
LAW STUDENTS:
FOR
BARRISTERS AND REVIEWEES:
|
|
Click here for more
Legal
Information!
|
Quick
Glance at theLaw
Get
your Daily Dose of the law here!
feedback@abogadomo.com
© 1999-2009 abogadomo.com. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer|Privacy
Policy
|
 |