Archive for August, 2007
Gateway’s The Simpson + Shobeceo
Gateway Cineplex features The Simpson (Movie) with a 3D caricature at the entrance door of Cinema 2, (if I’m not mistaken)…well, I haven’t watched it but I had a picture with them..hahaha…it’s cool… ^_^
Add comment August 22nd, 2007
Statutory Construction, here we come…
Finally…after 3 resets for the midterm schedule on Statutory Construction, the agony is going to end today…so what does Construction mean? Nahh..not the building…Statutory Construction, as defined in Caltex vs. Palomar, is “an art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where the intention is rendered doubtful, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in law.”
The minds of our legislators are but finite and cannot encompass all possible cases into the statutes or laws they enact, thus, there are times where the law is ambiguous in its applicability to certain cases, and so we need construction and interpretation. Laurel’s book on Statutory Construction defines construction as “the drawing of conclusions with respect to subjects that are beyond the direct expressions of the text, from the elements known and given in the text, while interpretation is the process of discovering the true meaning of the language used.” The interpretation goes to explain and dig deeper the meaning of the text or languages used while construction goes beyond the language and tries to see the intent of the framers and whether the case falls within the ambit of the law.
The very long case of Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit ng mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. points out the steps in interpreting the content of laws, namely, (1) Verba Legis or the plain meaning of the text as how a normal individual would interpret and understand it, (2) Ratio Legis Est Anima or through digging up the intent of the framers when they constructed the law, (3) Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat, meaning the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and other parts of the Constitution must be looked upon in order to see the real meaning and intent of a law, and lastly, (4) it may be determined by looking through the plethora of cases or jurisprudence as to how such law was interpreted.
Statutory Construction is trying to listen to what the law really tell.
2 comments August 17th, 2007
May tatalo ba dito? heheh ^_^
1. I couldn’t care a damn!
2. What’s your next class before this? (wag na lang kaya tayong pumasok?)
3. Nothing in this world is perfect except the word “change”
4. Can you repeat that for the second time around once more from the top? (redundant ba ito?)
5. My dad brought home a lot of hand-me-downs! (Translation: Daming
pasalubong ng tatay ko…)
6. Standard and Chartered Bank
7. I’m very iterated!!! (ha? ok.)
8. I’m sorry, my boss just passed away. (translation: kakadaan lang ng boss nya…)
9. Hello, my boss is out of town. Would you like to wait? (now why didn’t i think of that?)
10. What happened after the erection of Mayon Volcano? (they had babies?)
11. Don’t touch me not! (e di wag)
12. Hello?… For a while, please hang yourself… (suicide hotline?)
13. It’s spilled milk under the bridge.
14. Don’t change anything! Keep it at ease. (yeah… right)
15. Hello McDo? Mag-i-inquire lang ako kung magkano ang kidney meal? (yung pang-batang pagkain…)
16. You!!! You’re not a boy anymore! You’re a man anymore!
17. Out of fit ako these days eh… (translation: di sya nakakapag-exercise. ..)
18. Come, let’s join us!
19. Bring down the house down!
20. I’m the world champion of the World!!!
21. Beneath the Belt! (malalim nga to)
22. Can you repeat it once again?
23. Mukhang haggard-looking. (stresstabs lang yan)
24. Do you have more brighter ideas?
25. Halatang obvious naman yata.
26. Wag ka nang photo-conscious! (or camera-shy ba dapat yon?)
Add comment August 14th, 2007
MGA SABLAY NA HIRIT…
“Well well well. Look do we have here!”
“It’s a no-win-win situation.”
“Burn the bridge when you get there.”
“Anulled and void.”
“Mute and academic.”
“C’mon let’s join us!”
“If worse comes to shove.”
“Are you joking my leg?”
“It’s not my problem anymore, it’s your problem anymore.”
“You can never can tell.”
“Been there, been that.”
“Forget it about it.”
“Give him the benefit of the daw.”
“It’s a blessing in the sky.”
“Right there and right then.”
“Where’d you came from?”
“Take things first at a time.”
“You’re barking at the wrong dog.”
“You want to have your cake and bake it too.”
“First and for all.”
