DOCSLIB.ORG

Moving Forward from the Historically Incongruous Treatment of Mens Rea in Philippine Criminal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moving Forward from the Historically Incongruous Treatment of Mens Rea in Philippine Criminal Law Moving Forward from the Historically Incongruous Treatment of Mens Rea in Philippine Criminal Law Allan Chester B. Nadate* INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 90 I. THE CONTEMPORARY ARTICULATION OF THE “MALA DICHOTOMY” .. 94 A. Characterizing the Dichotomy ................................................... 94 B. The Jurisprudential History of the “Mala Dichotomy” ........... 103 1. The Evolution of Case Law from Go Chico...................... 104 2. The Misconception as Contained in Criminal Law Commentaries .................................................................... 112 II. THE INCONGRUOUS TREATMENT OF MENS REA ................................ 116 A. The Inconsistency in Code-Special Law Interpretation.............117 B. Overcriminalization from an Overzealous Reading? ............... 124 III. THE RATIONAL APPROACH TO MENS REA INTERPRETATION ............. 131 A. Reclaiming the Proper Meaning of the “Mala Dichotomy” .... 132 B. A Radical Reconstruction of Case Law .................................... 135 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 136 INTRODUCTION More than a century ago, a Chinese resident displayed several small medallions containing the face of the revolutionary Tagalog leader, General Emilio Aguinaldo, in his store in Manila.1 He bought these items together with a stock of goods in a public auction conducted by a court sheriff just * The author works in human rights advocacy, specializing in the protection and promotion of the human right to the highest attainable standard of health. He received his nursing and law degrees from the University of the Philippines. The author thanks Professor Dante B. Gatmaytan for his feedback on earlier versions of the Article; Professor Rowena E.V. Daroy-Morales and Darwin P. Angeles, whose supervision in the University of the Philippines Office of Legal Aid inspired the author’s ongoing research in criminal justice reform; and M. Justin Homma, Toan Nguyen, Ian Tapu, Evan Oue, Miranda Steed, and the Board of the Asia-Pacific Law and Policy Journal for their editorial support. All views and errors in this paper are the author’s. 1 “[O]n or about the 4th day of August, 1908, in the city of Manila, the appellant Go Chico displayed in one of the windows and one of the show cases of his store, No. 89 Calle Rosario, a number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon the faces of which were imprinted in miniature the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo, and the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate and identify those in armed insurrection against the United States.” United States v. Go Chico, G.R. No. 4963, 14 Phil. 128, 130 (S.C., Sept. 15, 1909) (Phil.). 2019 Nadate 91 the day before.2 Being the aspiring entrepreneur that he was, he laid all of his purchases before his store window for customers to see and, hopefully, buy.3 Little did he know that displaying these medallions was illegal4 and that he would be imprisoned for at least three months and fined with what then was a staggering cost of 500 pesos for the particularly simple and seemingly innocent offense of “expos[ing], or caus[ing] or permit[ting] [them] to be exposed, to public view.”5 It turned out that these metallic curiosities contained a “flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate and identify those in the armed insurrection.”6 So while, at that time, General Aguinaldo had long been captured in Palanan, Isabela, his miniature face on the buttons, methodically laid out for the public, was enough to constitute a crime. And for this, the Court of First Instance adjudged the store owner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense.7 2 “On the day previous to the one above set forth the appellant had purchased the stock of goods in said store, of which the medallions formed a part, at a public sale made under authority of the sheriff of the city of Manila.” Id. 3 “On the day in question, the 4th of August aforesaid, the appellant was arranging his stock of goods for the purpose of displaying them to the public and in so doing placed in his showcase and in one of the windows of his store the medallions described.” Id. 4 “The appellant was ignorant of the existence of a law against the display of the medallions in question and had consequently no corrupt intention.” Id. 5 “Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own premises, or who shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands to designate or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine Island for the purpose of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States in the Philippine Islands, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device of the Katipunan Society, or which is commonly known as such, shall be punished by a fine of not less that five hundred pesos for more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.” An Act to Prohibit the Display of Flags, Banners, Emblems, or Devices used in the Philippine Islands for the Purpose of Rebellion or Insurrection Against the Authority of the United States and the Display of Katipunan Flags, Banners, Emblems, or Devices, and for Other Purposes, Commission Act No. 1696, § 1, (Aug. 23, 1907) (Phil.). 6 Go Chico, 14 Phil. at 130. 