This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have already said that the Legislature under our form of government is assigned the task and the power to make and enact laws, but not to interpret them. This is more true with regard to the interpretation of the basic law, the Constitution, which is not within the sphere of the Legislative department. If the Legislature may declare what a law means, or what a specific portion of the Constitution means, especially after the courts have in actual case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision, this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions. Under such a system, a final court determination of a case based on a judicial interpretation of the law of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative department. That would be neither wise nor desirable, besides being clearly violative of the fundamental, principles of our constitutional system of government, particularly those governing the separation of powers.[13] | |||||
|
2015-02-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The decision of the Court has underscored that the exercise of the power to augment shall be strictly construed by virtue of its being an exception to the general rule that the funding of PAPs shall be limited to the amount fixed by Congress for the purpose.[14] Necessarily, savings, their utilization and their management will also be strictly construed against expanding the scope of the power to augment.[15] Such a strict interpretation is essential in order to keep the Executive and other budget implementors within the limits of their prerogatives during budget execution, and to prevent them from unduly transgressing Congress' power of the purse.[16] Hence, regardless of the perceived beneficial purposes of the DAP, and regardless of whether the DAP is viewed as an effective tool of stimulating the national economy, the acts and practices under the DAP and the relevant provisions of NBC No. 541 cited in the Decision should remain illegal and unconstitutional as long as the funds used to finance the projects mentioned therein are sourced from savings that deviated from the relevant provisions of the GAA, as well as the limitation on the power to augment under Section 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. In a society governed by laws, even the best intentions must come within the parameters defined and set by the Constitution and the law. Laudable purposes must be carried out through legal methods.[17] | |||||
|
2014-07-01 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that Sec. Abad manifested during the January 28, 2014 oral arguments that the DAP as a program had been meanwhile discontinued because it had fully served its purpose, saying: "In conclusion, Your Honors, may I inform the Court that because the DAP has already fully served its purpose, the Administration's economic managers have recommended its termination to the President. x x x."[39] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| From the start, the stock distribution scheme appeared to be Tadeco's preferred option, for, on August 23, 1988, [28] it organized a spin-off corporation, HLI, as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadeco assigned and conveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion (4,915.75 hectares) and other farm-related properties of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of stock. [29] | |||||