“Now and there.”
“I’m only human nature.”
“The sky’s the langit.”
“That’s what I’m talking about it.”
“One of these days is not like the other.”
“So far, so good, so far.”
“Time is of the elements.”
“In the wink of an eye.”
“The feeling is actual.”
“For all intense and purposes.”
“I ran into some errands.”
“Hi. I’m , what’s yours?”
“What is the world is coming to?”
“What is the next that is?”
“Get the most of both worlds.”
“Bahala na sila sa mga batman nila.”
“Whatever you say so.”
“Base-to-base casis.”
“My answers have been prayered.”
“Please me alone!”
‘It’s as brand as new.”
“So… what’s a beautiful girl like you?….”
“I can’t take it anymore of this!”
“Are you sure ka na ba?”
“Can’t you just cut me some slacks?”
Add comment August 14th, 2007
MESSAGE TO THE INCOMING 2007 FRESHMEN
By: Dean Cesar L. Villanueva
I formally welcome each of you to the Ateneo Law School.
Although each of you have an individual basis for choosing to be in the Ateneo, there can be no doubt that you are in for an entirely new, and ultimately life-changing, experience under the Juris Doctor (J.D.) program of the Law School. Since its introduction in the Philippine legal educational system in 1988 and with its first graduates in 1991, the J.D. program has shown remarkable consistency and excellence in the field of legal education: highest passing percentage in the annual Bar Examinations (with always an Atenean in the top ten placers); awards and honors in international moot court competitions; annual crop of leading legal articles embodied in the J.D. theses, and annual public service by J.D. students through clinical legal education, apprenticeship and human rights internship. The J.D. curriculum has become the gold-standard in legal education in the country.
But being in the Ateneo Law School comes with a heavy price. The rigors and demands of the program would take its toll on many of you: long hours of studies, almost unbearable course loads, and sometimes almost unbearable professors. There are those among you who have never received a failing mark in life, who will come out more than satisfied with receiving passing grades in some of the heavy courses. There are many of you who will realize soon enough that past honors, achievements and distinctions in high school or college would amount to nothing, and cannot overshadow your daily output and grind in the Law School. The Ateneo program would demand from each you so much more than what you thought you could possibly give; to reach out beyond what you thought was possible to reach; to become the best of what you possibly can be as a person.
Why is the Ateneo Law system seemingly so harsh, and at times, almost unforgiving? Each of you are asked to join the ranks of “Atenean lawyers� faithful to the Mission of the Law School: to be “men and women not only skilled in the science and art of the law, but also imbued with a burning passion for justice and the fervent series to serve others.� The Law School demands from each of you “intellectual rigor in the tradition of Jesuit education . . . a thorough grasp of the nature and ends of law, the ability to express legal conviction in forceful oral and written communication, and sensitivity to the role of law as an interment of service towards individuals and of social engineering.�
If during the study of the Law you cannot make the ultimate sacrifice of losing yourself into the becoming the best law student you possible can and then more, then there is little hope that as a professional you would be the best lawyer to champion justice for your clients and for our society. Not many of you can make that transformation: many are called but few are chosen. For those of you who will dedicate their whole being to making that happen, four years from now you shall find yourself in the rank of a select group of Atenean men and women who upon receiving their Ateneo diploma would know by their whole being that the have, if they so wish, the capacity to change Philippine society.
I bid you God’s blessings into a journey that you have embarked on. You must be willing to let your old self die in the process of studying law in the Ateneo, for it is only in such dying that you can transform yourself God’s instrument for bringing good into the legal world.
Add comment August 8th, 2007
Wahh…its midterms week…
It’s deadly midterms week…my first, hopefully not the last, batch of exams at law school. It’s going back to square one where everyone is nervous and in panic attack for no one really knows how exams in law school go about.
Everyone seems to be busy with their own cramming, este studying…well the first day, yesterday went quite well, but the result is yet to be known. You see, law school is a big dome of uncertainty.
