PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

In a decision penned by then Associate Justice Renato Corona, the First Division of the Supreme Court on October 22, 2007 denied for lack of merit the petition of Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio to change his name and sex in his birth certificate. (Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007) Read more: EARL VICTOR L. ROSERO, GMA News (2015). PHL laws need revision to allow same-sex marriage —Atty. Kapunan. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/511498/phl-laws-need-revision-to-allow-same-sex-marriage-atty-kapunan/story. "Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as male," the court recalled. The court also said that Silverio "further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, anatomically male but feels

Pacifico Agabin, a former dean of the UP College of Law, on Wednesday said the Family Code of the Philippines needed updating, especially its provisions on marriage. Read more: MARK MERUEÑAS, GMA News (2014). Ex-UP Law dean: Family Code’s provision on marriage violates equal protection clause. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/382755/ex-up-law-dean-family-code-s-provision-on-marriage-violates-equal-protection-clause/story. "The Family Code's concept of marriage as a contract between a man and a woman aside from being obsolete, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution," said Agabin, who was a reactor during the professorial lecture of retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Vitug at the Court of Appeals. "In my opinion, to bar the lesbians, the gays, the transsexuals and homosexuals from the civil right to marry would violate the guarantee of equal protection," he added. But Vitug said there were still hurdles to overcome before a

The answer is no.First of all, obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts. (Article 1157, Civil Code of the Philippines) An obligation is the juridical necessity to do, to give or not to do. (Article 1156) What the above legal provisions mean is that a person can only be legally compelled to do or not to do something if law or contract provides. Non-compliance with law or valid contract can be a ground (cause of action) to go to court and have the erring person or party made liable. There is no law that compels any person to appear in "Tulfo in Action" or any other show for the purpose of extracting from her a statement relating to her side of a controversy. In fact, if a person threatens physical harm upon another or threatens that the latter's name or reputation will be besmirched or marred on television or on the Internet, the former may be held liable for a crime under Act No. 3815 (Revised Penal Code o

Freedom of expression has gained recognition as a fundamental principle of every democratic government, and given a preferred right that stands on a higher level than substantive economic freedom or other liberties.[1] In no equivocal terms did the fundamental law of the land prohibit the abridgement of the freedom of expression. Section 4, Article II of the 1987 Constitution expressly states: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. A fundamental part of this cherished freedom is the right to participate in electoral processes, which includes not only the right to vote, but also the right to express one's preference for a candidate or the right to influence others to vote or otherwise not vote for a particular candidate. The Supreme Court has always recognized that these expressions are basic and fundamental ri

The fact that a questioned regulation applies only to political speech or election-related speech does not, by itself, make it a content-based regulation. ( G.R. No. 223705, August 14, 2019 ) READ MORE: Law dean explains "protected speech." It is too obvious to state that every law or regulation would apply to a particular type of speech such as commercial speech or political speech. It does not follow, however, that these regulations affect or target the content of the speech or expression to easily and sweepingly identify it as a content-based regulation. Instead, the particular law or regulation must be judiciously examined on what it actually intends to regulate to properly determine whether it amounts to a content-neutral or content-based regulation as contemplated under our jurisprudential laws. To rule otherwise would result to the absurd interpretation that every law or regulation relating to a particular speech is a content-based re

For content-neutral regulations that affect free speech and expression, they should be tested or measured against the intermediate scrutiny, viz.: The regulation is within the constitutional power of the government; It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; Such governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of the free expression; and The incidental restriction on the alleged freedom of expression is no greater than (narrowly tailored with) what is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest. (Chavez v. Gonzales, 569 Phil. 155, 195, 2008) The failure to meet the fourth criterion is fatal to the regulation's validity as even if it is within the Constitutional power of the government agency or instrumentality concerned and it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest which is unrelated to the suppression of speech, the regulation shall still be invalidated if

On grounds of violation of the freedom of speech, of expression, and of assembly; denial of substantive due process; violation of the equal protection clause; and violation of the territoriality principle in criminal cases, Loida Nicolas-Lewis (petitioner) seeks to declare as unconstitutional Section 36.8 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590 and Section 74(II)(8) of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 10035, which prohibit the engagement of any person in partisan political activities abroad during the 30-day overseas voting period. CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 223705, August 14, 2019 ] LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. DECISION. REYES, J. JR., J.: FACTS:  On February 13, 2003, R.A. No. 9189, entitled "An Act Providing for a System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for other Purposes,"

