Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

(DRA. BUENASEDA V. SEC.

FLAVIER)
Petitioner seeks to nullify the order of the Ombudsman
directing the preventive suspension of petitioners and
others.
ISSUE: WON the ombudsman has the power to suspend
government officials and employees working on the offices
other than the office of the ombudsman, pending the
investigation of the administrative complaints filed against
said officials and employees.
HELD: under the constitution, the ombudsman is exoressly
authorized to recommend to the appropriate official the
discipline or prosecution of erring public officials or
employees. Such being the case, said statute particularly its
provisions dealing with procedure should be given such
interpretation that will effectuate the purposes and
objectives of the constitution. any interpretation that will
hamper the work of the ombudsman should be avoided.
PRINCIPLE: (NOSCITUR A SOCIIS)
"Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its correct construction may be made specific by
considering the company of terms in which it is found or
with which it is associated.

(FULE V. CA)
Petitioner was convicted of violation of BP 22 by the RTC of
Lucena City on the basis of stipulation of facts entered into
between the prosecution and the defense during the pre trial
conference.
HELD: By its very language, the rule is mandatory. Under the
rule of statutory construction,
PRINCIPLE: the words and phrases are to be regarded as
mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely
directory.
CHAPTER 5
PRESUMPTIONS IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INTERPRETATION

1) PRESUMPTION AGAINST CONSTITUTIONALITY


Laws are presumed constitutional. To justify nullification of
a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication; a
law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the
constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. (Aris Inc v.
NLRC) 200 scra 246 [1991])

ALL LAWS ARE PRESUMED VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL


UNTIL OR UNLESS OTHERWISE RULED BY THE COURT

CASE: (ALFREDO LIM V. PACQUING AND ASSOCIATED


DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) & (GUINGONA JR V. REYES
AND ASSOC DEVELOPMENT CORP)
ADC assails the constitutionality of PD 771 as violative of
equal protection and non impairment clauses of the
constitution
HELD: The time honored doctrine is that all laws are
presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise
ruled by this court.

THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE INVALIDITY OF A LAW RESTS


ON THOSE WHO CHALLENGE IT.
CASE: (LIM V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS, RTC) #149276 390
SCRA 194
ISSUE: The constitutionality of PD 818 is being challenged in
this petition for certiorari for being violative of the due
process clause, the right to bail and the provision against
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment enshrined under the
Constitution
HELD: When a law is questioned before the court, the
presumption is in favor of its constitutionality. To justify its
nullification, there must be a clear and unmistakable breach
of the constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.
The burden of proving the invalidity of a law rests on those
who challenge it. It in this case, the petitioners failed to
present clear and convincing proof to defeat the
presumption of constitutionality of PD 818.

2) PRESUMPTION AGAINST INJUSTICE


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.

IN CASE OF DOUBT IN THE INTERPRETATION OR


APPLICATION OF LAWS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE
LAWMAKING BODY INTENDED RIGHT AND JUSTICE TO
PREVAIL.
CASE: (KAREN SALVACION V. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS)
#94723 AUG 21 1997 278 SCRA 27)

A LAW SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO CAUSE AN


INJUSTICE(ALONZO V. IAC & PADUA) 72873 MAY 28 1987

PRESUMPTION AGAINST INEFFECTIVENESS (Danilo Paras v.


Comelec)
PRESUMPTION AGAINST ABSURDITY(Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc and CA)
28502-03, April 18, 1989 172 SCRA 364
PRESUMPTION AGAINST UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES
WERE NEVER INTENDED BY A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE
(Ursua v. CA)

Subtitle of the statute as intrinsic aid in determining


legislative intent (Santiago et al v. COMELEC)
PRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW (Reyes v. Bagatsing)
-do not confuse yourself with the "clear and convincing rule"