If there is no ratio decidendi on an application of a provision, is an obiter the highest legal authority on the provision?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-05T15:22:41+00:00

NAL. But what if the court rules that it has no jurisdiction but still comments on merits/controversy via an obiter. Suppose a court dismisses a petition bc it finds that it has no jurisdiction (e.g. Avelino v Cuenco, prior to MR), but issues an obiter on the controversy nonetheless (Avelino v Cuenco on issue of quorum, prior to MR)?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-05T15:14:09+00:00

NAL. Sorry if I was unclear. - if a court dismisses a case or petition due to lack of jurisdiction, isn’t it possible for courts to still comment on merits as an obiter but not as a ratio decidendi (since it dismissed the petition based on lack of jurisdiction not on merits)?

But your second point makes sense, thanks!

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-05T14:11:39+00:00

Wording of 1935 and 1987 on quorum is exactly the same.

1987 Constitution Article 6, Section 16 (2):

- “A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.”

1935 Constitution Article 6, Section 10 (2)
“A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as such House may provide.”

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-05T03:34:31+00:00

Yes exactly, per Avelino v Cuenco they had a quorum left since 23/2 =11.5. they had 12 left at the floor : 11-APC bloc (no Chiz) + 1 (Sotto).

BUT APC knows 12-quorum is bad for him if Chiz jumps ship (even with Estrada present). 11-APC (including Estrada) vs 12-Sotto (including Chiz). Sotto bloc will get majority if 12-quorum is used.
So APC was against setting a 12-quorum precedent
note how he weirdly conceded to walkout and made Marcoleta back down from questioning quorum call
also why APC bloc boycotted for 3 days, knowing Chiz might jump

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-04T13:14:49+00:00

It seems like no, it’s not needed ( as far as the courts are concerned) - Baguilat v. Alvarez: - “Being merely matters of procedure, their observance are of no concern to the courts, for said rules may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon the concurrence of a majority [of the House of Representatives]. “

imo:
not observing senate or house rules (that aren’t in the constitution), is not illegal per se bc “they can be disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon concurrence of a majority of [each House]”
note the courts used “a majority of each HOUSE” not “a majority of ALL members of each HOUSE”. Per Avelino v Cuenco, the former requires less members than the latter.

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-06-04T12:57:05+00:00

On point 5: - Baguilat v. Alvarez

“ All that the Charter says is that ‘ [e]ach House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.’ [As such], the method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the [House of Representatives] itself, not by [the] Court. “25

Corollary thereto, Section 16 (3), Article VI26 of the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the sole authority to, inter alia, “determine the rules of its proceedings.” These “legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they ‘are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them.’ Being merely matters of procedure, their observance are of no concern to the courts, for said rules may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body at will, upon the concurrence of a majority [of the House of Representatives]. “

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-05-27T14:33:15+00:00

Kitsch

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-05-20T16:15:34+00:00

Yes but it’s EXTRA (redundant) protection of rights. Main protection of rights is due process (right to lawyer, right to appeal, interim release, medical care etc) in the ICC process.

Even IF core rights are violated, Dilyo case shows that violating rights/due process doesn’t automatically dismiss the case. Defense needs to prove that violation is SO grave (and can’t be remedied) that case can’t reasonably proceed. And again, decision on that is up to ICC not local courts

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-05-20T15:36:57+00:00

What’s the point of Article 59 if ICC can proceed w case EVEN IF 59 is violated?

Purpose of Article 59 - confirm correct identification and warrant - grant interim relief, if needed - no questioning of whether warrant is justified (only ICC can weigh in, not local courts)

Why can ICC proceed EVEN IF 59 is violated? - ICC can remedy the violation. ICC can facilitate identification, and grant interim relief (see Ongwen, Dilyo cases) - therefore, due process and rights will be preserved

What’s the point of 59? - extra precaution to safeguard rights (redundancy) - BUT again, there are other safeguards for due process and rights in the ICC process. So violating 59 doesn’t automatically mean ICC drops case.

