This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Verily, the question whether a law abolishes an office is a question of legislative intent. In this case, petitioner tries to raise doubts as to the real intention of Congress. However, there should not be any controversy if there is an explicit declaration of abolition in the law itself.[73] For where a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempt to interpret. Verba legis non est recedendum, index animi sermo est. There should be no departure from the words of the statute, for speech is the index of intention.[74] The legislature, through Sections 4 and 85 of R.A. No. 9497, has so clearly provided. As the Court merely interprets the law as it is, we have no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language thereof.[75] | |||||