PART I

I
A. Statutory |Construction- is any act or process of expounding or discovering
the meaning or intention of the authors of the law
B. Judicial Power
Sec 1, Article VIII, Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court or
such lower courts as may be stablished by law.
Judicial Power shall involve the power of court of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable
and whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
C. Ejusdem Generis- The general rule of the general term may be retrained in
specific words associated with applicable cases where, expect the general
term where, all of the items in an enumeration fall under or belong to the
same class or are of the same nature. Where the enumeration includes class
or general terms as well.
D. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius- It is a settled rule of statutory
construction where in the express mention of one person, things or
consequences implies the exclusion of all others.
E. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus- When the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish.
F. Jus Cogens- literally means compelling law. The principle which form the
norms of international law that cannot set aside.

II
a. What is an appropriation bill?
Appropriation bill is a special type of legislation, whose content
is limited or specified sums of money decided to a specific
 purpose or a separated fiscal unit. Inherent in the power of
appropriation is the power to specify how money shall be spent.
b. Where should appropriation bill originates?
Appropriation bill should originate in the Congress. President
may propose the bill but the final say on the matter of
appropriation lodged in Congress.
III
How a bill becomes a law?
A bill becomes a law when the President signs it; When the President
did not sign nor communicate his veto within 30 days receipt thereof. When the
vetoed bill is repassed by the two-thirds of the Congress, each House voting
separately.
PART II
IV
The contention of Majority Leader is not correct.
Under the principle of verbal legis or plainb meaning rule stating that is
statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given it’s literal meaning
and applied without intended interpretation.
In this case, the law clearly states that “no foreign military bases shall be
allowed in BNN territory” with no intended interpretation.
Therefore, the contention of the Majority Leader is not correct.

V
The contention of Candidate A is not correct
Under the principle of Illustration of Rule states that when acts makes
unlawful distribution of electoral propaganda, gadgets, pens, lighters, fans,
flashlight, athletic goods or materials and the like x x x”
 In this case the term “and the like” does not embrace tape jingles for
campaign purposes, said term being restricted only to things of the same kind or
class as those specifically enumerated.
Therefore, the contention of Candidate A is not correct.

VI
Cardo Dalisay can claim for his separation benefits.
Under the principle of expressio unius est exclusion alterius, a settled rule
of statutory construction where in the express mention of one person, things or
consequences implies the exclusion of all others.
In this case, money claims thus separation benefits arising from employee-
employer relations, are part of the money claims stated in the law.
Therefore, Cardo Dalisay can claim his separation benefits.

VII
The contention of LBP is not correct.
Under the principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debamus,
when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.
In this case, the law did not distinguish whether the appeals are questions
of fact or questions of law, neither should we.
Therefore, the contention of LBP is not correct.

VIII
Daniela Modragon is not corret.
Under the principle of language used, statutes using words of command
such as “shall”, “must”, “ought” or “should” or prohibitions suc as “cannot”, “shall
not”, or “ought not” are generally regarded as mandatory.
 In this case, the use of the word “shall” would result in a consequence that
would be an instrument of abuse if deemed permissive, thus the statute should
be construed as mandatory to avoid such.
Therefore, Daniela Modragon is not correct.

IX
No. The President’s act of indirectly creating franchises exclusive in the
character is not correct.
Under the principle, general words construed generally, when a word used
in a statute has both a restricted and general meaning, the general must prevail
over the restricted unless the nature of the subject matter or the context in which
it is employed clearly indicates that the limited sense is extended.
In this case, the creation of nindirect franchise with exclusive charactergoes
against the general rule which does not allow any franchise to be exclusive in
character, thus construction should be in favor of the general provision.
Therefore, the President’s act of indirectly creating franchise exclusive
character is not correct.

X
Yes, I agree.