This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-01-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Courts should not, by construction, revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislature, nor rewrite the law to conform with what they think should be the law.[19] Nor may they interpret into the law a requirement which the law does not prescribe.[20] Where a statute contains no limitations in its operation or scope, courts should not engraft any.[21] And where a provision of law expressly limits its application to certain transactions, it cannot be extended to other transactions by interpretation.[22] To do any of such things would be to do violence to the language of the law and to invade the legislative sphere.[23] | |||||