This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| "Under the principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by re-enactment, the re-enactment of a statute, substantially unchanged (as in this case), is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction."[26] Accordingly, where a statute is susceptible of the meaning placed upon it by a ruling of the government agency charged with its enforcement and the legislature thereafter reenacts the provisions without substantial change, such action is to some extent confirmatory that the ruling carries out the legislative purpose.[27] | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot go against that legislative intent for it is the duty of this institution to read what the law intends. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature, is to render justice.[28] | |||||