This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-03-26 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Beyond this, it is likewise well-settled that the law does not require that the impossible be done.[15] The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility, expressed in the maxim, nemo tenetur ad impossible.[16] In other words, there is no obligation to do an impossible thing. Impossibilium nulla obligato est. Hence, a statute may not be so construed as to require compliance with what it prescribes cannot, at the time, be legally, coincidentally[17], it must be presumed that the legislature did not at all intend an interpretation or application of a law which is far removed from the realm of the possible. Truly, in the interpretation of statutes, the interpretation to be given must be such that it is in accordance with logic, common sense, reasonableness and practicality. Thus, we are of the considered view that the "stand-by power" of the respondent COMELEC under Section 28 of R.A. 8436, presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or availed of, and not otherwise. | |||||