Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Quinto v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 189698) is a controversial decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which paved the way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office.
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.
The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, [1] is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government ...
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines about the validity of the cityhood laws of 16 municipalities in the Philippines. The case clarifies the requirements for the conversion of a municipality into a component city. The court in its final decision ruled that the cityhood ...
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno [note 1] (G. R. No. 237428), [3] [4] [5] which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file ...
On June 19, 2018, oral arguments commenced with the following arguments made: whether or not the petition is properly the subject of the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, whether or not the right to marry and the right to choose whom to marry are cognates of the right to life and liberty, whether or not the limitation of ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 25 October 2024. 1819 United States Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 21 – March 3, 1819 Decided March 6, 1819 Full case name James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James [a] Citations 17 U.S. 316 (more) 4 Wheat. 316; 4 L. Ed. 579; 1819 ...
Classic in upholding Section 302 in federal elections under the Congressional Elections Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, [187] and not to enforce the Equal Protection Clause as argued by Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall in a single opinion and William O. Douglas in a separate opinion. [188]