This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. [10] Once the sovereign people's "soft" moral choices are hardened through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, [11] statutory laws perform an equalizing function of imposing a knowable standard of conduct or behavior to which all members of society must conform to - a social contract which everyone regardless of class, sex or religion is bound. [12] Legislative enactments are ordinarily prospective and general in character insofar as they prescribe limitations on an individual's future conduct. Under the rule of law, [13] ordinary people can reasonably assume that another person's future conduct will be in observance of the laws and can conceivably expect that any deviation therefrom will be punished accordingly by responsible authorities. Thus, written constitutions and statutory laws allow citizens a minimum confidence in a world of uncertainty: Through constitutionalism we placed limits on both our political institutions and ourselves, hoping that democracies, historically always turbulent, chaotic, and even despotic, might now become restrained, principled, thoughtful and just. So we bound ourselves over to a law that we made and promised to keep. And though a government of laws did not displace governance by men, it did mean that now men, democratic men, would try to live by their word. [14] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the law becomes meaningless. A government of laws excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.[93] | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court is not the proper forum for this sort of debate. The Constitution forbids it, and the principle of separation of powers abhors it. The Court applies the law as it finds it and not as how it thinks the law should be. Not too long ago in the case of People v. Veneracion,[58] this Court spoke about the dangers of allowing one's personal beliefs to interfere with the duty to uphold the Rule of Law which, over a decade later, once again assumes much relevance in this case:Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, the law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it without fear or favor," resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs.[59] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| The focus of contention remains to be the proposal of prohibiting the indirect practice of optometry by corporations. We took a second look and even a third look at the issue in the bicameral conference, but a compromise remained elusive."[11] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Disagreeing with the penalty imposed, the City Prosecutor of Manila filed on 8 February 1995 a motion for reconsideration[75] of the Decision, and asked that it by imposing the proper penalty of death instead of reclusion perpetua. In its Order dated 10 February 1995,[76] the trial court did not take cognizance of the motion on the belief that "the accused Lagarto and Cordero have complied with the legal requirements for the perfection of an appeal." This prompted the Office of the Solicitor General to elevate the matter to this Court by certiorari. The petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 119987-88, was unanimously granted by the Court en banc on 12 October 1995, thus: | |||||