Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Statcon Tuesday, 13 November 2018

3:12 PM
presumptions: 85 and 4 outline entitled legislative history: cases 297, 88, 281, 212, 71, 40
amendment, revision, and codification, repeal: no cases construction and interpretation: 66, 40,
124, 149, 278, 211, 213, 65 language and words and phrases: no cases contemporaneous
construction: 100, 107, 62, 316, 129

- "market market, baraquillo v. 2 player, whichever is lower"

Shipping Corp. v. City of Cebu (4):
- "a warped idea about warfs" - "pagbayad ng warfage, di dapat dumoble" - upon
examination of the city's charter, tax cannot be charged on those under the national
gov't - *when you study try to answer the dots, etc."
US v. De Guzman (297):
"kapag hindi kumanta, ibabalik ang demanda" - one of the accused and then made state
witness, given immunity but during the trial he did not
testify against his co-conspiritors so the fiscal modified the complaint to include him and he
invoked double jeaopardy Revilla v. CA (88):
- consulted the deliberations of Congress, bouncing checks - whatever the currency - is
Chocolate Factory v. Central Bank (281):
he imported cacao beans, is that chocolate and therefore when he used dollars and paid the
margin fee, can he ask for a refund? the law talks about chocolate and even the DOST was
consulted, cacao beans are raw material and chocolate is finished product, ready for
a later legislator amended the law and said "chocolate (cacoa beans) - "ang sugar cane,
hindi pa asukal, ang palay hindi pa kanin, ang cacoa ay hindi pa tsokolate" - "kung parehas lang
ang cacoa at chocolate eh di bakit walang cacoa chip cookies..."
People v. Manantan (212):
- in an election justices can only vote, they can make speeches but they cannot endorse
any particular candidate Justice of the Peace was removed, and the generic term
judges was used
o "no, no, it's still there but under a generic term" - "Manantan, wala kang lusot
dahil judge ka..." - "Lagot ka, Judge ka pa rin at bawal mag-election hearing"
bearthing: when a ship parks and anchors but you're not at the pier in the
amendment the word "national port" was added, so commissioner of customs
can only charge appendent is a list of what are the national ports, this private port
is not on the list cited maxim 38
Dra. Buenaseda v. SoH Flavier (40):
- high-ranking doctor officers of the Heart Center - they are PUBLIC OFFICERS
investigated by the Ombudsman who put them on
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION preventive suspension is not a punishment it is just a
procedural step presumption is that word "suspension" is along the same line of penalty,
fine, suspension, dismissal or removal = common denominator is PENALTIES but
Ombudsman is not confined to just recommending - "suspension, preventive v. punitive"
o preventive = procedural
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo (124):
- something to do with RA 388
the evolution of landlord-tenant relationships:
o general rule on obligations and contracts, usually landlords have the upper hand
· "i supply the land, and upon harvest i get 50%" O RA said initial will be 60/40, but if the
tenant supplies almost everything, he can
increase his share up to 75/25
. why did the law start intervening? because we have the disident
movement, people in the farms are desperate so they join the NPAs o
share-tenancy was not enough
• if the farmer, because of the needs of his family, harvests before time
without informing the farmer, he commits qualified theft this was declared agianst
public policy so all of the harvest belongs to the
farmer and they only pay rent to the landlord o land reform act:
• land belongs to the cultivator
the landbank will pay the landlord
• the farmer is liberated but has to pay the landbank under very lenient
in terms of schedule of payment and interest
· as much as possible give a stake to the farmer going back to leas-hold
o if the landlord sold the land to another person, it may be redeemed or
repurchased O but the law talks about AGRICULTURAL LESSEES BUT NOT
• can the farmers repurchase? YES, because "you're not solving the social
problem, you cannot limit this solely because of terminology
- a labor union wants to associate themselves with the fedaration of free workers - one way or
the other there is a difference between the officers and the members of the
union there is nothing in the law about the referendum so PWEDE, the only reason to
find out the difference between the officers and members of the union
o the officers don't usually reflect the opinions of the members
o despite the silence of the labor code, the Sol has that power to ascertain facts
"referendum preferendum to ascertain wishes of members against the wishes of officers
of the labor union"

