CONGRESS MAY NOT PASS LAW ON ‘SAVINGS’

Romualdez, Philconsa CEO: Congress may not pass law on ‘savings’ •August 5, 2014 •	Written by People's Tonight •	Published in Top Stories Leyte first district Rep. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez and Manuel M. Lazaro, president and chairman/CEO, respectively, of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), said Congress may not legally pass a law revising the Supreme Court  constitutional interpretation of what is “savings”.        For Congress to pass a law, amending the constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court of  savings betrays the well-established and deeply rooted doctrine of judicial supremacy as integral part and foundation of the Constitution.        Lazaro said that Chief Justice John Marshall planted the seed of judicial supremacy in Marbury v. Madison when he wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to stay what the law is.”            “Savings” is a term in the Constitution. Its meaning, penumbras and emanations  may only be interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court.          Romualdez and Lazaro said that constitutional interpretation of any provisions of the Constitution or any law within the context or environment of the Constitution becomes an integral part of the Constitution. Thus, the judicial interpretation or definition of the Supreme Court of the terms such as ‘due process o flaw’, ‘equal protection of the laws’, ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’, ‘cruel punishment’ cannot be revised or modified by a law.  They cannot be overturned by legislation.  Constitutional  interpretation of the Constitution and laws can only be amended or revised by a constitutional revision or amendment or by judicial decree.        The plan of certain sectors for Congress to revise the definition of ‘savings’ contrary to the Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, violates the Constitution and therefore void.

Romualdez, Philconsa CEO: Congress may not pass law on ‘savings’
• August 5, 2014
• Written by People’s Tonight
• Published in Top Stories
Leyte first district Rep. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez and Manuel M. Lazaro, president and chairman/CEO, respectively, of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), said Congress may not legally pass a law revising the Supreme Court constitutional interpretation of what is “savings”.
For Congress to pass a law, amending the constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court of savings betrays the well-established and deeply rooted doctrine of judicial supremacy as integral part and foundation of the Constitution.
Lazaro said that Chief Justice John Marshall planted the seed of judicial supremacy in Marbury v. Madison when he wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to stay what the law is.” “Savings” is a term in the Constitution. Its meaning, penumbras and emanations may only be interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court.
Romualdez and Lazaro said that constitutional interpretation of any provisions of the Constitution or any law within the context or environment of the Constitution becomes an integral part of the Constitution. Thus, the judicial interpretation or definition of the Supreme Court of the terms such as ‘due process o flaw’, ‘equal protection of the laws’, ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’, ‘cruel punishment’ cannot be revised or modified by a law. They cannot be overturned by legislation. Constitutional interpretation of the Constitution and laws can only be amended or revised by a constitutional revision or amendment or by judicial decree.
The plan of certain sectors for Congress to revise the definition of ‘savings’ contrary to the Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, violates the Constitution and therefore void.

No Comments Permalink

Say something

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with a grey bar.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>