1H_VILLAS, SEAN_STATCON

1.
Pro hac vice decisions are decisions of the court that deviate from a statute’s legislative intent.
Hence, it is legally invalid.

2.
When courts render judgment on a criminal case and imposed penalties without referring to the
Revised Penal Code. The same violation occurs when courts impose fines without reference to
tax law.

3.
No. Stare Decisis is not an absolute requirement for courts to follow. If the court deem it
necessary to deviate from an already decided case with similar facts, and is proven to be lawful,
then they may do so at their discretion

4.

5.

6A.
Penal laws cannot be subjected to Void for Vagueness because it should only be limited to
cases of free speech, religious freedom, and other personal rights. Penal statutes cannot be
voided by vagueness because it would have an inevitable retroactive effect, in which case would
cause total chaos to the entire penal system.

6B.
Extravagant vagueness is a lack of clarity in terms of degree. An example is a

7.
Adopted statutes are laws we took and applied from other countries. We may interpret it as it is
from its origin of country

8A.
A separability clause ensures that when a particular provision of a statute is deemed invalid, the
other provisions are untouched and remain active.

8B.
Without a separability clause, the law views the statute as a single whole, and so if one
provision is defective, the entire statute is to be struck down
9.
A bill generally undergoes 3 readings on separate days before it could be signed by the
executive chief. In times of urgency, the most significant consequence is that the 3 readings of
the bill may be processed within a single day.

10A.
“The provisions of this act may be construed in a way that protects public safety and the proper
flow of vehicular activities in highways. If any of the provisions are deemed vague, then it may
be interpreted by the proper government authorities”

10b.
“All pending cases or legal proceedings that falls under this act shall be governed by the laws
active at the time of its consummation”

11.
The law has vagueness, particularly in its construction of the words “for any offense in
connection with the driving of a motor car”. There is lack of clarity of which cases may or may
not fall within the said provision. In this case, it is proper to interpret the law through
understanding the legislative intent behind it. The law was made to ensure peace in highways
and transportation and it is not exclusive to offensive behavior inside the highways or vehicles
alone. In order to ensure public peace, it is necessary not only to have proper knowledge of
traffic rules but also the proper attitude and temperament as it is very common to be involved in
disputes while driving motor vehicles, otherwise known as “road rage”. This is the legislative
intent behind this law, and so Zachary’s lack of patience and aggressiveness constitutes an
offense and his license may be revoked under the provisions of said law

12.
The provisions of the law state that if a schedule I or II drug kills or heavily injures a person,
then the seller is criminally liable. In this case, the application of the law should be direct as
there is no vagueness or ambiguity involved. Hilaro sold a drug, and it killed a person. Although
the death was classified as “combined drug intoxication”, it was proven that the particular
chemical bought from him had a lethal dose while the others had either low or normal. Even if it
was found that THC, alprazolam and hydrocodone had a lethal dose as well, it does not negate
the application of the law’s provision because the requisites remain fulfilled. The law in this case
is not at all vague and its application should then be direct and absent of interpretation.

13.
a) It shall be unlawful for any hospital or medical clinic in the country to detain or to otherwise
cause, directly or indirectly, the detention of patients who have fully or partially recovered or
have been adequately attended to or who may have died, for reasons of non payment in part or
in full of hospital bills or medical expenses
b) It shall be unlawful to withhold the issuance of the corresponding medical certificate and other
pertinent papers required for the release of the patient from the hospital or medical clinic upon
the execution of a promissory note covering the unpaid obligation

c) In the case of a deceased patient, it shall be unlawful to withhold from the surviving relatives
the corresponding death certificate and other documents required for interment and other
purposes

14.
NO. Randy cannot sue ABC Hospital. It is clear in the provisions of the said R.A, particularly in
its general policies, that “patients, except those who stay in private rooms who have fully or
partially recovered and who already wish to leave the hospital or medical clinic but are
financially incapable to settle, in part or in full, their hospitalization expenses, including
professional fees and medicines, shall be allowed to leave the hospital or medical clinic”.
Perhaps the intent behind this exception is that people who can afford private rooms are
deemed to be capable of paying in full or partially. The privilege to be discharged immediately
without paying anything is reserved to those admitted in non-private rooms, because most
people who are willing to deal with the quality of public rooms are the indigent.