In Gonzales vs. Macaraig, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to veto specific provisions in an appropriations bill, including conditions or restrictions, without vetoing the entire bill. This decision affirmed the President’s line-item veto power as a check on legislative appropriations.
The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional due to legislators’ post-enactment involvement in fund allocation, violating the separation of powers. The Court emphasized that only the Executive branch should implement laws, reinforcing the constitutional boundaries between legislative and executive functions.
The Supreme Court invalidated Executive Order No. 464, which required presidential consent for executive officials to attend congressional inquiries. The Court emphasized that such a requirement undermines legislative oversight and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the Philippine Truth Commission’s creation, ruling it unconstitutional due to its exclusive focus on investigating the previous administration, which violated the equal protection clause. The Court emphasized that while the President can establish fact-finding bodies, these must operate within constitutional boundaries.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission [December 7, 2010] Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s creation of municipalities via executive orders was unconstitutional, as this legislative power cannot be delegated without clear standards. The Court emphasized that establishing municipalities is a legislative function requiring explicit guidelines to prevent separation of powers violations.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RH Law, emphasizing its role in providing access to family planning and reproductive health services. However, it struck down provisions that penalized healthcare providers who refuse services based on religious beliefs, protecting individual conscience rights.
In this case, Sio Choy’s jeep, insured by Malayan Insurance for own damage and third-party liability, collided with a bus, causing injuries to passenger Vallejos. The Supreme Court ruled that both the insured (Sio Choy) and the insurer (Malayan Insurance) are solidarily liable to the victim, with the insurer entitled to reimbursement from the negligent third party’s employer, San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., through subrogation.
Malayan Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [September 26, 1988] Read More »
In this case, Pioneer Insurance paid a bond for Jacob Lim’s aircraft purchase and sought reimbursement from Lim and his co-indemnitors. However, since Pioneer had already recovered the amount from its reinsurer, the Supreme Court ruled that only the reinsurer could claim subrogation rights, dismissing Pioneer’s case.
Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [July 28, 1989] Read More »
In Sun Insurance vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that the 12-month period to file a lawsuit for insurance claims starts when the insured receives the insurer’s initial denial. Requesting reconsideration doesn’t pause this period. Filing after this timeframe results in prescription, barring the claim.
Sun Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [March 13, 1991] Read More »
In Lopez vs. Filipinas, the Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner doesn’t stop the 12-month prescriptive period for insurance claims. Only a court action can do this. Since Lopez filed in court after the period lapsed, his claim was barred.
Lopez vs. Filipinas Compania De Seguros [April 30, 1966] Read More »
