Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ebralinag and the other expelled students, with the court ruling that "a similar exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs, however 'bizarre' those beliefs may seem to others.
In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus (Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court). Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' [1] Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and ...
The doctrine became a part of the Supreme Court of the Philippines' jurisprudence some time in 1960 following the People v. Taño case. The high court through Justice Alejo Labrador asserted a "well known fact" that women, especially Filipinos "would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had actually happened."
Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which invoke the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in order to prevent any violence in cases of rebellion or insurrection, as the case may be.
For example, a prosecutor may try to bolster his case by bringing in an expert witness to explain the behavior of one of the key witnesses. If the judge allows the expert to testify that there was a reason to explain away inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, this will most likely be grounds for an appeal, as in most cases evidence that ...
The petitioners did not pursue a new case after the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court. [16] After the decision, the Philippine government had inventoried the remnant old growth forests and restricted logging in those areas. [17] The case is recognized in its contribution in the development of international environmental law.