This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is observed that R.A. No. 6770 has invariably mentioned the Special Prosecutor alongside the Ombudsman and/or the Deputy Ombudsmen with respect to the manner of appointment,[34] qualifications,[35] term of office,[36] grounds for removal from office,[37] prohibitions and disqualifications[38] and disclosure of relationship requirement.[39] However, with respect to the grant of the power to preventively suspend, Section 24 of R.A. No 6770 makes no mention of the Special Prosecutor. The obvious import of this exclusion is to withhold from the Special Prosecutor the power to preventively suspend. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others as expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.[40] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Along the same vein, to read into the ordinances relied upon by petitioner objects which were neither specifically mentioned nor enumerated would be to run afoul of the dictum that where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.[13] In other words, it is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others, as expressed in the oft-repeated maxim expression unius est exlusio alterius.[14] Elsewise stated, expressium facit cessare tacitum what is expressed puts an end to what is implied.[15] The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislative body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute, if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. | |||||