This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Mandamus was, therefore, originally a purely prerogative writ emanating from the King himself, superintending the police and preserving the peace within the realm.[34] It was allowed only in cases affecting the sovereign, or the interest of the public at large.[35] The writ of mandamus grew out of the necessity to compel the inferior courts to exercise judicial and ministerial powers invested in them by restraining their excesses, preventing their negligence and restraining their denial of justice.[36] | |||||
|
2011-06-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court not only functions to adjudicate rights among the parties, but also serves the purpose of a supreme tribunal of last resort that establishes uniform rules of civil justice. [16] Jurisprudence "narrows the field of uncertainty" [17] in the application of an unclear area of the law. The certainty of judicial pronouncement lends respect for and adherence to the rule of law - "the idea that all citizens and all organs of government are bound by rules fixed in advance, which make it possible to foresee how the coercive powers of government will be used, whether in its own interests or in aid of citizens who call on them, in particular circumstances." [18] The Court's historic role of pronouncing what the law is between the parties [19] is the cornerstone of a government of laws, and not of men. [20] Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court expounded on the objectives of uniformity and predictability of judicial decisions, to wit: This last point suggests another obvious advantage of establishing as soon as possible a clear, general principle of decision: predictability. Even in simpler times uncertainty has been regarded as incompatible with the Rule of Law. Rudimentary justice requires that those subject to the law must have the means of knowing what it prescribes. It is said that one of emperor Nero's nasty practices was to post his edicts high on the columns so that they would be harder to read and easier to transgress. As laws have become more numerous, and as people have become increasingly ready to punish their adversaries in the courts, we can less and less afford protracted uncertainty regarding what the law may mean. Predictability, or as Llewellyn put it, "reckonability," is a needful characteristic of any law worthy of the name. There are times when even a bad rule is better than no rule at all. [21] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||