This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.[67] Hence, we dare not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law.[68] | |||||
|
2007-08-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For it to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.[52] Any reasonable doubt should, following the universal rule of legal hermeneutics, be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law.[53] | |||||