Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Statutory Construction Chapter 5 Summary

Statutory Construction Chapter 5 Summary

Ratings: (0)|Views: 275 |Likes:
Published by Brian Balio
Judge Diaz' Statutory Construction Chapter 5 Summary.
Judge Diaz' Statutory Construction Chapter 5 Summary.

More info:

Published by: Brian Balio on Aug 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Chapter V: Presumption in Aid of Construction and Interpretation
Presumptions
In construing doubtful statute, Courts presume that legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which changes the prior law to effectuate the specific purpose of the questioned act.However, if the language of the law is clear, courts should not resort to presumptions.
Presumption against unconstitutionality
Laws are presumed constitutional. This is based on the doctrine of separation of powers whichcommands each department to respect the acts of the other departments. Consequently, it is presumedthat the legislative and executive department have carefully studied the law and determined itsconstitutionality before it was enacted.The task of rebutting the presumption is on the party challenging the validity of the statute. To justifynullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not a doubtfuland argumentative implication. A law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with theconstitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
ARIS (Philippines) Inc. vs. NLRC
FACTS:Private respondents lodged a protest action against their employer, petitioner Aris Inc., since theirworking surroundings had become detrimental and hazardous. For these actions, they were dismissedfor violation of company rules and regulations.They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner with the NLRC. The latter ruled in favor of them and ordered their reinstatement. Pending appeal by petitioner, they invoked Section 12 of RA
6715 which allows the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision pending appeal.
 Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said section of the law, as well as, Section 2 and 17 of thesame law.ISSUE/S:W/N Sections 2, 12, and 17 of RA 6715 are Constitutional.RULING:The court dismissed the petition of Aris Inc. and upheld the Constitutionality of the Section 2, 12, and 17of RA 6715.State, through its police power, may authorize an immediate implementation, pending appeal, of adecision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee. It is designed to stop the continued threat tothe survival of the dismissed or separated employee and his family.
 
Laws are presumed constitutional. To justify nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocalbreach of the constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication. A law shall not be declaredinvalid unless the conflict with the constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.
All laws are presumed valid and constitutional until or otherwise ruled by the Court.
 Hon. Lim vs. Hon. Pacquing and Associated Development Corporation (ADC)Guingona, Jr. and Cepeda, Jr. vs. Hon. Reyes and ADC
FACTS:City Charter of Manila Section 18, allows the Municipal Board to tax Basque Pelota Game (Jai-Alai) andothers.EO 392, transferred the authority to regulate jai-alais from local governments to the Games andAmusement Board (GAB)RA 954, prohibited certain activities in connection with Basque Pelota Games (Jai-Alai) and prescribedpenalties for its violation.Manila passed Ordinance No. 7065, it authorized the Mayor to allow and permit the AssociatedDevelopment Corporation to establish, maintain, and operate a Jai-Alai in the City of Manila, under theterms and conditions and for other purposes.PD 771, revoked all powers and authority of local governments to grant franchise, license or permitBasque Pelota Games (Jai-Alai). Section 3 of the same law, revoked all existing franchises and permits byissued local government.PD 810, granted the Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation, a franchise to operate, construct,and maintain a fronton for Basque Pelota in the Greater Manila Area.EO 169, expressly repealed PD 810 by revoking and cancelling the franchise granted to Philippine Jai-Alaiand Amusements Corporation.ADC tried to operate a Jai-Alai. Government intervened and invoked PD 771. ADC assails theconstitutionality of PD 771 as violative of equal protection and non-impairment clauses of theConstitution.ISSUE/S:W/N PD 771 is Constitutional.RULING:The court dismissed the petition of ADC and upheld the Constitutionality of PD 771.All laws are presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by this court. Only theCourt
En Banc
has the power to declare a law as unconstitutional under Article VIII, Section 4 (2) of theConstitution.
 
Nothing on record shows or suggests that PD 771 has been repealed, altered, or amended by anysubsequent presidential issuance.
Burden of proving the invalidity of a law rests on those who challenge it.
Lim and Lim vs. People of the Philippines, RTC and City Prosecutor of Quezon City, and Cham
FACTS:Petitioners Lim and Lim questions the constitutionality of PD 818 on the ground that it is violative of thedue process clause, right to bail, and provision against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.ISSUE/S:W/N PD 818 is constitutionalRULING:The court dismissed the petition of Lim and Lim and upheld the Constitutionality of PD 818.When law is questioned before the Court, presumption is in favor of its constitutionality. To justifynullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution, not a doubtfuland argumentative implication. A law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with theconstitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt; the burden of proving rests on those who challenge it.In the case at bar, petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof to defeat the presumption of constitutionality of PD 818.
Presumption against Injustice
 
In seeking the meaning of the law, the cardinal rule is to discover the intent of the lawmaker. Lawshould never be interpreted in such a way to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent.An indispensible part of the intent is to render justice.Law and Justice are inseparable. There are some laws which may seem arbitrary when applied in aparticular case. In such situation, courts are not bound to apply the law in slavish obedience to itslanguage. What the court should do is to find a balance between the word and the will that justice maybe done even as the law is obeyed.Courts do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded. They have the power to interpretthe law in such a way as to reflect the will of the legislature. They may not read into the law a purposethat is not there, but neverthel
ess, read out the reason for its enactment. Defer not to “the letter thatkilleth” but to “the spirit that vivifieth” to give effect to the lawmaker’s will.
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->