Page 296,
Page 211,
Page 218,
Page 263,
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Saturday typos, 28 January 2017
From Tax Made Less Taxing: A Reviewer with Codals and Cases, 2015 Edition by Ignatius Michael D. Ingles:
Page 296,
Page 211,
Page 218,
Page 263,
Page 296,
Page 211,
Page 218,
Page 263,
Sunday, January 22, 2017
May a treaty violate an international law?
I wonder if my classmates in Statutory Construction under Prof. Jennie C. Aclan, and in Legal Writing under Prof. Gallardo Escobar, may agree. But I find something imprecise in this question in the 2008 Bar Examinations in Political Law:
And thereby hangs the dilemma were I an examinee.
Is the question about possibility? Then my answer should approximate the suggested answer given in Answers to Bar Examination Questions in Political Law (1987-2010) edited by Eduardo A. Labitag and published by the U.P. Law Complex.
Here's how Ralph A. Sarmiento paraphrased the answer on page 16 of his reviewer Public International Law, Bar Reviewer, 20016 Edition:
But what of the student who, in a stat con class, has been steeped in the dictum that the word may means that a legal precept is permissive? He or she will be more naturally inclined to take the negative side and argue that a treaty cannot be permitted to violate international law.
There goes the 5%.
In questions like this my only hope is the annual guideline to the Bar Exams put up by the Supreme Court:
May a treaty violate international law? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain when such may happen. If your answer is in the negative, explain why. (5%)The imprecision stems from the word "may". According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary there are several ways that may is used in American English:
Is the question about possibility? Then my answer should approximate the suggested answer given in Answers to Bar Examination Questions in Political Law (1987-2010) edited by Eduardo A. Labitag and published by the U.P. Law Complex.
Here's how Ralph A. Sarmiento paraphrased the answer on page 16 of his reviewer Public International Law, Bar Reviewer, 20016 Edition:
But what of the student who, in a stat con class, has been steeped in the dictum that the word may means that a legal precept is permissive? He or she will be more naturally inclined to take the negative side and argue that a treaty cannot be permitted to violate international law.
There goes the 5%.
In questions like this my only hope is the annual guideline to the Bar Exams put up by the Supreme Court:
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Saturday typos, 21 January 2017
From the book The Labor Code, with Comments and Cases, Vol. II, 2013 Edition by Cesario A. Azucena, Jr.:
Page 526,
Page 532,
Page 606,
Page 526,
Page 532,
Page 606,
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Sunday conundrum, 15 January 2017
What is a fuel board of a corporation?
From page 269 of The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Annotated), 2013 Edition by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr.:
From page 269 of The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Annotated), 2013 Edition by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr.:
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Saturday typos, 14 January 2017
From The Corporation Code of the Philippines (Annotated), 2013 Edition by Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr.:
Page 249,
Page 260,
Page 383,
Page 534,
Page 671,
Page 249,
Page 260,
Page 383,
Page 534,
Page 671,
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Yodaesque in the Rules of Court
I was going through the book Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, Tenth Edition by Florenz D. Regalado when I reached Section 12 of Rule 69.
My proofreading meter immediately went up. I thought it was a typo and the underlined words should instead read: Nothing contained in this Rule . . . But it was the correct wording, I found out, when I consulted the codal version.
I know that the phrase, and analogous phrases, "nothing herein contained" is often interchanged as "nothing contained herein". And it looks alright that way. But something seems off, at least to me, when the "herein" is replaced by other words.
However, when I googled I found this old document which says:
This seems to settle the question. Still I was left wondering where I met that way of phrasing. Then I remembered one of the sayings of a great Master:
My proofreading meter immediately went up. I thought it was a typo and the underlined words should instead read: Nothing contained in this Rule . . . But it was the correct wording, I found out, when I consulted the codal version.
I know that the phrase, and analogous phrases, "nothing herein contained" is often interchanged as "nothing contained herein". And it looks alright that way. But something seems off, at least to me, when the "herein" is replaced by other words.
However, when I googled I found this old document which says:
This seems to settle the question. Still I was left wondering where I met that way of phrasing. Then I remembered one of the sayings of a great Master:
“The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.” – Yoda
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Saturday typos, 07 January 2017
Ring in the New Year! 2017 is year of reckoning for me and many of my friends but the result of the reckoning will yet be in 2018 around April. In the meantime, back to business.
From the book Tax Made Less Taxing: A Reviewer with Codals and Cases 2015 Edition by Ignatius Michael D. Ingles:
Page 87,
Page 123,
Page 151,
Page 161,
Page 162,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)