7 “The defendant was tried in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 8th day of September, 1908. After hearing the evidence adduced the court adjudged the defendant guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him under that judgment to pay a fine of P500, Philippine currency, and to pay the costs of the action, and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment during the time and in the form and in the place prescribed by 92 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal [Vol. 20:3 Distraught at a sentence which he saw as both unfounded and unreasonable, the Chinese resident, Go Chico, sought to appeal his conviction to the colonial Supreme Court,8 only to lose. Under the pen of Justice Sherman Moreland, Go Chico found little solace. According to the Supreme Court, his defense that he had no criminal intent in displaying his products was unavailing. The Court found that “[t]he act [itself] is the crime”9 and, the act having been consummated, “[n]othing more is required to commit the crime.”10 The Court further reasoned: In the opinion of this court it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with the criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. This is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would be substantially worthless. It would be impossible of execution. In many cases the act complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect which the statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or bad. The case at bar is a perfect illustration of this. […] It is clear from the authorities cited that in the act under consideration the legislature did not intend that a criminal intent should be a necessary element of the crime. The statutory definition of the offense embraces no word implying that the prohibited act shall be done knowingly or willfully. The wording is plain. The Act means what it says. Nothing is left to the interpretation.11 The Court made extensive use of earlier American decisions12 such as those of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York13 to drive the point law until said fine should be paid. From that judgment and sentence the defendant appealed to this court.” Id. 8 “The appellant rests his right to acquittal upon two propositions: First. That before a conviction under the law cited can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 131. 9 Id. at 138. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 131, 137-38. 12 Id. at 133. 13 E.g., Gardner v. People, 62 N.Y. 299 (1875); Fiedler v. Darrin, 50 N.Y. 437 (1872). 2019 Nadate 93 that, “[s]uch mistakes do not excuse the commission of prohibited acts”14 because, “[t]he rule on the subject appears to be, that in acts mala in se, the intent governs but in those mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?”15 From this pronouncement, the idea of malum in se16 and malum prohibitum17 was born in the Philippine criminal legal system. Henceforth, it became more and more ingrained, only to evolve from its sensible 1909 conception to an incongruous, inconsistent, and sweeping rule18 that now scantly resembles the Go Chico holding.19 This Article attempts to correct the divergence in Philippine penal jurisprudence from the original holding in Go Chico. In particular, it traces the theory’s adoption from early colonial case law and its usage across Philippine Supreme Court decisions, including in contemporary cases. This frames the scope and legal effects of the malum in se/malum prohibitum distinction or dichotomy and draws out significant doctrinal conflicts in its construction and application. Furthermore, by contrasting this principle with American criminal law, this Article argues that the necessity of reading the element of criminal intent in penal statutes is compelled by due process.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advocate October 101614 -FINAL with NAMES in TITLE
    The Advocate www.dpa.ky.gov October 2014 The Kentucky Penal Code: Forty Years of Unresolved Tension and Conflict Between Sentencing Philosophies By Ernie Lewis and Dan Goyette product of what had been inherited from Virginia and the common law. The Kentucky Constitution Watch out for those who “constantly cudgel of 1792 stated that all laws in force on June 1, their brains to think of new things to punish, 1792 from Virginia were also in force in Kentucky, and severer penalties to inflict on others.” including common law from England prior to Clarence Darrow March 24, 1607.¹ Specific sentences were included with each criminal law. “The statutory law had grown haphazardly over the better part “The purposes of the Penal Code will be of two centuries.”² The “great body of substantive criminal law was not in the statutes Ernie Lewis Dan Goyette subverted if the legislature persists in Executive Director Executive Director/Chief continuing the current trend toward at all… It resided in the restless ocean of common National Association for Public Defender law, some of it floating near the surface for Public Defense Louisville Public proliferation of statutory law. This will Defender’s Office cause undue complexity and substantially everyday observation, and therefore quite impair the functional approach contained in familiar, and some of it virtually indefinable in the Model Penal Code was Columbia University’s the Code. New criminal legislation must be obscurity of the deep.”³ Often, laws were Herbert Wechsler, who had participated in the carefully considered lest it conflict with redundant, inconsistent or outright Nuremberg trials.
