This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find this to be an erroneous approach that violates a basic principle in constitutional construction - ut magis valeat quam pereat: that the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole,[81] and one mandate should not be given importance over the other except where the primacy of one over the other is clear.[82] We refer to the Court's declaration in Ang-Angco v. Castillo, et al.,[83] thus: | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., who proposed the insertion of the phrase, intended the Supreme Court to exercise exclusive authority to promulgate its rules of procedure for that purpose. To this, Justice Regalado forthwith assented and then emphasized that the sole power ought to be without intervention by the legislative department. Evidently, even the legislature cannot limit the judicial power to resolve presidential and vice-presidential election contests and our rule-making power connected thereto. To foreclose all arguments of petitioner, we reiterate that the establishment of the PET simply constitutionalized what was statutory before the 1987 Constitution. The experiential context of the PET in our country cannot be denied.[4] | |||||