• No results found

DOUBLE JEOPARDYDOUBLE JEOPARDY

In document Recentjuris Poli Final (Page 31-35)

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

known to be honest and upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and that their known to be honest and upright, reputed to be trustworthy and reliable, and that their word may be take

word may be taken at face value, as n at face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness ofa good warranty of the worthiness of Go.”Go.”

While there is no showing that

While there is no showing that Go’sGo’s witnesses were of doubtful moral inclinations, there witnesses were of doubtful moral inclinations, there was likewise no indication that they were persons whose qualifications were at par with was likewise no indication that they were persons whose qualifications were at par with the requirements of the law on naturalization. Simply put, no evidence was ever proffered the requirements of the law on naturalization. Simply put, no evidence was ever proffered to prove the

to prove the witnesses’witnesses’ good standing in the community, honesty, moral uprightness, and good standing in the community, honesty, moral uprightness, and most importantly, reliability. As a consequence, their statements about Go do not possess most importantly, reliability. As a consequence, their statements about Go do not possess the measure of credibility demanded of in naturalization cases. This lack of credibility on the measure of credibility demanded of in naturalization cases. This lack of credibility on the part

the part of the of the witnesses, unfortunatelywitnesses, unfortunately, weakens or renders futil, weakens or renders futilee Go’sGo’s claim of worthiness. claim of worthiness.

An applicant for Philippine citizenship would carefully testify as to his qualifications, An applicant for Philippine citizenship would carefully testify as to his qualifications, placing emphasis on his

placing emphasis on his good traits and charactergood traits and character. This is expected of . This is expected of a person who longs toa person who longs to gain benefits and advantages of Philippine citizenship bestows. Therefore, a serious gain benefits and advantages of Philippine citizenship bestows. Therefore, a serious assessment of an

assessment of an applicant’sapplicant’s witnesses, both as to the credibility of their person and their witnesses, both as to the credibility of their person and their very testimony, is an essential facet of naturalization proceedings that may not be brushed very testimony, is an essential facet of naturalization proceedings that may not be brushed aside.

aside.

DENNIS L. GO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014, DENNIS L. GO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 202809, July 2, 2014, J. Mendoza

J. Mendoza

Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an applicant for naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known applicant for naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The qualification of

lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. The qualification of “some“some  known  known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful

lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation”occupation” means means“not “not  only that the person having only that the person having

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

therefrom except for valid causes.

NATANYA JOANA D. ARGEL vs. GOV. LUIS C. SINGSON, NATANYA JOANA D. ARGEL vs. GOV. LUIS C. SINGSON, G.R. No. 202970, March 25, 2015, J. Perez

G.R. No. 202970, March 25, 2015, J. Perez

In document Recentjuris Poli Final (Page 31-35)

Related documents