Você está na página 1de 14

each house should vote separately... for it to prosper...

Senate should obtain 3/4 votes AND House of


Rep. should obtain 3/4 votes... if either house failed to obtain 3/4 votes hind ma-amend... na kay
BERNAS ito and a cited case.
Entire congress dapat. But not "each" house. Tama? It doesnt matter matter where 3/4 came. So long as 3/4 of the
congress was obtained. The constitution did not further qualify into particularities in which 3/4 should come. [wild guess.
Please correct me if im
wrong]

I would advise them that the petition should be supported by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters and
each legislative district must be represented by at least 3% therein. The copy of the proposal must likewise be attached for
perusal of the people.

In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is supreme. No branch or office of the government may
exercise its powers in any manner inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of the existence of any
law that supports such exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by any other law. All laws must be
read in light of the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with it is a nullity.
Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity
cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law or
provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless circumstances have so
changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion." (Sameer Overseas v Cabiles GR 170139, August 05, 2014)
November 9 at 11:16pm Edited

The argument of Beauty is untenable.


In order for the HRET to acquire jurisdiction, she must first become a member of the House of
Representatives. One of the requisites to become a member is the assumption of office.
In this case, Beauty is not yet a member of the HR because she have not yet assumed her office.
Thus, it is the comelec that has jurisdiction over the case and not the HRET.

Atong Paglaum vs Comelec

Pls.See Senate vs Neri..J.Carpio concurring opinion said not continuing 12 senators remaining not majority unlike 1935
consti when nazareno case was based 16 senators remain that is why continuing.

no because justices are the only ones who are exempt from prohibition of midnight appointments, pres. is prohibited to
appoint two months before from the next pres elections .. i think he can appont her since the judiciary is not included in the
prohibition. . . hahha dont know if im correct. . finals na namin next week. .

executive impoundment. It is not mandatory for the President to release the funds. Upon his exercise of executive
impoundment, he vetoes the budget in effect which is legally permissible. (Per Albano Political Law Reviewer)

When a statute forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague "that men of common intelligence" must
necessarily guess as its meaning and differ as to its application, that law is deemed void. (estrada vs sandiganbayan)
So the answer is C

D KUNU

Yes. The COA enjoys fiscal autonomy as an independent constitutional commission. As such, its budget shall be
AUTOMATICALLY and REGULARLY released.

No, they cannot be compelled to provide free parking to their customers because that would be taking of
their private property without just compensation in violation of due process clause. The Supreme Court,
in one case, ruled that police power of the state cannot be used to perpetrate injustice to the property
owners. Thus, the state would be committing great injustice to mall owners if they are compelled to
provide free parking to customers.

Freedom of the press is not an absolute right. It is subject to the police power of the state. Moreover, if
the right is used in such circumstances and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger which
would bring out an evil then the state has the right to prevent it. In this case, the facts clearly show that
DeepThroat's writing made the followers of religious group publicly violent. Thus, i would resolve the
issue in favor of the government.

Yes, because the survey is merely a public opinion regarding trust and confidence in all the institutions of
the government. It is not an attack directed and intended to obstruct, influence, and embarrass the court
in a pending suit. Hence, the show-cause order is violative of the constitutional right to freedom of
expression.

C. Nazareth v. Villar gr 188635 jan 2013

(C) Article XVII of 1987 Constitution

I would file an appropriate action to ask for the payment of damages, just compensation and the interest
thereof. I would argue before the court that NPGC violated the due process clause when it took over the
property of Farmerjoe without first instituting expropriation suit which is a condition precedent to such
action. Moreover, its charter cannot defeat the constitutional right of Farmerjoe to just compensation for
the taking of his property for public use.

WHEN DOES THE RULE ON CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEGIN TO APPLY?


The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and
direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

NO. Her act of filing a Certificate of Candidacy will suffice because by doing such act, she is deemed to have renounced her
foreign citizenship.
There is no dual allegiance in this case because her acquisition of the foreign citizenship was not voluntary. It was the result
of the operation of foreign law.

D. Franciso v H.R gr 160261 nov 2003

fiscal autonomy....independence and separation of powers..

No. The crime was committed in another state and not in the state where he was assigned to discharge his functions as a
diplomatic representative. As such, he cannot invoke diplomatic immunity.

Você também pode gostar