This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in cases where the statute seems to be in conflict with the Constitution, but a construction that it is in harmony with the Constitution is also possible, that construction should be preferred.[73] This Court, in Pangandaman v. Commission on Elections[74] expounding on this point, pronounced:It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit, rather than the letter of the law determines its construction; for that reason, a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent, x x x. (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2006-10-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| All told, the teaching of the ages is that constitutional clauses acknowledging the right of the people to exercise initiative and referendum are liberally and generously construed in favor of the people.[84] Initiative and referendum powers must be broadly construed to maintain maximum power in the people.[85] We followed this orientation in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections.[86] There is not an iota of reason to depart from it. | |||||