PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court, during its En Banc deliberations on Tuesday, July 26, 2022, reaffirmed the primacy and exclusivity of its rule-making power under the Constitution, and guaranteed its precedence in governing over the plea bargaining process in drugs cases. In the consolidated cases of People v. Montierro, (G.R No. 254564), Baldadera v. People (G.R. No. 254564); and Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association Expressing its Concern over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No. 250295 (A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC), the Supreme Court En Banc underscored the stability and independence of the Court and its rule-making power in resolving the conflict between Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, which prohibits plea bargaining for illegal sale of dangerous drugs to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and the SC’s Resolution in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC adopting

One hundred and fifty-six out of 532 examinees (29.66%) passed the 2022 Special Shari’ah Bar Examinations held last March 20 and 22 at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), announced today. According to 2022 Special Shari’ah Bar Examinations Chairperson Macrina A. Morados, Dean of the University of the Philippines Institute of Islamic Studies, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the Shari’ah Bar Committee’s petition to lower the passing percentage to 70%, taking into consideration the challenges and circumstances encountered by the examinees under extra-ordinary condition brought about by the pandemic. The top ten passers in the 17th Special Shari’ah Bar Examinations are: 1) Ambung, Maniri, Cayasalam C. (85.6250%), 2) Curo, Norhasima S. (85.5250%), 3) Laguindab, Aina L. (84.9000%), 4) Mortaba, Nur-aima B. (83.9000%), 5) Lantud, Norajannah D. (83.4500%), 6) Barambangan, Hasmin M. (83.2750%), 7) Ameril, Shaibani S.

Underscoring the importance of the well-being and mental health of the Filipino people, the Supreme Court has upheld the interference of the State in the practice of psychology. “Psychology involves the application of scientific methods to inquire into the biological, cognitive, affective, developmental, personality, social, cultural, and individual difference dimensions of human behavior. No one can deny that the competent practice of psychology is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation,” emphasized the Court, as it unanimously declared not unconstitutional the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10029, or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009. The assailed provision granted a period for practitioners to register as psychologists without examination and crafted sufficient standards on who may avail the exemption measured in terms of educational attainment and work experience. Specifically, the law provid

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s67N5gS1HMpYTqVExWV1voW3zHYCeGUo/view?usp=sharing

Republic Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, punishes "child pornography." Under said law, the following shall be unlawful: (a) to hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography; (b) to produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography; (c) to publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import any form of child pornography ; (d) to possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That possession of three (3) or more articles of child pornography of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast; (e) to knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of a city mayor, as local chief executive, to discipline erring officials and employees under his or her jurisdiction. In a 13-page Decision penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari of then City Government of Valenzuela Mayor and now Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian assailing the rulings of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that voided a formal charge for Sexual Harassment and order of preventive suspension against the mayor’s subordinate in the city government who allegedly sexually harassed a female on-the-job (OJT) trainee/student. The Court reversed the assailed CSC and CA rulings and upheld the formal charge and preventive suspension order, issued in 2012 by Gatchalian as then city mayor, against respondent Romeo V. Urrutia, Records Officer IV in the Council Secretariat, Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Valenzuela City and Chair of the Board of Directors

A trial court judge who made inappropriate remarks involving the sexual orientation of litigants in his court has been suspended by the Supreme Court for work-related sexual harassment. In an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the High Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board and likewise found respondent Presiding Judge of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 26, administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge for his homophobic remarks, and for simple misconduct, after he imposed his religious beliefs in the conduct of his judicial functions. In 2019, a complaint was filed by litigants Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita against respondent judge alleging that at a preliminary conference, the latter showed bias and partiality against the litigants and their sexual orientation by persistently asking them if they are homosexuals and telling them that homosexuality is a “sin”: “xxx pagka-bad[i]ng, tomb

The illicitness of a relationship a woman engages in does not diminish her dignity in any way . She will be protected just the same by the law that values her and her children’s dignity and guarantees full respect for their human rights. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division upheld a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) issued under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women  and Their Children Act, over contentions that sought to straitjacket the text and spirit of the law. The petitioner was a man against whom the PPO had been issued to prevent further acts of violence against the respondents—his longtime live- in partner, a woman, and their children. He was 47 and admittedly married when he met the respondent woman, then 20, in 1979. Before the Court, the petitioner primarily argues that Republic Act No. 9262 cannot provide relief for the respondent woman, as she was only his paramour. For him, although the law’s prote