Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

F.

Cases on the power to construe:


(Only when there is clear and manifest ambiguity; or when
there is: insufficiency, obscurity or silence/missing, the
court should construe in order to enlighten the purpose of
the law. To ascertain and give effect to the legislative
intent.)

Banawa v. Mirano, 97 SCRA 517 (Re. IBA and


Carsuche Property donations)

Stat Con: It is an elementary rule of construction that


when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal,
the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says.

Guevara v. Inocentes 16
Regular/special adjournment)

SCRA

379

(Re.

Stat Con: When the intention of the legislative is so


apparent from the face of the statute that there can be no
question as to its meaning, there is no room for
construction. When the law does not distinguish, the
courts should not distinguish. Otherwise stated, where
the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and
conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion
for resorting to the rules of statutory construction. The
court has no right to look or impose another meaning.

Resins v. Auditor General, 25 SCRA 754 (Re. Urea


and formaldehyde)

Stat Con: Enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts. If


there is mistake in the printing of the bills, the remedy is
curative or amendment legislation not by judicial decree.
It is the fundamental duty of the courts to apply the law
as they find it, not as they would like it to be. Fidelity to
such task precludes construction or interpretation, unless
application is impossible or inadequate without it.

Crisolo v. Macadaeg, 94 Phil 862 (Re. Support


Pendente lite of unrecognized natural child)

Stat Con: Although it is earnestly urged that under said


law an unrecognized child would be in worse condition
than an illegitimate child who is entitled to support, it is
not the duty or the power of the courts to amend the
statute or make judge-made innovations.

Morales v. Subido, 26
Qualifications of MPD Chief)

SCRA

150

(Re.

Stat Con: Under enrolled bill theory, the text of Act must
be deemed as importing absolute verity and as binding on
the courts. The court cannot go behind the enrolled act to
discover what happened. The signing of an enrolled bill is
an official attestation by two houses, delivered to
President in obedience to the Constitutional
requirements. The respect due to co-equal departments
requires to act upon that assurance.

Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (Re. Senate house


deferred the oath-taking of 3 senators)

Stat Con: The judiciary is not the repository of remedies


for all political or social ills. It is presumed that Congress
acted within its constitutional powers. The proceedings of
the Constitutional Convention are less conclusive of the
proper construction of the Constitution than are
legislative proceedings of the proper construction of a
statute.

Bakings v. Director of Prisons, 28 SCRA 850 (Re.


Prisoners asking for good conduct allowances)

Stat Con: The familiar precept is that codal provision is


not to be interpreted in isolation. It is axiomatic in legal
hermeneutics that a code such as the RPC, should be
construed as a whole. Courts are duty-bound to
harmonize the various provisions thereof.

Palanca v. City of Manila, 41 Phil 125 (Re.


operating another distillery store being subjected
to tax)

Stat Con: Statutes which are plain and specific should be


applied without attempted construction or interpretation.