This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[16] The law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law.[17] The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expression, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole.[18] | |||||
|
2012-09-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is a basic canon of statutory construction that in interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. A construction that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole.[33] Otherwise stated, the law must not be read in truncated parts. Every part thereof must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[34] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court sees no incompatibility between the two laws being discussed here. In reconciling Section 41(n) of Republic Act No. 8291 with the Teves Retirement Law, we are guided by this Court's pronouncement in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit[56]: In reconciling Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 with Section 28, Subsection (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, uppermost in the mind of the Court is the fact that the best method of interpretation is that which makes laws consistent with other laws which are to be harmonized rather than having one considered repealed in favor of the other. Time and again, it has been held that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence -- interpretere et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi. Thus, if diverse statutes relate to the same thing, they ought to be taken into consideration in construing any one of them, as it is an established rule of law that all acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law. x x x.[57] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Undaunted, petitioners, as taxpayers and residents of the Province of Surigao del Norte, filed another petition for certiorari[8] seeking to nullify R.A. No. 9355 for being unconstitutional. They alleged that the creation of Dinagat as a new province, if uncorrected, would perpetuate an illegal act of Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the provincial territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich resources from the area. They pointed out that when the law was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 square kilometers only and a population of only 106,951, failing to comply with Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of Section 461 of the LGC, on both counts, viz.-- | |||||