Galahad A. Pe Benito

How to tackle a Conflicts problem: 1. Look for the foreign element 2. Determine if it’s a contract, torts, citizenship, etc problem 3. Apply the appropriate approach (most significant, lex loci, etc) 4. Apply to the facts 5. Make your conclusion That’s a 9-10 for you.

@ABSCBNNews Happy trip. Join government. Travel!

The Palace has confirmed that the Office of the President has approved Vice President Sara Duterte's rescheduled trips, which will start on May 2 until May 15. Duterte did not push through with the earlier trip because of the alleged late approval of her documents. The Office of the Vice President is yet to confirm if Duterte will fly out of the country today. | via @JervisManahan

Another law school prospect. As I usually say, law is a most flexible profession. A legal education can fit almost any career that one aspires for.

@PhilippineStar Will representing the US, Israel, Iran, China, or the UK be any better?

HOW WILL YOU ANSWER THIS PAGEANT QUESTION? 👑 Here is the final question of the Miss Universe Philippines 2026. Let us know your answers below! #MUPH2026 #MissUniversePhilippines

important consideration in changing an old rule. Most important question is if the present rule EGREGIOUSLY wrong? You don’t overrule jurisprudence based on contemporary standards only. We should tread carefully here. Or just let Congress decide this issue.

wrong? Did they refuse to recognize divorce without thinking? Surely, they must have had a basis for their rulings. In addition, what about those who relied on the prevailing rule? The OSG is one of them and they are on the negative side now. Reliance interest is an

The proposition that divorces between Filipinos should be recognized must be given serious and careful thought. Many are of the idea that they should be recognized. But whatever happened to the wisdom of the ages? Were the justices and experts who believed otherwise utterly

The bigger terror, however, is the amount of corruption in government!

Congrats to the videographer of the event for capturing the perfect moments of the victor and the vanquished.

Advice for those taking the final exams: 1. Do not attempt to read the entire book. 2. Read short notes/codals. 3. Answer the past exams of your prof (you’ll be able to pick his mind) 4. Triage your exams. 5. Scan the questionnaire and plan your attack 6. Say a Hail Mary

concurring vote that made all the difference. But in essence and substance, it was a dissenting. Which makes me wonder why you say something and yet adopt a contrary stance?

My Envi Law Professor in the US always referred to the concurring opinion of J. Feliciano in Oposa v Factoran as a dissenting opinion. My professor is right, you know. There is no way that Feliciano’s opinion could be construed as concurring. It is only because he cast a

Reminder to students about the true essence of words in statutory construction: “words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended” - Ogden v Sanders

This is how to dissent. You mean everything you say. You are consistent with the spirit of your opinion.

I just hate it when a justice expresses a contrary opinion and still cast a concurring vote. That contrary opinion is useless when the overall vote is taken. It is still a concurrence and does not change anything.

@TyrellTywi48527 @imtheatan He could have dissented but concurred anyway. Makes no difference.

@gpblaw @imtheatan He voted in favor of its mootness but disagreed on the substance of the word 'forthwith', believing that the Senate should have acted immediately, hence a separate concurring opinion.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the Senate should have immediately convened as an impeachment court last year when the complaint against Sara Duterte was transmitted, reading “forthwith” as requiring prompt action. However, the Supreme Court majority ruled that “forthwith” does not impose a fixed timeline and leaves timing to Senate discretion. It also held that the Senate’s actions last year were still timely, dismissed the petition as moot, and affirmed that courts cannot control the Senate’s impeachment functions absent grave abuse of discretion.

From now on, I will never teach Stat Con in law school!

@ABSCBNNews @adrianayalin There’s a view that the act of state doctrine does not apply to the SC. Now I get it!

Supreme Court clarifies that “forthwith” as mentioned in the Constitution in relation to impeachment cases means “within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case.” | via @adrianayalin

The contract stated: “Payment shall be made forthwith upon receipt of the invoice.” Next time, you reform the statement, for one word carries all the ambiguity right now.