    [Show full text]
  • An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes
    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Short Title.- This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004." Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy.- It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act: (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Corruption
    INDEX Introduction to Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey (Japanese) ······································ ii Introduction to Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey (English) ······································· iv GLOSSARY ·························································································································· vi Africa Kenya ··································································································································· 1 South Africa ························································································································· 3 Asia Pacific Australia ······························································································································· 5 China ···································································································································· 7 Japan ····································································································································· 9 South Korea ························································································································ 11 Taiwan ································································································································ 13 Europe Austria ································································································································ 15 France ·································································································································
    [Show full text]
  • Laws on Violence Against Women in the Philippines
    EGM/GPLVAW/2008/EP.12 22 August 2008 ENGLISH only United Nations Nations Unies United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women Expert Group Meeting on good practices in legislation on violence against women United Nations Office at Vienna, Austria 26 to 28 May 2008 Laws on Violence against Women in the Philippines Expert Paper prepared by: Rowena V. Guanzon* Professor, University of the Philippines College of Law Steering Committee Member, Asia Cause Lawyers Network * The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations. 1 EGM/GPLVAW/2008/EP.12 22 August 2008 ENGLISH only Background: Since 1995, violence against women (VAW) has captured the attention of the government and legislators in the Philippines, propelled by the demand of a growing women’s human rights movement and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, its Optional Protocol1 as well as other international conventions. The Beijing Conference on Women in 1995 heightened the demand of women’s rights advocates for laws protecting women from violence. Progressive reforms in laws protecting women was brought about by several factors beginning with the democratization process that began in the 1986 People Power Revolution after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, the 1987 Constitution2 that has specific provisions on the rights of women and fundamental equality before the law of men and women, the increasing number of women’s organizations in the provinces with links to Metro Manila based women’s rights organizations,3 and the participation of women legislations who are becoming increasingly aware of the need for gender equality and the elimination of VAW.
    [Show full text]
  • FCLG-Philippines
    PHILIPPINES FACT-CHECKER LEGAL GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 DEFAMATION ......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 B. What Are the Elements of Defamation? ............................................................ 4 C. By What Means Can Defamation Be Committed? ......................................... 6 D. Who Can Bring a Defamation Action? ................................................................. 7 E. Who Can Be Liable for Defamation? .................................................................... 7 F. Defenses ...................................................................................................................... 8 G. Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................. 9 PRIVACY .................................................................................................................................. 10 A. Constitutional Principles ....................................................................................... 10 B. Privacy Legislation .................................................................................................. 10 C. Right to Privacy Online .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JD Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey 2016-17.Pdf
    Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY.........................................................................................................................................iii Africa ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Kenya ............................................................................................................................ 1 Mozambique ................................................................................................................. 8 South Africa ................................................................................................................ 11 Asia Pacific ............................................................................................................................. 15 Australia...................................................................................................................... 15 China ........................................................................................................................... 18 Hong Kong .................................................................................................................. 23 Japan ........................................................................................................................... 26 South Korea ................................................................................................................ 29 Taiwan ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code of the State of Texas
    Texas Historical Statutes Project 1925 Penal Code of the State of Texas S as tat ex e T L L This project was made possible by the Texas State Law Library and a grant from the Litigation Section of the State Bar of Texas PENAL CODE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE THIRTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE 1925 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS &.C. BALDWIN &SNNS STATE PRINTERS AUSTIN A BILL TO BE ENTITLED "AN ACT to Adopt and Establish a 'PENAL CODE' and a 'CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE' for the State of Texas." Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas: SECTION 1. The following Titles, Chapters and Ar- ticles are hereby adopted and shall hereafter constitute and be known as the PENAL CODE of the State of Texas: THE PENAL CODE of the STATE OF TEXAS TITLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Chapter Chapter General objects, principles, Persons punishable, and cir- and rules of interpretation. 1 cumstances which excuse, Definitions ................ 2 extenuate or aggravate an offense ................. 3 CHAPTER ONE. GENERAL OBJECTS, PRINCIPLES, AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION. Article Article Design of the Code ............... 1 N'o offense against a law not in Object of punishment ............ 2 force ................ ......... 10 Penalties must be affixed by writ- When laws take effect............ 11 ten law....................... 3 Ignorance no excuse.............. 12 Common law rule of construction. 4 Modification by subsequent law. 13 Special provisions control general. 5 Effect of repeal .................. 14 Unintelligible law not operative.. 6 When new peralty is substituted. 15 General rules of construction....