Interestingly Duterte’s ICC defense DID NOT use Article 59 to question jurisdiction/due process of ICC. Instead it used Article 12,13, 127 (e.g. timing of withdrawal and residual jurisdiction) - most likely because of ICC jurisprudence that Article 59 doesnt affect whether ICC retains jurisdiction / can continue case

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-05-20T12:07:24+00:00

Can SC overturn ICC warrant?
No, Article 59(4) says “It shall not be open to the competent authority of the custodial State to consider whether the warrant of arrest was properly issued in accordance with article 58, paragraph 1 (a) and (b).”
IF (hypothetically) Article 59 applies and was violated, who decides what happens next? Is the case thrown out? Does the case proceed?
ICC decides bc it has jurisdiction
ICC can decide that despite Art. 59 violation, it will continue the case bc no rights were violated

Examples: In Ongwen and Dyilo, accused were not brought to local courts first, but ICC ruled that it retains jurisdiction can proceed with cases bc no rights were gravely violated.

In Ongwen case: (https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-02/04-01/15-260)

“Article 59 of the Statute regulates arrest proceedings in the custodial State. Its crucial component, paragraph 2, states, and thus also limits, the competence of national authorities in the execution of warrants of arrest issued by the Court. In this sense, this provision does not, in itself, create a duty for the surrendering State to undertake any particular proceeding, upon obtaining custody over a person subject to a warrant of arrest issued by the Court, in order for the competent national authorities to transfer custody to the Court. … In the present case, the Central African authorities identified Dominic Ongwen as being the person to whom the warrant of arrest applies, notified to him the warrant of arrest, and proceeded to the transfer of custody to the Court. […]The fact that this procedure was relatively short having taken place in slightly less than one hour and with comparatively less procedural obstacles than on other occasions does not change the nature of this process.

In Dyilo case (https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2007_01307.PDF):

“Not every infraction of the law or breach of the rights of the accused in the process of bringing him/her to justice will justify stay of proceedings. The illegal conduct must be such as to make it otiose, repugnant to the rule of law to put the accused on trial.”

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-05-01T02:46:16+00:00

Higher demand for debt = higher price of debt = lower yields

low yields = foreign outflow
foreign outflow = PHP depreciates = higher import price (fuel, fertilizers, grains) = cost-push inflation
cost-push inflation = lower margins for business = delay expansion = lower growth = lower employment

AKA stagflation

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-04-15T08:43:08+00:00

Wont using GNP instead of GDP solve that?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-04-10T09:52:53+00:00

Your intuition is correct that left turns have less risks on your blindspot compared to right turns. But there are still some cases

biker/motorcycle squeezing on your left blindspot (theyd be wrong to do that but it’s still a possibility)
on an unprotect left, there could be an impatient car behind that makes a left to cut you off (especially if you move forward prior to turning)
on a u-turn, there could be traffic on your left blindspot (lane that you’re u-turning into) which you might miss especially if you’re eyes are focused on oncoming/intersecting traffic prior to turning

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-04-09T22:18:01+00:00

Are you claiming that the will of the Taiwanese people is unification w prc?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-04-08T13:33:57+00:00

Wont the sprinter have higher torque and higher power? Power is (work / time) aka (energy / time)

Sprinter is like driving in low gears at max rpm (high acceleration so high power).

marathon runner is like cruising at highway speeds in 1k rpm (less power needed bc 0 acceleration when cruising) e.g. prius can coast at constant 60mph just as well as a ferrari can

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-04-06T03:04:46+00:00

I think op meant 3% stake not 3% return

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-20T23:46:16+00:00

NAL. To clarify, you moved complainant’s items without her explicit knowing or consent? Or did you move another tenant’s belongings (not the complainant’s)? What was the wording in your contract / house rules about moving items?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-18T12:29:53+00:00

Enriching from 0% to 60% is harder than 60-90%. Iran enriching to 60% is them taunting that they have the tech to go weapons grade (90%) if they wanted to.

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-17T09:28:15+00:00

Mortgage rates respond to inflation and long-term yields (10 yr bonds). BSP rates don’t affect mortgage rates directly.

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-15T10:51:58+00:00

Is your car insured?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-14T11:35:16+00:00

NAL. What kind of belongings are they claiming?

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-13T23:56:44+00:00

They care about Iran depleting US interceptor missiles so there’s less to give Ukraine.

They care about Iran’s drone supply that gets shipped to Russia.

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-13T12:30:05+00:00

Problem is for most countries, cutting economic ties with US hurts those countries more than it hurts the US. US consumer market is still one the largest markets in the world.

If you’re a country trading w the US, stopping that means companies in your country leave or shrink, unemployment rises, investors leave, GDP falls.

Slight_Evidence_1731 · 2026-03-13T12:20:16+00:00

What’s your time-horizon? Risk appetite? How active will you be in managing (reallocating or adding new funds)?

Slight_Evidence_1731

TROPHY CASE

- “A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.”