You are on page 1of 1

Lawrence v Texas

A reported weapons disturbance prompted Houston police to go to Lawrences apartment.
There, police found Lawrence and Garner engaged in a sexual act. Both were charged and
convicted, under a Texas statute, which prohibits sodomy. Both contested the statute as a
violation of the 14th Amendment.
Whether or not the statute in question violates the 14th Amendment.
Yes. Decision reversed.
The petitioners were legal adults and performed the act consensually and in private. As
such, the States intrusion and the eventual harm it inflicted on the petitioners is
unconstitutional since it was not in accordance with the Due Process Clause. Also, it violated
the Equal Protection Clause because the statute criminalized sexual intimacy between same
sex couples and not same sexual activity between different sex couples.
De Castro v. JBC
C.J Punos compulsory retirement on May 17, 2010. Presidential elections on May 10, 2010.
Sec 4, Art 8 of the Constitution states that any vacancy in the SC should be filled within 90
days. The JBC is tasked to submit to the incumbent President a list of nominees for the
position to be vacated by the C.J. On Jan 20, 2010, the JBC unanimously agreed to proceed
with the submission of applications for said position. List of nominees by the JBC came out in
national broadsheets on Feb 13, 2010.
Given the time constraints, is it constitutional for the JBC to submit a list of nominees for the
replacement of C.J Puno to the President even if the Constitution (Sec15, Art 7) prohibits the
Pres or acting Pres from making appointments within 2 months before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term on June 30, 2010?
Directs the JBC to carry on.
Sec5, Art7 of the Constitution does not apply to appointments in the Supreme Court rather
only in the Executive branch and that as stated in Sec4, Art8, any vacancy in the SC should
be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof.
People v. Webb
The acquittal of convicted murders Webb et al on Dec 14, 2010 on the ground of lack of
proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt prompted complainant Lauro Vizconde,
immediate relative of the victims, filed a motion to the Court to reconsider its decision.
Whether or not to entertain the complainants reconsideration.
Places accused under double jeopardy
Complainants claims (denied prosecution due process of law, misappreciated the facts,
unreasonably regarded witness as lacking credibility, and issued a tainted and erroneous
decision) to be lacking in merit