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE Senate Bill No. EXPLANATORY NOTE
    FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Second Regular Session SENATE Senate Bill No. 5 __ ___ INTRODUCED BY SEN. MANNY VILLAR EXPLANATORY NOTE Theft, robbery and destruction of public school property are more than just crimes against public property. They certainly constitute brazen assault on our educational institutions and a grievous attack to our country's educational system. Given that the materials involved are vital components of the educational process, such crimes undermine the education of our children, jeopardize their future and threaten to derail the government's avowed mission to provide quality education to all Filipinos. This bill will increase the jail time and monetary penalties for felons convicted of theft, robbery and destruction of public school property. In view of the security vulnerabilities of our schools, there is undoubtedly an urgent need for a stronger deterrent against such crimes. This proposed legislative measure, if enacted into law, will certainly provide that much-needed deterrent. Hence, the passage of this bill is hereby earnestly sought. FOURTEENTHCONGRESSOFTHE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Second Regular Session Senate Bill No. 31 INTRODUCED BY SEN. MANNY VILLAR AN ACT PROVIDING STIFFER PENALTlES FOR THEFT, ROBBERY AND DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: I SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Public School 2 Security Act of 2008". 3 SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. - 4 a. "School property" refers to all buildings, grounds and other property, real 5 and personal, which belong to apublic school, whether the property is acquired 6 through public funds, loans, donations or lease.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Oral Defamation, a Crime Allegedly Involving Moral Turpitude
    CORDERO, Jonathan L. Re: Complaint; Crime Involving Moral Turpitude x-----------------------------------------x RESOLUTION NO. 01-1224 Janus T. Jarder, employee of the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), Bacolod City, filed a complaint before this Commission seeking the dismissal from the service of Jonathan L. Cordero, Senior Regulation Officer of that same office, for conviction in Criminal Case No. 66523 for Light Oral defamation, a crime allegedly involving moral turpitude. In his complaint, Jarder asserted the following: “3. That respondent by virtue of the decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC) (sic) Branch 01, Bacolod City and dated October 9, 1996, was convicted of the CRIME OF ORAL DEFAMATION x x x. “4. That the crime of which respondent was convicted is a crime involving moral turpitude which is punishable by dismissal from the service at its offense as provided in Section 52, A (5), of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. “5. By virtue of the foregoing Court decision, complainant additionally files complaint against respondent for the following offenses: `a) Grave Misconduct as provided in Section 52, A (3) of the said Rules; `b) Conviction of Crime Involving moral turpitude as provided in Section 52 A (5).” Jarder also filed a motion to place the respondent under preventive suspension in view of the alleged conviction of a crime PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API pdfcrowd.com involving moral turpitude. When asked to answer or comment, Cordero maintained the following arguments, thus: “4. Respondent vehemently denies paragraphs 4 and 5, the truth of the matter being that the crime of light oral defamation is not a crime involving moral turpitude and is not within the confines of Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Cases (sic), contrary to complainant’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippines: Information on Adultery Laws, Including Enforcement (2014-June 2017) Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa
    Responses to Information Requests - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Page 1 of 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Home > Research Program > Responses to Information Requests Responses to Information Requests Responses to Information Requests (RIR) respond to focused Requests for Information that are submitted to the Research Directorate in the course of the refugee protection determination process. The database contains a seven- year archive of English and French RIRs. Earlier RIRs may be found on the UNHCR's Refworld website. Please note that some RIRs have attachments which are not electronically accessible. To obtain a PDF copy of an RIR attachment, please email the Knowledge and Information Management Unit. 30 June 2017 PHL105832.E Philippines: Information on adultery laws, including enforcement (2014-June 2017) Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa 1. Legislation Articles 333 and 334 of The Revised Penal Code provide the following: Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed. Art. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippine Penal Code
    Philippine Penal Code ACT NO. 3815 AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS (December 8, 1930) Preliminary Article — This law shall be known as "The Revised Penal Code." BOOK ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, THE PERSONS LIABLE AND THE PENALTIES Preliminary Title DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two. Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. Title One FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY Chapter One F E L O N I E S Art.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revised Penal Code of Pennsylvania
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER, AUGUST, 1860. THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF PENNSYLVANIA. 1. Report of the Commissioners appointed to revise the Penal 'Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January 4, 1860. Harrisburg: A. BoYD HAMILTON, State Printer. 1860. pp. 129. 2. The Penal Laws of Pennsylvania, passed March 31, 1860. Harris- burg: A. BOYD HAMILTON, State Printer. 1860. pp. 79. The Legislature of Pennsylvania, on the nineteenth of April, 1858, passed the following resolutions 1. "That the Governor of this Commonwealth be and he is hereby authorized and required to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, three com- petent citizens, learned in the laws of this commonwealth, as commissioners to revise, collate and digest all the acts and statutes relating to'or touching the penal laws of the commonwealth. 2. "That it shall be the duty of the said commissioners carefully to collect, and reduce into one act, all acts and statutes, and parts of acts and statutes, relating to or touchlng the penal laws of the commonwealth, and arrange the same systemati- cally, under proper titles, divisions and sections; to omit in such revision all acts, and parts of acts, that have been repealed or supplied by subsequent acts, or which have expired; to suggest to the legislature any contradictions, omissions, defects or imperfections that may appear in the acts and statutes to be revised, and the mode in which the same may be reconciled, supplied, improved or amended; to designate such acts or statutes, or parts of acts or statutes as ought to be repealed, and to prepare and submit to the legislature new acts or statutes, as such repeal may ren- der advisable or necessary; and.
    [Show full text]