This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is rather evident, therefore, that EO No. 248, as amended by EO No. 298, is clear and precise and leaves no room for interpretation. We agree with respondent COA in finding that the subject orders clearly distinguished local from foreign travels by specifically placing them in separate titles. Indeed, where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[18] Thus, EO No. 248, as amended by EO No. 298, should be applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. Verily, while the opinion of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel is accorded great weight and respect, this Court will not hesitate to set the same aside as it is clearly erroneous; the law it attempts to interpret having no ambiguity, easily understandable to any ordinary reader.[19] | |||||