Between a rock and a hard place: An assessment on two conflicting en banc decisions of the Supreme Court

Date of Publication

2009

Document Type

Bachelor's Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Science in Commerce Major in Legal Management

Subject Categories

Commercial Law

College

Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business

Department/Unit

Commercial Law

Thesis Adviser

Hilario S Caraan

Defense Panel Chair

Jose V. Mejia

Defense Panel Member

Golda S. Benjamin
Emily Sanchez

Abstract/Summary

This study begins with the discussion on how the separation of powers if the three main branches of the government would be of aid to each other in fulfilling their respective purpose. It eventually focused on Legislative Branch, particularly on the composition of House Representatives. The trust of the study centers on the designated ratio of seats allotted to the party-list representatives.

The subject of the contention arises on the two opposing interpretation of the Supreme Court en banc on the landmark cases of VETERANS vs. COMELEC and BANAT vs. COMELEC regarding the allocation of seats of the party-list representatives in the House of Representatives. Consequently, the researchers will classify the merits and the concepts presented on the two cases and identity as to which of the two decisions embody the spirit and intent of the law.

This study was conducted, neither to tarnish the reputation of the Supreme Court nor to the Court's credibility in making decisions that will surely be for the benefit of the greater good, but to be of further assistance to the highly respected Court to maintain its good name for the benefit of everybody and the system as a whole.

Abstract Format

html

Language

English

Format

Print

Accession Number

TU19534

Shelf Location

Archives, The Learning Commons, 12F, Henry Sy Sr. Hall

Physical Description

93, [76] leaves

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS