[CASE DIGEST] Lagman v. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658)

July 4, 2017 

FACTS: 

A group of congressmen challenged the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216, which declared martial law in the Mindanao region. The petitioners argued that the proclamation was issued without sufficient factual basis and that it violated the 1987 Constitution by suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 216, finding that the President had sufficient factual basis to believe that the rebellion in Mindanao posed a threat to public safety and order. The Court also found that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was justified, as it was necessary to prevent the escape of suspects and to ensure the success of the military operations.

However, the Court did place some limitations on the President's powers under martial law. The Court held that the President could not use martial law to suppress dissent or to target political opponents. The Court also held that the President was required to report to Congress on the progress of the martial law and to lift the martial law once the threat to public safety had been eliminated.

Lagman v. Medialdea is an important case that clarifies the powers of the President under martial law. The case also sets out some important safeguards to prevent the abuse of martial law powers.

Here are some of the key points of the decision:

[CASE DIGEST] Kilosbayan v. Ermita, (G.R.No.177721)

July 3, 2007

FACTS: 

This was a case filed by Kilosbayan, a civic organization, challenging the appointment of then-Mayor Jose de Venecia III of Ermita, Manila as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

Kilosbayan argued that de Venecia's appointment was unconstitutional because he was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. De Venecia was born in the United States to Filipino parents. He renounced his American citizenship in 1991, but Kilosbayan argued that this was not enough to make him a natural-born Filipino citizen.

The Supreme Court held that: 

1. A natural-born Filipino citizen is a person who is born in the Philippines to Filipino parents.
2. A person who is born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, even if they renounce their foreign citizenship.
3. The appointment of a person who is not a natural-born Filipino citizen to a high government office is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed with Kilosbayan and struck down de Venecia's appointment as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that de Venecia was not a natural-born Filipino citizen because he was born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents. The Court also held that de Venecia's renunciation of his American citizenship did not make him a natural-born Filipino citizen.

The decision in Kilosbayan v. Ermita is a significant decision that has implications for the definition of "natural-born Filipino citizen." The decision clarifies that a natural-born Filipino citizen is a person who is born in the Philippines to Filipino parents. This decision will likely be used to challenge the appointments of other persons who were born outside of the Philippines to Filipino parents.

[CASE DIGEST] Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC (G.R.No.206666)

 January 21, 2015

This was a case filed by Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal challenging the constitutionality of Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), which prohibits persons convicted of certain crimes from running for or holding public office.

Risos-Vidal argued that Section 40 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. She argued that the provision is discriminatory because it only applies to persons convicted of certain crimes, while other persons convicted of crimes are not prohibited from running for or holding public office.

The Supreme Court held that: 

1. Section 40 of the LGC violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it singles out certain persons convicted of crimes for special treatment.
2. Section 40 is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
3. The right to run for and hold public office is a fundamental right that should not be denied on the basis of a discriminatory provision.

The Supreme Court agreed with Risos-Vidal and struck down Section 40 as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision is discriminatory because it singles out certain persons convicted of crimes for special treatment. The Court also held that the provision is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

The decision in Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC is a significant decision that has implications for the right to run for and hold public office in the Philippines. The decision ensures that all persons convicted of crimes, regardless of the crime, are treated equally under the law.

[LAW SCHOOL] How much does it cost to go to law school in the Philippines?

If you are thinking of going to law school and getting a law degree in the Philippines, then listen up: It’s not cheap. 

See, the cost of studying law school in the Philippines varies depending on the school and the program. But here is a breakdown of the average cost of studying law school in the Philippines:

• Tuition: The average tuition fee for law school in the Philippines is PHP 70,000 per semester.
• Books: The cost of books for law school can vary depending on the school and the program, but the average cost is PHP 20,000 per semester.
• Housing: The cost of housing for law school can vary depending on the location of the school and the type of housing, but the average cost is PHP 30,000 per semester.
• Food: The cost of food for law school can vary depending on the student's dietary needs and preferences, but the average cost is PHP 10,000 per semester.
• Other expenses: Other expenses that law students may incur include transportation, personal care, and entertainment. The average cost of these expenses is PHP 10,000 per semester.

In total, the average cost of studying law school in the Philippines is PHP 140,000 per semester. This means that the total cost of a four-year law degree is PHP 560,000.

However, it is important to note that these are just averages. The actual cost of studying law school in the Philippines can vary depending on the school, the program, and the student's individual circumstances.

If you are considering law school, I recommend that you research the different law schools and compare their tuition fees, programs, and facilities. You should also visit the schools and talk to current students and faculty. This will help you make an informed decision about which law school is the best fit for you.

Here are some tips for reducing the cost of law school in the Philippines:

[LAW SCHOOL] List of law schools in Cebu Province in the Philippines

Thinking of studying law in Cebu, Philippines? You're in luck. There are a number of universities in Cebu with law schools that offer law degrees. 

These are: 

• University of San Carlos (USC) School of Law and Governance;

• University of Cebu (UC) School of Law; and

• University of San Jose-Recoletos (USJ-R) School of Law.

USC School of Law and Governance is the oldest law school in Cebu province. It was established in 1917 and is one of the top law schools in the Philippines. UC School of Law was established in 2002 and is a relatively new law school, but it has quickly gained a reputation for academic excellence. USJ-R School of Law was established in 1978 and is a Catholic law school.

All three law schools offer the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree, which is the first professional degree in law in the Philippines. The LLB program typically takes four years to complete. After graduating from law school, students can take the Philippine Bar Examination, which is a national examination required to practice law in the Philippines.

The admission requirements for law school in Cebu province vary from school to school. However, most schools require applicants to have a bachelor's degree from a recognized university, a passing score on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), and letters of recommendation from professors and/or lawyers.