Extrinsic88

Aids:

1. Contemporaneous Circumstances- these are the conditions existing at the time the law was
enacted such as:
History of the times and conditions existing at the time was enacted
Previous state of the law
The evil sought to be remedied or corrected by the law
The customs usage by the law
The above mentioned circumstances constitute the reasons why the law was enacted, hence,
the one interpreting the law should place himself in the position and circumstances of those
who used the words in question and be able to feel the atmosphere, the conditions, and the
reasons why the law was enacted.
2. Policy- the general policy of the law or the settled policy of the State may enlighten the
interpreter of the law as to the intention of the legislature in enacting the same’.
3. Legislative History of the statute- such history may be found in reports of legislative committees,
in the transcript of stenographic notes taken during a hearing, legislative investigation, or
legislative debates.
4. Contemporaneous and practical construction- those who lived at or near the time when the law
was pass were more acquainted of the conditions and the reasons why that law was enacted.
5. Executive Construction- the construction given by the executive department deserves great
weight and should be respect if said construction has been formed and observed for a very long
time.
6. Legislative Construction- is entitled to consideration and great weight but it cannot control as
against the court’s prerogative to decide on what is the right or wrong interpretation.
7. Judicial Construction- it is presumed that the legislature was acquainted with and had in mind
the judicial construction of former statutes on the subject.
8. Construction by the bar and legal commentators- it is presumed that the meaning publicly given
in a statute by the members of the legal profession is a true and commentaries of text writers
and legal commentators.

2.

RA No. 6657 is constitutional.

The taking contemplated is not mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the
surrender of the land and the physical position of the land in the excess of retention limit and all the
beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the former beneficiary. This is within the power of
the State to take and regulate private property for which payment of just compensation is provided.

The land owners and other interested party are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit
evidence on the real value of the property.
Regarding Section 18 thereof which requires owner of expropriated properties to accept just
compensation in less than money, the SC said: “this is not an ordinary expropriation where only a
specific property is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local
purpose, what we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.

The SC assume that the framers of the constitution were aware of the financial difficulty and
limitation of the gov’t to pay in cash and in full for the lands they wanted to be distributed among
farmers. The court assume their intention was to allow such manner of payment as provided by the
CARP law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the gov’t upon receipt
by the owner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or
LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, the title remains with the landowner. No outright
change of ownership is contemplated.

3. Yes, the court agrees that an elected official could no longer be held administratively liable, this is
so because public official cannot be subject to disciplinary action for administrative misconduct
committed during a prior term. The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other
terms, and that the re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefore.

It is also to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a
man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and
that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for
the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.

4. z9

5.

No it is not a political question, the SC state that the case at bar is a legal and not a political question
because the principal issue for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in
the Constitution, notably Sec 1 of art 2 and sec 8 of art 7. As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v
madison, the doctrine has been laid down that it is empathetically the province and the duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is. Thus the respondent invocation that the doctrine of
political question is but foray in the dark

6. The extent of the President’s from immunity from suit is only until he is the president of the
Philippines and he is not yet convicted from impeachment proceedings but when the Impeachment
court is now functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should be first
impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted because if his plea were granted it can
place him in a better situation than a non-sitting president who has not been subjected to
impeachment proceedings and yet can be the object of a criminal prosecution.

7.
Facts: Asilo was elected councilor of LC for three consecutive terms. During his third term of office,
the sandiganbayan preventively supend him for 90 days in relation to a criminal case he then faced
but it was lifted by the SC as so he resumed performing his functions of his office and finished his
term

Issue:

W/N the preventive suspension of asilo constitute interruption on his term of office for the purpose
of 3 term limit rule under sec 8 Art x and sec 43 (b) of RA 7160

Held:

No, Preventive suspension, by its nature, does not involve an interruption of term and should
therefore not be a reason to avoid three term limit rule

The best indicator of the suspended official continuity in office is the absence of a permanent
replacement and the lack of authority to appoint one since no vacancy exist.

8. In the rule on reinstatement, court held that if in proceedings for reinstatement under Art. 283, it
is shown that the termination of employment was due to authorized cause, then the employee
concerned should not be ordered reinstated even though there is a failure to comply with the 30
day notice requirement. Instead he must be granted separation pay in accordance with Art. 283.

If without cause, instead of being given separation pay, he should be reinstated. In either case,
whether he be reinstated or only granted separation pay, he should be paid in full backwages if he
has been laid down without written notice at least 30 days in advance.

If the dismissal is under Article 282, if it shown that the employee was dismissed for any of just
causes mentioned in Art. 282, then, in accordance with that article, he should not be reinstated.
However he must be paid backwages from the time his employment was terminated until it is
determined that the termination of employment is for just cause because the failure to hear him
before he is dismissed renders termination of his employment without legal effect.