This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The guidelines speak of strict exceptions and conditions.[48] To reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court will be to allow SBI and MFII to circumvent the guidelines and conditions provided by the En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 dated February 20, 2007 and prevent CBC from foreclosing on the mortgaged properties based simply on the allegation that the interest on the loan is unconscionable. This Court will not permit such a situation. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.[49] | |||||
|
2011-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| If it will be claimed that the holdover period is effectively another term mandated by Congress, the net result is for Congress to create a new term and to appoint the occupant for the new term. This view - like the extension of the elective term - is constitutionally infirm because Congress cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly, i.e., to act in a way that would effectively extend the term of the incumbents. Indeed, if acts that cannot be legally done directly can be done indirectly, then all laws would be illusory.[55] Congress cannot also create a new term and effectively appoint the occupant of the position for the new term. This is effectively an act of appointment by Congress and an unconstitutional intrusion into the constitutional appointment power of the President.[56] Hence, holdover - whichever way it is viewed - is a constitutionally infirm option that Congress could not have undertaken. | |||||