"sa issue ng urrhea ang formaldehyde, wag makulit, follow the enrolled bill para di
paulit-ulit" - "urrhea formaldehyde, once again with feeling"
the word AND was found in the deliberations, but in the final the word AND was
removed you know what this wood is for? plywood. you have this machine that
revolves and then you put the glue and keep adding layers and then after that
you trim it urrhea formaldehyde, if you import it as raw material, it wwil be turned
into glue by a local company which would be cheaper than importing from local
companies - but the law only excludes the final product
o "in other words, it needs amendment" o "why is not changed? kasi mababa ang
priority", "same thing with Davide v.
Defensor-Santiago where they used initiative to amend the constitution but NOT
FOR THE CONSTITUTION - if you wanted that to happen then just add it"
Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad (66):
there was a time when these things would be one of the things that would give a good
advantage it is a crdit union, you become a member and then you apply for a loan, the
loan will be processed by an executive committee and then you are given the loan and
you pay by installment, and then these people who ask for a loan are employed by a
company - if the borrower signs an authorization that his salary may suffer a deduction
and then the deduction will be given to the credit union, the company becomes a
collector-agent of the credit union, but the problem is if you are an employee, then you
have other deductions. the credit union says they should come first.
o the court said "no, you have no preferential right - "you have no preferential
right in deduction - credit union, fall in line"
o only those specifically enumerated have preferential treatment
Hernandez v. Enrile Salazar (213):
rebellion is just a simple one
first of all, bakit ganito, rebellion is punishable by several rates... eh mas matindi pa
yun - one thing you have to remember about rebellion, REBELS AREN'T COMMON
o "may noble motive yan, that's also why the penalty is not as much because they
are not really the usual ordinary criminals - the only trouble is they are destroying
common order - they use violent means instead of what should be in a
democracy, peaceful means" STARE DECISIS WAS CITED
"simplicity is the key, don't ask for more, through past precedent you will see" -
"pag parusang rebellion ang nakamit, nakakabuti ang batas ay mabait wag
maghanap ng
kapalit" Villos v. Hermocisimo:
"we do our own thing by establishing committees, they appoint and then make a
report to the council and the council may approve the report - that is the usual
procedure, but
the law says that the council itself must investigate as a WHOLE" - "investigation of
police officers, now and ever since, investigation by council itself not
by committee" - "pag ang batas ay ipinatupad at ang corte ipinaliwanag, police
man o hindi, di
makakapalag" People v. Macarandang (211):
- all about secret agents - in this particular case, the local chief executive in
mindanao, accepted a secret agent to
identify those involved in the rebellion so they gave him an unlicensed gun. when you
read the RPC which enumerates those who are allowed to carry guns without a license
- wala sa enumeration ang secret agent, in the first case pinalusot because they were
saying that the common denominator is that they are all peace officers, and secret
agents are peace officers even though they are not expressly stated. which is funny
because there are one or two who aren't even peace officer - you cannot use something
generis, pero nakalusot siya People v. Mapa:
o naging strict, wala sa enumeration therefore they convicted him. same facts, but
"you follow the law, it is clear, you don't need interpretation" O LEGIS
INTERPRETATIO: you interpret the law at the time it was passed o in this case
you might say that the law violated verba legis, they added secret
agent so they are adding to the text and corrupting the law - "secret
agent, wag matigas ang ulo, pag malicensya ka ng secret weapon mo" - Jabinal:
o at the time he was apprehended as possessing a firearm, the doctrine was
Macarandang - just as Macarandang was freed, he was freed o but then there
is the Mapa case
• a decision of the court is a law but it is only prospective, therefore you
cannot make retroactive application o "secret agent, once more with
feeling" o "dodgeball, Jabinal dodges Mapa and follows Macarandang"
Co v. CA (65):
this is about bouncing checks, you have the original law but then at one point - of
course, the rational of the law if you use a bouncing check you are really committing
fraud - also, you are undermining the credibility of our credit institutions the Soj
(remember your contemporeanous construction), if the bouncing check is to cover a
pre-existing obligation (as a security) then he is not committing fraud but if the check
bounces then the creditor can file for estafa later on the doctrine was changed,
bouncing checks for pre-existing obligations it is still estafa the doctrine applies
prospectively only "judicial decisions, el bimbo does not do the retro especially
antedated by a contrary ... of the Doj"
in the case he was relying on the old opinion - "walang kasalanan ang
bouncing law ni co, wag i-apply ang ex post facto law"