Pinoy Law Student Buddy

 Who are the impeachable officers according to the 1987 Constitution?  President,  Vice-President,  Members of the Supreme Court,  Members of the Constitutional Commissions,  The Ombudsman   What are the grounds for impeachment according to the 1987 Constitution?        for, and conviction of: culpable violation of the Constitution treason bribery graft and corruption other high crimes or betrayal of public trust What is the process for impeachment? The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.  The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty sessi

Double Taxation - When is it permissible and when is it prohibited?  In order to constitute double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense, the same property must be taxed twice when it should be taxed but once; both taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject-matter, for the same purpose, by the same State, Government, or taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district, during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax  Is Direct Double Taxation prohibited by the Constitution? There is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation in the Philippines. It is something not favored, but is permissible, provided some other constitutional requirement is not thereby violated, such as the requirement that taxes must be uniform.  Taxes are uniform and equal when imposed upon all property of the same class or character within the taxing authority. The fact that the owners of other classes of buildings in the City do n

G.R. No. 217097. February 23, 2022 ROLANDO UY Y SAYAN ALIAS "NONOY," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.  J. Hernando  Constitutional Mandate on Search and Seizures. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that search and seizures must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause. Otherwise, searches and seizures done without a valid warrant are considered intrusive and unreasonable within the meaning of the said constitutional provision. The Constitution provides further safeguards such that the evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable searches and seizures are considered tainted, and consequently, inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. However, there is a recognized exception to the need of securing a warrant before a search may be effected, that is, a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. In such instances, the law

Angeles vs. Secretary of Justice, 465 SCRA 106, G.R. No. 142612, July 29, 2005 Facts:  On 19 November 1996, the Angeles spouses filed a criminal complaint for estafa  against Mercado. In their affidavits, the Angeles spouses claimed that Mercado convinced them to enter into a contract of antichresis, colloquially known as sanglaang-perde , covering eight parcels of land planted with fruit- bearing lanzones trees. As the Angeles spouses stay in Manila during weekdays and go to Laguna only on weekends, the parties agreed that Mercado would administer the lands and complete the necessary paperwork. After three years, the Angeles spouses asked for an accounting from Mercado. Mercado explained that the subject land earned P46,210 in 1993, which he used to buy more lanzones trees. Mercado also reported that the trees bore no fruit in 1994. Mercado gave no accounting for 1995. The Angeles spouses claim that only after this demand for an accounting did they discover that Mercado had put the co

Rules on the Determination of the Prescriptive Period for Filing a Tax Refund or Credit of Unutilized Input VAT under Section 112 of the Tax Code  An administrative claim must be filed with the CIR within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales were made. The CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claim within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate. The 120-day period may extend beyond the two-year period from the filing of the administrative claim if the claim is filed in the later part of the two-year period. If the 120-day period expires without any decision from the CIR, then the administrative claim may be considered to be denied by inaction. A judicial claim must be filed, with the CTA within 30 days from the receipt of the CIR's decision denying the administrative claim or from the expiration of the 120-day period with

What is  civil interdiction ?  Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty imposed when an offender is sentenced to the principal penalties of either death,  reclusión  temporal, or  reclusión  perpetua. The Revised Penal Code provide: ARTICLE 40. Death — Its Accessory Penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date of sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. ARTICLE 41. Reclusión Perpetua and Reclusión Temporal — Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusión perpetua and reclusión temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have b

The Philippines is obligated to assure nationals of countries of the Paris Convention that they are afforded an effective protection against violation of their intellectual property rights in the Philippines in the same way that their own countries are obligated to accord similar protection to Philippine Nationals.  The Philippines is obligated to assure nationals of countries of the Paris Convention that they are afforded an effective protection against violation of their intellectual property rights in the Philippines in the same way that their own countries are obligated to accord similar protection to Philippine Nationals.  In Mirpuri, 318 SCRA 516 (1999), the Court ruled that the essential requirement under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention is that the trademark to be protected must be “well-known” in the country where protection is sought. The Court declared that the power to determine whether a trademark is well-known lies in the competent authority of the country of registra

  [ REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11479, July 03, 2020 ] AN ACT TO PREVENT, PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE TERRORISM, THEREBY REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall henceforth be known as "The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020". Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to have welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against The Law of Nations. In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the Constitution. The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comp