04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [78] Galarosa v. Valencia, G.R. No. 109455, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 731, 746; and Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, PNCC, 316 Phil. 404, 429 (1995). [79] See Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051, 1075-1076 (1957). [80] The courts may disregard contemporaneous construction where there is no ambiguity in the law, where the construction is clearly erroneous, where a strong reason exists to the contrary, and where the courts have previously given the statute a different interpretation. (Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 5th ed., 2003, p. 116.) [81] The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means “stand by the thing and do not disturb the calm.” See Justice Reynato Puno’s Dissenting Opinion in Lambino v. Commission on Elections (G.R. Nos. 174153 and 174299, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160). [82] Article 8 of the New Civil Code reads: Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. [83] In the words of Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” In Re: Resolution Granting Automatic Permanent Total Disability Benefits to Heirs and Judges Who Die in Actual Service, cited by Atty. Garafil, falls within this category. In this case, the Court issued an earlier resolution construing the provisions of Republic Act No. 910. However, despite the Court’s construction, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) still continues to insist on its own interpretation of the law, prompting the Court to remind the DBM, viz.: We take this occasion to remind DBM that it is an agency under the executive branch of government. Hence, it is mandated to ensure that all laws, not the least of which is this Court’s Resolution dated 30 September 2003 in A.M. 02-12-01-SC, are faithfully executed. In his letter of 19 July 2004 to the Chief Justice Undersecretary Relampagos speaks of DBM’s “mandate to ensure that disbursements are made in accordance with law”. It must be emphasized, however, that such a mandate does not include reviewing an issuance of this Court and substituting the same with DBM’s own interpretation of the law. Anything of that sort is nothing less than a blatant usurpation of an exclusively judicial function and a clear disregard of the boundary lines delineated by the Constitution. [84] CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 1. [85] See Atty. Sana v. Career Executive Service Board, G.R. No. 192926, November 15, 2011, 660 SCRA 130, 139. [86] Section 5, Article VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION reads: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 65/75