Skip to main content

Salonga Center volunteers reap awards in the 6th National IHL Moot Court Competition

Volunteers of the Salonga Center were declared best mooters in the 6th National IHL Moot Court Competition held in Manila last November 17-19, 2010. Milmon Bryce Tenorio bagged the Best Mooter Award in the General Rounds, while co-oralist Micah Dagaerag was declared Best Mooter in the Final Round. Representing the SU College of Law, Dagaerag and Tenorio successfully defended their positions which qualified them for the semi-finals and ultimately in the final round where they grabbed the championship trophy against the University of the Philippines, Diliman.

The competition was participated by 14 law schools in the country namely: Ateneo de Davao University, Ateneo de Manila University, Far Eastern University, Lyceum of the Philippines University, San Beda College, St. Louis University, Silliman University, Southwestern University, University of Batangas, University of Cebu, the University of the Philippines-Diliman, University of St. La Salle, University of San Carlos and Xavier University–Ateneo de Cagayan.

The other members of the team are Atty: Sheila Catacutan-Besario (team coach), Terrence Callao, who was last year’s Best Mooter in the General Rounds, Joshua Ablong also a mooter in last year’s competition, Karla Aguilan, Zara Dy, Kenny Melody Hotingoy, Nathan Ramacho and Karissa Tolentino. Most of the members of the moot court team are also volunteers of the Salonga Center.

The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot Court Competition is annually organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Philippine National Red Cross in partnership with the Philippine Association of Law Schools and the Supreme Court. This year’s host was San Sebastian College-Recoletos where the general and semi-final rounds were held. The final round on the other hand was held in the En Banc Session Hall of the Supreme Court. The Judges in the final round were Supreme Court Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Prof. Harry Roque, Richard Desgagne who serves as ICRC regional legal adviser, Dr. Mario Aguja and Atty. Lorna Kapunan.

As this year’s champion, Dagaerag and Tenorio will represent the Philippines early next year for the IHL Moot Court Competition in Hong Kong.
Other reports:
Philippine Daily Inquirer: "Silliman beats UP in moot court competition"
ABS-CBN News: "Silliman U tops moot court contest"



PHOTOS



Micah Dagaerag and Milmon Bryce Tenorio at the Supreme Court En Banc Session Hall.



The moot court team. From left to right (front row): Atty. Sheila Catacutan-Besario (Team Coach), Micah Dagaerag, Terrence Anton Callao, Zara Dy, Karissa Tolentino, Bryce Tenorio, Joshua Ablong. (Back row): Atty. Myles Nicholas Bejar (Director, Salonga Center), Atty. Mikhail Lee Maxino (Dean, SU Law). Not in the picture are the rest of the members of the team: Karla Aguilan, Kenny Melody Hotingoy and Nathan Ramacho who all contributed in the research and drafting of the memorials as well as in the formulation of questions.

source: http://www.salongacenter.org/mootcourt.php

Comments

  1. thank you for your comment! as a matter fact, my tuesday's post was about wearing bright mascara on the lower lashes. Check it out if you're interested :))

    http://fixyourfacemakeup.blogspot.com/2011/11/teal-ordeal.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc