This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The Dissent conveniently fails to mention that contemporaneous constructions of administrative or executive agencies are merely at best advisory and not binding on the courts, for by the Constitution and the law, the courts are given the task of finally determining what the law means.[33] We do so under our authority to state what the law is[34] and deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation should be withheld whenever it conflicts with the language of the statute, as in the present case. | |||||
|
2001-04-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Stated differently, when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.[16] Thus, an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[17] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training.[7] However, when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means.[8] Thus an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[9] | |||||