XII . What happens if the Statute in not Capable of Interpretation or Construction?

When a statute is not capable of construction or interpretation because it fails

to express a meaning, or if the absurdity in the law cannot be reconciled despite
resorting to all aids in construction, it becomes inoperative (Manila Jockey Club, Inc
v. Games and Amusement Board, 107 Phil. 151)
XIII. Can the Supreme Court Abandon or Overrule its Earlier Decision?
The Supreme Court sitting en banc, may abandon or overrule its earlier
decision, if it is right and proper to do so but the new decision modifying or
overruling a doctrine or principle should only be applied prospectively, and should
not apply to parties who had relied on the doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.
This is illustrated by the stand of the Supreme Court on the issue of whether
the courts can inquire on the presidential suspension of the privilege of the court of
habeas corpus and whether there is right to bail during the suspension of the said
writ.
The first two leading cases on this point are the cases of Barcelon v. Baker (5
Phil. 87) and Montenegro v. Castaneda (91 Phil. 882). In both case, the Supreme
Court decided that the Presidents decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is final and conclusive upon the courts and all other persons.
The Barcelon rule was enunciated in thid jurisdiction in 1905 whereas the
Montenegro rule, which reiterated the Barcelona rule, was enunciated in 1952. This
ruling continued to prevail until 1971 when our Supreme Court came out with
another ruling in the case of Lansang v Garcia (42 SCRA 448).
In the said case of Lansang v. Garcia, the Supreme Court ruled that courts are
allowed to inquire whether or not a presidential suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is arbitrary in order to determine its constitutional sufficiency.
The ruling is premised on the assumption that the courts can effectively determine
whether the Presidents decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is arbitrary or not.
The Lansang doctrine, however, was abandoned on account of the decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court in cases docketed as G.R. No. 61388 entitled In
the Matter of the Petition for the Josefina Garcia-Padilla, petitioner, v. Minister Juan
Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Fidel V. Ramos and Lt. Col. Miguel Coronel,
respondent. Decided on April 20,1983, and G.R. No. 61016 entitled In the Matter
of Petition for Habeas Corpus of Honoracio R. Morales, Jr., petitioner, v. Minister Juan
Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fabian Ver and Col. Galileo Kintanar, respondents. Promulgated
on April 26,1983, or 6 days after the Padilla decision was promulgated.
In the Padilla case, nine justices voted to abandon the doctrine in the
Lansang case and these justices are as follows: Justices Pacifico de Cas