For content-neutral regulations, they should be tested or measured against the intermediate scrutiny, viz.: The regulation is within the constitutional power of the government; It furthers an important or substantial governmental interest ; Such governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of the free expression ; and The incidental restriction on the alleged freedom of expression is no greater than ( narrowly tailored with) what is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest. (Chavez v. Gonzales, 569 Phil. 155, 195, 2008)

Justice Marvic Mario Victor Famorca Leonen Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Bar Examination Chairperson, 2020/2021 Sir: Allow us to suggest a possible way to conduct the 2021 Bar examinations online. Before we begin, we would like to emphasize that our opinion has no bearing whatsoever in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power under the 1987 Constitution. The final say, of course, in crafting the rules to govern the admission to the practice of law and the conduct of the Bar examinations is the exclusive discretion of the Court. Our opinion is not controlling in any way, shape or form. The following suggestions are a humble attempt to participate in the public discussion on the best way the Supreme Court can administer the 2020/2021 Bar examinations while simultaneously complying with best medical practices and government regulations and while making sure the integrity of this century-old tradition remains intact. Examinees do not have to travel

The President was called the "guardian of the Philippine archipelago" in Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr. (G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016) The duty to protect the State and its people. must be carried out earnestly and effectively throughout the whole territory of the Philippines in accordance with the constitutional provision on national territory. Hence, the President of the Philippines, as the sole repository of executive power, is the guardian of the Philippine archipelago, including all the islands and waters embraced therein and all other territories over which it has sovereignty or jurisdiction. These territories consist of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains; including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas; and the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions. To carry out this important duty, the President is e

In the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Lariosa and NLRC (G.R. No. L-70479, February 27, 1987), the "Notice of Decision" which the employee's lawyer received together with a copy of the labor arbiter's decision advised them that an appeal could be taken to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) within ten (10) "working" days from receipt of the said decision. The Supreme Court held that the 10-day period within which to appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) consists of 10 calendar (not working) days. However, the High Court, exercising equity jurisdiction, decided to overlook this particular procedural lapse and to proceed with the resolution of the case. Article 223 of the Labor Code clearly provides for a reglementary period of ten (10) days within which the appeal of a decision of the Labor Arbiter should be brought to the NLRC. The ten-day period

The Department of Labor and Employment has released the new guidelines on the issuance of work permits for minors engaged in public entertainment or information related projects. The guidelines, signed by Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III on October 30, shall take effect on 01 January 2018. Public entertainment or information under Department Order No. 65-04 is defined as “Artistic, literary, and cultural performances for television show, radio program, cinema or film, theater, commercial advertisement, public relations activities or campaigns, print materials, internet and other media’”. Under Republic Act No. 9231, children below the age of 15 are not allowed to be employed in any public or private establishment except when they work directly under the sole responsibility of their parents or guardian or when their participation in public entertainment or public information is essential. In any of the exceptions, the employer, parent or guardian shou

The formulation and implementation of policies and measures on local autonomy shall be guided by the following operative principles: (a) There shall be an effective allocation among the different local government units of their respective powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources; (b) There shall be established in every local government unit an accountable, efficient, and dynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism that will meet the priority needs and service requirements of its communities; (c) Subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, local officials and employees paid wholly or mainly from local funds shall be appointed or removed, according to merit and fitness, by the appropriate appointing authority; (d) The vesting of duty, responsibility, and accountability in local government units shall be accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge their powers and effectively carry out the

191 Phil. 479 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. L-32116, April 21, 1981 ] RURAL BANK OF CALOOCAN, INC. AND JOSE O. DESIDERIO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAXIMA CASTRO, RESPONDENTS. DECISION. DE CASTRO,* J.: This is a petition for review by way of certiorari of the decision [1]  of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 39760-R entitled "Maxima Castro, plaintiff-appellee, versus Severino Valencia, et al., defendants; Rural Bank of Caloocan, Inc., Jose Desiderio, Jr. and Arsenio Reyes, defendants-appellants," which affirmed  in   toto  the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of plaintiff-appellee, the herein private respondent Maxima Castro. On December 7, 1959, respondent Maxima Castro, accompanied by Severino Valencia, went to the Rural Bank of Caloocan to apply for an industrial loan. It was Severino Valencia who arranged everything about the loan with the bank and who supplied to the latter the personal data required for Castro's loan ap