This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Another point to consider is the reality that the Office Order imposes an administrative sanction on violating court officials and employees. Thus, strictly speaking, the Office Order is a penal measure because of the punishment it imposes. The penal provisions of a law or regulation are to be construed strictly - a rule of construction that emphatically forbids any attempt to hold that when the commission of an act on certain specific occasions is penalized, it should be penalized on all other occasions.[25] It is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to increase the restrictions provided by law.[26] When Section 6 of Office Order No. 06-2009 sets out to penalize only the act of smoking outside the designated smoking areas, but ends up penalizing the act in all the areas within the Court because no proper smoking area has been designated, the rule is thereby expanded beyond its intended parameters. | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| It must likewise be considered, still with respect to the penal nature of the Office Order, that not only smoking violators but even the Chief of our OAS may have technically been in violation of the Office Order when she failed to comply with the duty to designate the smoking areas within Court premises.[29] As worded, Section 3 of the Office Order imposes this duty on the Chief Administrative Officer. Thus, the Office Order casts a net wider than that which caught the respondents. In the absence of any Court action for the omission under Section 3, so also should we not act at this point on other violations of our rule. | |||||