This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-03-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The taking to be valid must be for public use.[42] Public use as a requirement for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is now synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and public convenience.[43] | |||||
|
2004-07-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Every statute is presumed valid.[31] On the party challenging its validity weighs heavily the onerous task of rebutting this presumption.[32] Any reasonable doubt about the validity of the law should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality.[33] To doubt is to sustain, as tersely put by Justice George Malcolm. In Garcia v. Executive Secretary,[34] the rationale for the presumption of constitutionality was explained by this Court thus: "The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied and determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally enacted."[35] In the instant case, petitioner has miserably failed to overcome such presumption. This Court has previously laid down the test for determining whether a statute is vague, as follows: "x x x [A] statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. | |||||