Realism is the application of law in the actuality of the process of the system. It is the actual application
of the jurisprudence on systematic process, based on the facts and the real process wherein the practice
of the law will be actual.
On the case of Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso for his petition for entitlement of his longevity pay for his
services as Commission Member III of the National Labor Relations Commission and as COMELEC
Commissioner be included in the computation of her longevity pay, an examination of Section 41 BP
129, pertaining to salaries of “Judges", and the succeeding section, pertaining to Section 42 that
provides for longevity pay, the wisdom of the rule of statutory construction should give enlightenment
that states, “the plain meaning rule” in which, the statute should be interpreted plainly on the meaning
itself, not in the general understanding of the statute. In simple understanding, the longevity pay should
only be for the Judge and Justices on their served offices as judge and justices, respectively.
The question of judicial legislation as raised on the aforementioned case, happens when the Court adds
to what the law provides and does so in the guise of interpretation, wherein for longevity pay purposes,
it pertains to the services that justices and judges rendered. In other term, the expressed enumeration
of one person, thing, act or consequence excludes all others. The latin phrase “expressium facit cessare
tacitum” which means “what is expressed puts an end to what is implied”.
The realism applied on the statute that lead to the solid ground of denying the herein petition of Justice
Vicente S.E. Veloso for the entitlement of his longevity pay for his services as Commission Member III of
the National Labor Relations Commission and as COMELEC Commissioner is duly and indeed a fact of
display of the actual application of the jurisprudence on systematic process.