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 

 
"Hello, Garci!"...Read the Law Professor as he discusses the Anti-Wiretapping Law!

• Recent Articles by the Law Professor 
• More Legal Information 

 
Republic Act No. 9502

UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE CHEAPER AND QUALITY MEDICINES ACT OF 2008

(from sc.judiciary.gov.ph)

• More Laws 
• Law Updates 

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 

• VIEW/SIGN OUR GUESTBOOK

• VISIT OR POST A COMMENT ON OUR BLOG

Actress appeals to gov’t on case of slain sister - from mb.com.ph

BSP files new case vs. Legacy officials - from manilatimes.net

Devanadera balks at Gonzalez order to release Imelda jewels - from manilastandardtoday.com

Mancao arraigned today - from philstar.com