First, many people “at the law school” still don’t know why they are there. And for those who are already sure that they want to be there, they still don’t know if how long they’re gonna be there, heheh. A lot of things really depend to many other things other than the law student’s will. Like the professor’s discretion. Yesterday’s exam seemed well to me, but what about ACA Villches? hmm…hope she knows that I’m writing about her now, hahah! I really wish that she’ll be lenient and considerate with the exams and of course give high grades. The only comfort that a law student may have in law school is the fact that he/she gave it his/her best shot, but even that may still seem to be not enough to get good grades. Especially if the professor is so tough and expects you to be a walking SCRA and a thumbling Constitution… 
But then again, everything is for a reason, the toughest professors serve as the greatest trainors. Students become more tough, precise, and push us to work harder each time. And that is what Ateneo distinctively have, I suppose. Well, anyways…have to rest a bit for laterz exam…Hi Mr. Jon Lina of Block 1-E..hahaha…I’ve granted your request na ha..heheh…he’s the first reader of my blog from the campus..hahaha…at least I have one na
Til next post! ^_^
1 comment August 7th, 2007
Manila RailRoad Company vs. Insular Collector of Customs
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 30264. March 12, 1929.]
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendant-appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellant.
Jose C. Abreu for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CUSTOMS DUTIES; TAXATION; CLASSIFICATION OF DUST SHIELDS UNDER THE TARIFF LAW. — Dust shields are classified for the purposes of the tariff under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909 as detached parts of vehicles for use on railways and not under paragraph 141 of the same section of the law as manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for.
2. STATUTES; TAX LAWS; BURDEN OF PROOF. — The burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption of a legal collection of duties by proof that their exaction was unlawful. The question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the importer was right.
3. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTION. — It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen, because burdens are not be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly import.
4. ID.; CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS. — Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment.
D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J p:
The question involved in this appeal is the following: How should dust shields be classified for the purposes of the tariff, under paragraph 141 or under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909? These paragraphs placed in parallel columns for purposes of comparison read:
“141. Manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for, forty per centum ad valorem.”
“197. Vehicles for use on railways, and detached parts thereof, ten per centum ad valorem.”
Dust shields are manufactured of wool and hair mixed. The component material of chief value is the wool. They are used by the Manila Railroad Company on all of its railway wagon. The purpose of the dust shield is to cover the axle box in order to protect from dust the oil deposited therein which serves to lubricate the bearings of the wheel. “Dust guard,” which is the same as “dust shield,” is defined in the work Car Builders’ Cyclopedia of American Practice, 10th ed., 1922, p. 41, as follows: “A thin piece of wood, leather, felt, asbestos or other material inserted in the dust guard chamber at the back of a journal box, and fitting closely around the dust guard bearing of the axle. Its purpose is to exclude dust and to prevent the escape of oil and waste. Sometimes called axle packing or box packing.”
Based on these facts, it was the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs that dust shields should be classified as “manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for.” That decision is entitled to our respect. The burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption of a legal collection of duties by proof that their exaction was unlawful. The question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the importer was right. (Erchardt vs. Schroeder [1984], 155 U. S., 124; Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Collector of Customs [1913], 26 Phil., 627.) On the other hand, His Honor, Judge Simplicio del Rosario, took an opposite view, overruled the decision of the Collector of Customs, and held that dust shields should be classified as “detached parts” of vehicles for use on railways. This impartial finding is also entitled to our respect. It is the general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or duties not to extend their provisions beyond the clear import of the language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most strongly against the Government and in favor of the citizen, because burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly import. (U. S. vs. Wigglesworth [1842], 2 Story, 369; Froechlich & Kuttner vs. Collector of Customs [1911], 18 Phil., 461.)
There are present two fundamental considerations which guide the way out of the legal dilemma. The first is by taking into account the purpose of the article and then acknowledging that it is in reality used as a detached part of railway vehicles. The second point is that paragraph 141 is a general provision while paragraph 197 is a special provision. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular, enactment must be operative, and the general language are not within the provisions of the particular enactment (25 R. C. L., p. 1010, citing numerous cases).
We conclude that the trial judge was correct in classifying dust shields under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909, and in refusing to classify them under paragraph 141 of the same section of the law. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed in its entirely, without special taxation of costs in either instance.
Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Add comment August 2nd, 2007
