“The Court held that the motion for reconsideration merely repleaded the issues raised in the comment and memorandum, which the Court had already passed upon in the assailed Decision,” the PIO said.
Citing its previous pronouncement, the court noted that, for the JMSU to be valid, it must be executed and implemented under any of the following modes under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution: “For an agreement/contract under the fourth mode to be valid, it must foremost be entered into by the President himself or herself. In the case at bar, the President is neither a party nor a signatory to the JMSU and the contracting party is PNOC. The Court further held that the State has no full control and supervision under the JMSU,” it added.
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: rapplerdotcom - 🏆 4. / 86 Read more »