GARCIA-PADILLA VS. ENRILE [pp.50-62]: The arrest of said detainees fall under the specific provisions of Sec.

6(a), Rule 113 of the New RC [a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when a person to be arrested has committed and committing or is about to commit an offense in his presence]. The law being clear and specific, it concluded that the claim of petitioners was without basis in fact and in law. HALILI VS. CA: RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION: In view of the finding that the subject land is urban in character, petitioners have indeed no right to invoke Art. 1621 of CC [the owners adjoining lands shall also have the right of redemption when a piece of rural land, the area of which does not exceed 1 hectare, is alienated unless the grantee does not own any rural land… reason: to favor agricultural development] which presupposes that the land sought to be redeemed is rural. The provision is clearly worded and admits of no ambiguity in construction. If one or both are urban, the right cannot be invoked. The subject land being not rural and therefore, not agricultural, this purpose would not serve if the petitioners are granted the right of redemption under Art. 1621. Sec.1 Art. XIII [now Sec.2, Art. XII] of the Constitution, natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural lands, shall not be alienated. Sec. 5, [now sec.7] Art. XIII Save in cases on hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individual, corpo, or assoc., qualified to acquire or hold of the public domain in the Philippines  intended to insure the policy of nationalism contained in Sec.1. Both sections must, therefore, be read together for they have the same purpose and same subject matter. Jurisprudence is consistent that “if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen to transfers it to a citizen, the flaw of the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.”  since the disputed land is now

owned by private respondent Catanaig, a Filipino citizen, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed. The objective of the constitutional provision – to keep or land in Filipino hands – has been served. OSMENA VS. COMELEC:SEC.11 (b) of RA 6646 ELECTORAL REFORM LAW OF 1987 [prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the COE purpose: ensuring free, orderly, honest and peaceful and credible elections]: There is no suppression of political ads but only regulation of the time and manner of advertising. The said law concern with ensuring media equality between candidates with deep pocket and those with lesser resources. The law is part of a package of electoral reforms adopted in 1987. Actually, similar effort was made in 1970 to equalize the opportunity of candidates to advertise themselves and their programs of government by requiring the COMELEC to have a COMELEC space in newspaper, magazines, and periodical and prohibiting candidates to advertise outside such space unless the names of all other candidate is running are mentioned “with equal prominence.” There is a substantial or legitimate government interest exercise of the regulatory power of the COMELEC Sec.4, Art. IX-C of the constitution [equal of opportunity] Constitutional provision that mandates political equality: Sec.4, Art. IX-C; Sec. 1, Art. III requires the congress to give the highest priority to the enactment of measures designed to reduce political inequalities; Sec. 26, Art. II declares as a fundamental principle of our government equal opportunities for public service. ARROYO VS. DE VENECIA: The disregard of the rules in this case would not affect the validity of RA No. 8240, the rules allegedly violated being merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather

that construction which tends to give effect to the object for which the law was adopted shall prevail. the latter must be adopted. modify and repeal its . unless different intention appears. It is well – settled that a legislative act will not be declared invalid for non – compliance with internal rules. COMELEC: The established rule is that the winner in the recall election cannot be charged or credited with the full term of three years for purposes of counting the consecutiveness of an elective official’s term. WENPHIL. we should not distinguish. DE GUIA VS. TEN YU: AGAINST INEFFECTIVENESS: Where a law is susceptible of two constructions. GUINGONA: AGAINST IRREPEALABLE LAWS: Congress has the inherent power to amend. NEC NOS DISTINGQUERE DEBEMOS – when the law does not distinguish. in the sense of adding nothing to the law or having no effect whatsoever thereon. REGISTER OF DEEDS: P AGAINST INCONSISTENCY: A word or phrase repeated in a statute will have the same meaning throughout the statute. US VS. and accordingly meaningless.80-90] SOCRATES VS. SERRANO AND AGABON CASE [pp. The courts therefore have the duty to interpret the law in such a way as to avoid absurd result. TRINIDAD:PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY: The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. BENGUET EXPLORATION INC. one which will render the statute ineffective or inefficient and another which will tend to give effect to the evident intent of the legislature. The established rule is that the winner in the recall election cannot be charged or credited with the full term of three tears for purposes of counting the consecutiveness of an elective official’s term. DUARTE VS. The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three-term limit by voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect the people’s choice and grant their elected official full service of a term. PEOPLE VS. INVOLUNTARY severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. DESIERTO [pp. Voluntary renunciation of a term thus not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limit. a legal provision must not be construed to be a useless surplus age. conversely. LIBUNAN VS. UYTENGSU VS. ESTRADA VS. Interpretation of three term limit rule: The constitution prohibits is an immediate re-election for fourth term following the 3 consecutive terms not any other subsequent election.that constitutional requirements for the enactment of laws. To doubt is to sustain. DENR: AGAINST INEFFECTIVENESS: Where the language of the statute is susceptible of two or more constructions.94-100] YU CONG ENG VS. Quorum: the question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House. KRIVENKO VS. MALABANAN: AGAINST ABSURDITY: It is presumed that the legislature does not intend that absurdity will flow from its enactment. DAVID: AGAINST IRREPEALABLE LAWS: The legislature cannot enact irrepealable laws or limit its future legislative acts. one of which will render it unconstitutional and the other upholds its validity. REPUBLIC: AGAINST ABSURDITY: Whenever possible. VS. GIL: INCONSISTENCY: UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT.

It cannot strike down an amendatory law on the ground that the amended law is better for the people. the latter law cannot be held to have abrogated the former law.own laws for there are no irrepealable laws. amending or repealing a law. By the principle of separation of powers. or to vest a new jurisdiction in them. unless the repugnancy is clear. US VS. PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO: AGAINST IMPLIED REPEAL: Before a statute can be considered to have repealed a prior statute by implication. This perception is reflected by them through the amendment or outright repeal of our existing laws. CA: KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING LAWS: In enacting a law. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS: IMPLIED REPEAL: A general law does not repeal a special law unless it is so expressly provided or they are incompatible. CALDERON VS. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS VS. the SC cannot supersede the wisdom of Congress in enacting. the lawmaking body is presumed to have full knowledge of all existing laws on the subject enacted on different dates.761 VS. namely: that the statute touch the same subject matter and that the later statute is repugnant to the earlier one. unless there are express words or a necessary implication to that effect. convincing and irreconcilable. MANILA LODGE NO. Its perception of what is good for our people can change over time. PALACIO: JURISDICTION: A statute will not be construed in such a manner as to oust or restrict the jurisdiction of superior courts. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful