Dagdag kaalaman na naman po ang aking natutunan hindi lamang patungkol sa RA 11479 kundi sa mga iba't ibang karapatang pantao na dapat tinatamasa ng tao ayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Nakakalungkot lamang po na maraming mga tao ngayon ang ignorante sa mga ganitong mga technicalities dahil na rin po hindi nila pagkaalam sa kanilang karapatan. Halimbawa nalang noong napakinggan ko ang aking co-teacher na ang sabi niya "Bakit ka magagalit e di ka naman terorista?". I will definitely share this webinar to my grade 10 students next school for them to be enlightened sa ganitong isyu. Attorney, tanong ko lang po kung pinapanood niyopo ang Oral Argument sa Supreme Court regarding sa ATA? Curious lamang po ako, bakit po Audio lang ang pinapakita bakit hindi pati yung video recording po? Dacal a salamat po, Attorney.. -teacher na aspiring law student soon 😇😇😇
bawal kasi sa rules ng supreme court ang live streaming ng video iba kasi ang dating pag video na. nasa desisyon ng korte suprema yan sa kaso dati ni erap. sabi eh public trial is different from a publicized trial
@@CDDukaLaw Noted po Attorney 😇 Ang swerte po ng UMAK dahil nandyan kayo! Sana meron din kaminv Attorney Duka sa Tarlac.. lalo napo sa TSU-College of Law 👍🇵🇭
Hi. I noticed that most cases here of national importance directly resort to the Supreme Court which is against the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. The only exemptions I think to that dotrine are those 1) cases EXPLICITLY mentioned by the Constitution where Supreme Court has an original and exclusive jurisdiction. In US, both federal and state laws shall undergo first to court of first instance (district courts or quasi-judicial executive body) to establish the question of fact of the case. Judicial review, afterall, cannot be exercised properly if facts are not clear and legal standing are not determinable. In my own opinion, doctrine of transcendental importance doesn't make sense to me. As much as possible, ALL CASES should undergo to trial courts first or quasi-judicial bodies. These court of first instance has the power to strike down a law (for example anti-terrorism act if properly challenged) but has no precedental value. Hence, trial court can only strike down a law limited to the case presented therein, not total invalidation. Of course, like of all cases, this decision is subject to appeal, cert, review of cert and/or injunction (TRO) by higher courts. This is the same reason why almost all cases that directly resorted to the Supreme Court didn't prosper. The common rulings are; 1. No actual case or controversy. 2. There are contrary facts that need to be adjudicated first. 3.. Not subject to facial challenges. 4. The petitioner has no legal standing to sue. 4. Although there is an actual case, it's not yet ripe for judicial determination. 5. The case can be solved without actually questioning the constitutionality of laws involved. 6. Political question.
@@CDDukaLaw it helped me a lot as a law student. Thank you po! The way you translate the vagaries of the law to us is so clear, concise and easy to understand. Way to go to more lectures like this.
Very informative! Thank you Atty Duka ❤️✨
welcome thanks too. pls share and encourage others to subscribe too. stay safe and blessed
welcome stay safe
The topic is timely and relevant. Thank you po, Atty. Duka!
welcome stay safe
Thank u atty
welcome
25:24 "Poe Kiko" haha natawa lang ako. Thank you Atty. that explains a lot baket maraming na o-oppose dito.
welcome
Dagdag kaalaman na naman po ang aking natutunan hindi lamang patungkol sa RA 11479 kundi sa mga iba't ibang karapatang pantao na dapat tinatamasa ng tao ayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Nakakalungkot lamang po na maraming mga tao ngayon ang ignorante sa mga ganitong mga technicalities dahil na rin po hindi nila pagkaalam sa kanilang karapatan. Halimbawa nalang noong napakinggan ko ang aking co-teacher na ang sabi niya "Bakit ka magagalit e di ka naman terorista?". I will definitely share this webinar to my grade 10 students next school for them to be enlightened sa ganitong isyu.
Attorney, tanong ko lang po kung pinapanood niyopo ang Oral Argument sa Supreme Court regarding sa ATA? Curious lamang po ako, bakit po Audio lang ang pinapakita bakit hindi pati yung video recording po? Dacal a salamat po, Attorney..
-teacher na aspiring law student soon 😇😇😇
bawal kasi sa rules ng supreme court ang live streaming ng video iba kasi ang dating pag video na. nasa desisyon ng korte suprema yan sa kaso dati ni erap. sabi eh public trial is different from a publicized trial
@@CDDukaLaw Noted po Attorney 😇 Ang swerte po ng UMAK dahil nandyan kayo! Sana meron din kaminv Attorney Duka sa Tarlac.. lalo napo sa TSU-College of Law 👍🇵🇭
@@jasperalfonso8281 oh thanks. nandyan naman si dean peng dela rama sa tsu law
Nice!
Thank you po ❤️❤️❤️
Tsarot :) Galing mo Dean! Political Law please :)
thanks... already uploaded pls check the videos
Thank you po Atty...
welcome stay safe
Hi. I noticed that most cases here of national importance directly resort to the Supreme Court which is against the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. The only exemptions I think to that dotrine are those 1) cases EXPLICITLY mentioned by the Constitution where Supreme Court has an original and exclusive jurisdiction.
In US, both federal and state laws shall undergo first to court of first instance (district courts or quasi-judicial executive body) to establish the question of fact of the case. Judicial review, afterall, cannot be exercised properly if facts are not clear and legal standing are not determinable.
In my own opinion, doctrine of transcendental importance doesn't make sense to me. As much as possible, ALL CASES should undergo to trial courts first or quasi-judicial bodies. These court of first instance has the power to strike down a law (for example anti-terrorism act if properly challenged) but has no precedental value. Hence, trial court can only strike down a law limited to the case presented therein, not total invalidation. Of course, like of all cases, this decision is subject to appeal, cert, review of cert and/or injunction (TRO) by higher courts.
This is the same reason why almost all cases that directly resorted to the Supreme Court didn't prosper. The common rulings are;
1. No actual case or controversy.
2. There are contrary facts that need to be adjudicated first.
3.. Not subject to facial challenges.
4. The petitioner has no legal standing to sue.
4. Although there is an actual case, it's not yet ripe for judicial determination.
5. The case can be solved without actually questioning the constitutionality of laws involved.
6. Political question.
Ang galing po!
salamat pls sahare the channel to others
@@CDDukaLaw it helped me a lot as a law student. Thank you po! The way you translate the vagaries of the law to us is so clear, concise and easy to understand. Way to go to more lectures like this.
@@steviewinston7480 that is the duty of a lawyer translate the law in a plain language
😲
Thanks po attorney
welcome
Helo po dean freshman law student Po galing Ng pg kakaexplain Po Ng subscribe n po aq para update aq sa mga blog nyu Po 😊
thanks good luck sa law school. soon consti at admin law naman then PIL and more subjects to come
Democrazy hahahaha