angelic moo

The Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court wears two hats:   first , as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court, and   second , as Circuit Registrar within his territorial jurisdiction. Although the Constitution vests the Court with the power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel,   this power must be taken with due regard to other prevailing laws. While civil registrars are members of the Judiciary as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court, a review of the complaint reveals that the complainant seeks to hold the registrar liable for registering the divorce and issuing the Certificate of Registration of D ivorce pursuant to his duties as Circuit Registrar of Muslim divorces . The test of jurisdiction is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender. The fact that the complaint charges Abdullah for "conduct unbecoming of a court employee" is of no moment. Well-settled is the rule that what controls is n

In Arnado v. COMELEC , [1] the Supreme Court held that an affidavit of renunciation of foreign citizenship is deemed withdrawn when a candidate uses a US passport after executing the affidavit. The candidate is disqualified from running for local office and a landslide victory cannot override the eligibility requirements. [1] G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015.

The Validity of a Tax may be Determined by other Statutes In Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista , [1] the Supreme Court upheld the Socialized Housing Tax (SHT) of Quezon City. The City imposed a Socialized Housing Tax equivalent to 0.5% on the assessed value of land in excess of Php100,000.00. The Court held that this special assessment is the same tax referred to in Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.  The SHT is one of the sources of funds for urban development and housing program. [2] The Court explained that: ...Aside from the specific authority vested by Section 43 of the UDHA , cities are allowed to exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities which include, among others, programs and project for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings.   The collections made accrue to its socialized housin

The power of local governments to impose business taxes is found in Section 143. However, this power is subject to the explicit statutory limitation in Section 133(h) which prohibits local governments from imposing “taxes, fees or charges on petroleum products.” [1] [1] Batangas City v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation , G.R. No. 187631, July 8, 2015.

Republic Act No. 9282 expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals which now includes its exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, orders or resolutions of the regional trial courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by the regional trial courts in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. It is the CTA which has exclusive jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case. [1] [1] CE Casecnan Water and Energy Co. v. The Province of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. 196278, June 17, 2015. In National Power Corporation v. Municipal Government of Navotas (G.R. No. 192300, November 24, 2014), and City of Lapu-Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority (G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014), the Supreme Court already held that local tax cases include real property tax.

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the government; thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public purposes, consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated, are not subject to real property tax and respondent City is not justified in collecting taxes from petitioner over said properties. [1] MCIAA is vested with corporate powers but it is not a stock or non-stock corporation, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Like MIAA, petitioner MCIAA has capital under its charter but it is not divided into shares of stock. [2] [1] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015. [2] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.

The Supreme Court declared section 14 of Republic Act No. 9167 as unconstitutional. It said that by earmarking the income on amusement taxes imposed by the local governments in favor of FDCP and the producers of graded films, the legislature appropriated and distributed local government funds (which are not legally within its control) under the guise of setting a limitation on the local governments’ exercise of their delegated taxing power. The Supreme Court held that this was a usurpation of the latter’s exclusive prerogative to apportion their funds, an impermissible intrusion into the local governments’ constitutionally-protected domain which negates the guarantee of fiscal autonomy to municipal corporations as mandated by the Constitution. [1] [1] Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corporation ,   G.R. No. 203754/G.R. No. 204418, June 16, 2015 .

Two developments in Philippine law ended the debate on the contributions of  Oposa v. Factoran [1]  in environmental litigation. I have always been cynical about, and critical of  Oposa ; because I have yet to see what benefit the case brought to environmental protection. I will not repeat my attack on the case which has been published elsewhere. [2] I reiterate one criticism of  Oposa  that is relevant to my argument that this "novelty approach" to litigation that began in  Oposa  has been written off, probably unwittingly, by the Supreme Court. The argument I made years ago was that "Intergenerational equity as articulated in  Oposa  has no practical effect. If the children had invoked their own right to a balanced and healthful ecology, the Supreme Court would have decided the case in the same way. Neither the issues nor the Court’s interpretation of the law would change." [3] The Supreme Court proved that my argument is correct. The Court did this in two

UN: Anti-RH policies of ex-Manila mayors Atienza and Lim drove constituents deeper into poverty By:  Tricia Aquino, InterAksyon.com May 4, 2015 8:04 PM InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5 MANILA - A United Nations committee says that two executive orders of former Manila mayors Jose Atienza, Jr., and Alfredo Lim got in the way of women's access to reproductive health services and contraceptives, consequently driving many constituents further into poverty as they were unable to manage the number of their children and suffered the consequences of unplanned pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths. This was contained in a report issued last month by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The nongovernmental organizations Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, Center for Reproductive Rights, and International Women's Rights Action Network Asia-Pacific requested the UN Committee in June 2008 to conduct a