imbong v ochoa
facts
RH LAW reproductive health law RA 10354
free access to contraceptive methods
sec 12 art 2 protect the life of mother and the unborn
the petitioner points out that RH law violates right to life of the unborn and right to religious freedom
right to health and hazardous products
issue :
won RH law is unconstitutional and if the court may review the controversy
ruling :
INC v CA
facts :
where the petitioners submitted to board to review their VTR tapes which the board classifies it as a
series as X or not for public due to the ground that they offend other religions which is prohibited by
law. but INC appealed it to the office of the president and the office of the president reversed the
decision and allowed it to air publicly
pd 1986 movie and television review
petitioner filed against the board for grave abuse of discretion but respondents invoked its power
under PD 1986 in rel to art 201 immoral doctrines and indecent shows
taruc v dela cruz
facts
when mr taruc request to transfer fr. florano in another church but denied by bishop dela cruz. fr
floranos wife is belonged to a political party that was opposes to taruc.
bishop dela cruz declared petitioners as expelled from the phil independent church
petitioners filed a complaint for damages bec the expulsion is illegal bec its violates their right to due
process of law
issue : won the court has jurisdiction
ruling :
sec 6 art 2 separation of church and state is inviolable
ibp v zamora
facts :
where the president ordered PNP and marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for purpose of crime
prevention and suppression, afterwards the president augmented also the AFP invoking his power
sec 18 art 7 exec department the president is the commander in chief of all armed forces
the IBP filed a petition to annul the deployment of the marines bec its unconstitutional due to
art2 sec 3 and sec 5 art 16 and allegedly creates danger that military would perform the civilian fxns
of the govt
issue :
won the petition has legal standing
ruling : the petition has no merit
bec the ibps petition is not sufficient
locus standi personal and substantial interest
pimental v ochoa
facts:
DSWD poverty reduction strategy ahon pamilyang pinoy
agusan del sur
SARO special allotment release order amounting 50M DSWD issued 4Ps
pantawid pamilyang pinoy
health care of pregnant and young
enrollment of children
reduce child labor
raised nutrient dense foods
increased budget 5B
pimentel questions the disbursement of public funds in regards with the LGUs local autonomy
issue
won the budget allocations of dswd violates art 2 sec 25 state ensure the autonomy of local govt
and art 10 sec 3 accountable local govt in relation to local government code 191