Showing posts with label Political Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Law. Show all posts

Friday, August 8, 2014

Conscientious/Moral/Religious Objector

In "Burwell vs Hobby Lobby" (US, June 2014) and in "Imbong vs Ochoa" (April 2014), the Court ruled in favor of conscientious objector (religious or moral objector) because, among others, the government failed to discharge its burden ("compelling interest" test in the Philippine case; while the government did demonstrate sufficient compelling interest, it failed to show "meaningful difference" between non-profit religious (which are exempted under Affordable Care Act) and for-profit religious organization in the US case).

Thursday, August 7, 2014

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY; RIPENESS

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY; RIPENESS

xxx

Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement of ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the act complained of

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)

See ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

xxx

"In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not only becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute."

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2008)

Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers

xxx

In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches of government, in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature as unconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution

xxx

J. Mendoza, "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)

Supreme Court: "Passive Yet Reflexive"

xxx

"Seemingly distant is the judicial branch, oftentimes regarded as an inert governmental body that merely casts its watchful eyes on clashing stakeholders until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet reflexive when called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its solemn duty to interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital and enduring principle that holds Philippine society together - the supremacy of the Philippine Constitution." 

xxx

J. Mendoza in "Imbong vs Ochoa" (2014)