This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The right and power of judicial tribunals to declare whether enactments of the legislature exceed the constitutional limitations and are invalid has always been considered a grave responsibility, as well as a solemn duty. The courts invariably give the most careful consideration to questions involving the interpretation and application of the Constitution, and approach constitutional questions with great deliberation, exercising their power in this respect with the greatest possible caution and even reluctance; and they should never declare a statute void, unless its invalidity is, in their judgment, beyond reasonable doubt. To justify a court in pronouncing a legislative act unconstitutional, or a provision of a state constitution to be in contravention of the Constitution x x x, the case must be so clear to be free from doubt, and the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable, because it is but a decent respect to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until the contrary is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in no doubtful case will the judiciary pronounce a legislative act to be contrary to the constitution. To doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve the doubt in favor of its validity.[18] | |||||
|
2005-07-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Verily, as early as Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty,[10] the Court rejected judicial control over collection of taxes. That taxes must be collected promptly is a policy deeply entrenched in our tax system. Thus, no court is allowed to grant injunction to restrain the collection of any internal revenue tax.[11] | |||||