Search results
Petitioners also charge that the session was hastily adjourned at 3:40 p.m. on November 21, 1996 and the bill certified by Speaker Jose De Venecia to prevent petitioner Rep. Arroyo from formally challenging the existence of a quorum and asking for a reconsideration.
Aug 14, 1997 · Petitioners also charge that the session was hastily adjourned at 3:40 p.m. on November 21, 1996 and the bill certified by Speaker Jose De Venecia to prevent petitioner Rep. Arroyo from formally challenging the existence of a quorum and asking for a reconsideration.
jose de venecia, raul daza, rodolfo albano, the executive secretary, the secretary of finance, and the commissioner of internal revenue, respondents. MENDOZA, J.: Petitioners seek a rehearing and reconsideration of the Court's decision dismissing their petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Aug 14, 1997 · Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997. Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes. Labels: Case Digests , Political Law. Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia Case Digest.docx - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. This case involves a challenge to the validity of RA 8240, which imposed "sin taxes" on beer and cigarettes.
Aug 14, 1997 · The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a motion for rehearing regarding its previous decision dismissing a petition challenging the passage of Republic Act No. 8240.
Aug 14, 1997 · Arroyo vs. De Venecia (G.R. No. 127255_ August 14, 1997) - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a challenge to the validity of Republic Act No. 8240, which imposed "sin taxes" on beer and cigarettes.
Jose De Venecia defended on the grounds of the principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine, arguing that the Court is not the proper forum for enforcing House rules and there is no justification for reconsidering the enrolled bill doctrine.
Aug 14, 1997 · Rule XV was examined by the Court and it was found to satisfy the test: (1) that it did not ignore any constitutional restraint; (2) it did not violate any fundamental right; and (3) its method has a reasonable relationship with the result sought to be attained.
Aug 14, 1997 · When the 1987 Constitution has embodied, in its circumscription of judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution, the determination of whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government, the Supreme Court, upon which that great burden has been imposed, could not have b...
