Solicitor General Jose Calida filed the 51-page motion before the Supreme Court on Monday citing logistical restrictions and health threats posed by COVID-19 pandemic, “as well as provisions of internal rules of SC and pertinent jurisprudence.”
"The conduct of in-court oral arguments would necessarily entail the presence of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices, at least 300 petitioners and their respective counsels, an estimate of 16 lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor General and their respective support staff, representatives from the respondents, and the members of the Office of the Clerk of Court," Calida said.
However, Calida said submitting a memorandum with justices asking clarificatory questions afterwards was a viable alternative to in-person oral arguments.it would hold oral arguments on the numerous petitions seeking to junk the controversial Anti-Terrorism Act in September.
well i don't think our justice can't think for them selves , i believe they clever to know what 's good with conciensus .
ANG LUPIT MO CALIDA!
YES. in this moment where we need the strongest security against terrorists. we must be aware of the decades-old life threathening terrorism issue that we have! antiterrorbill communismkills
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: manilabulletin - 🏆 25. / 51 Read more »