You are on page 1of 6

COURSE OUTLINE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Atty. Ma. Cecilia D.

Papa Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law First Semester SY 2013-2014 REFERENCE MATERIALS: Agpalo, Ruben, Statutory Construction, 2003, 5th Edition, Rex Printing Co., Man ila. Alcantara, Samson, Statutes. (1993 Ed.) The Philippines Labor Relations Journa l, Quezon City. Funa, Dennis B., Canons of Statutory Construction, 2011, 1st Edition I. INTRODUCTION A. The Case Method

Figuerroa v. Barranco, Jr., 276 SCRA 445 [1977] Republic v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 198 [1997] People v. Jalosjos, 369 SCRA 179 [2001] B. The Philippine Legal System

- An overview II. STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT A. Definition of Statutes as against Laws Agpalo, pp. 1-2 B. Classification of Statutes Agpalo, pp. 2-3; Alcantara, pp. 1-3 C. Parts of a Statute and Rules on Legislative Drafting Agpalo, pp. 11-16 1. TitleConsti., Art. VI, Sec. 26(1) Lidasan vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496 2. 3. 4. 5. D. Enacting Clause Preamble Purview Other Clauses Steps in the Enactment of the Statute 1987 Consti., Art. VI, secs. 26 & 27 Senate Rules and House of Representatives Rules E. Evidence of Due Enactment of Statutes

351-386 Alcantara. Echegaray. Chap. Secretary of Dept. Court of Appeals. Subido. 1 Casco Phil. sec. 16-25. VI. 281 SCRA 330 [1997] Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. When statutes/regulations become effective Agpalo. Adm. 56 SCRA 714 F. sec. Chapter V Rev. 27(1) Agpalo. Court of Appeals. Adm. Vs. Villegas. Test of constitutionality 4. Sec.1. Gimenez. p. 8 Astorga vs. 2 as amended by Exec. pp. pp. 78 Phil. EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF STATUTES A. Art. s. 136 SCRA 27 and 146 SCRA 446 People vs. V. Art. 302 SCRA 442 [1999] III.25-51 1. 2. p. People vs. 267 SCRA 682 [1998] Ortigas Ltd. Journal Entry Rule 1987 Consti. 7 SCRA 347 Morales vs. Art. Prospective or retrospective operation of statutes Rev. Effect of unconstitutionality Tatad vs. 19 Agpalo. Lopez Vito. Tuvera. 22 Adm. sec. Secretary of Justice. 26 (2). 16(4). 276-280 . 551 Tañada vs. Code of 1987. of Energy. 346 SCRA 748 [2000] C. 301 SCRA 96 [1999] Cf. Penal Code. 41-47 Civil Code. sec.. 26 SCRA 150 2. Code of 1987. Order No.175-187 Echegaray vs. Que Po Lay. 200 (1987). 94 Phil. cf. Code. Enrolled Bill Theory Agpalo. Power to construe and determine validity of the statutes Agpalo. 18. pp.9-10 Mabanag vs. General versus special Agpalo. IX. 640 B. Initial presumption of validity and constitutionality Requisites for exercise of judicial power 3.

Admi. NATURE AND CONCEPT OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (intent vs. Code of 1987. 473 SCRA 392 [2005] C. Sec. CA. Primetown Property Group. S. June 24. secs. Secretary of Labor. purpose) Agpalo. pp. Agpalo. 338 SCRA 217 [2000] B. the prior law shall thereby be revived. 309 SCRA 87 [1999] De Guzman vs. OBJECT AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION . Sec. Sison. 334 SCRA 738 [2000] Langkaan Realty vs. 309 SCRA 292 [1999] E. 531 SCRA 436 (2008) V. Sutton. REVISIONS AND REPEALS Agpalo. 347 SCRA 542 [2000] PNOC vs. -. Revival of Law Impliedly Repealed. II. AMENDMENT. 340 SCRA 617 [2000] Semirara Coal Corp. 21-22 RA 7659. Ladjaalam. Code. Strict or liberal construction of statutes Alcantara. When a law which impliedly repeals a prior law is itself repealed. A. Repeals Adm. 323 SCRA 623 [2000] Commisioner of Internal Revenue vs. vs. pp.387-431. Cervantes. Amendments Akbayan Youth s. 171-173. Revisions and Re-enactments Department of Agrarian Reform vs. 355 SCRA 318 [2001] People vs. C. 285-328 People vs. Asuncion. 162-173. 2006 (death penalty abolished) Alunan vs. Alcantara. RA 8177 RA 9346. Court of Appeals. Chapter VIII. 457 SCRA 32 [2005] D. 48-75 Matabuena vs. COMELEC. the law first repeaed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided. unless t he repealing law provides otherwise. Johnson & Sons.When a law which expressly rep eals a prior law is itself repealed. 22. Agpalo. 38 SCRA 284 CIR vs. pp. 355 SCRA 69 [2001] VI.Lapid vs. No Implied Revival of Repealed Law. Mandatory or permissive/directory statutes Alcantara. 21. 329-348 IV. UCPB. Inc. Macoy. pp. pp. Chap. 175-206 Rev. Chapter 15.

INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE (INTRINSIC AIDS) Agpalo. III A. Philex Mining Corp. Arts. VI. Davao Stevedore. vs. Ssangyong Corporation 536 SCRA 408 (2008) 3. 13.R. Malolos and Jaime Lir on. 202 People vs.: CONSEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS OR ABSURDITY RULE Lina Obana y Zamora vs. Statutory Construction vs. 102 SCRA 510 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) vs. Gimenez. II. Chap.. Terms with legal meaning Bernardo vs. No. Chap. 304 SCRA 83 [1999] C. Sec. Dela Cuesta. Bernardo. CA G. 1 SCRA 267 Baylon vs. pp 88. Central Bank. Chap. Terms with multiple meaning Santulan vs. Zamora. vs. IV.52-55. 131-141 MCC Industrial Sales Corp. Judicial Legislation Civil Code. 60353. Mens legislatoris (Mischief rule) Agpalo. 2001 Santos. Exec. Social Security System 542 SCRA 629 2. RTC-Br. Alcantara. Jr. Court of Appeals. 32 SCRA 553 4. 124-176 1. 96 Phil. 312 SCRA 502 Signey vs. Judge Andres Soriano. 29 Aug. 136 SCRA 142 VII. PNOC Exploration Corporation 566 SCRA 272 B. Doctrine of associated words (noscitur a sociis) . Common meaning rule Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Equity of the statute. Ratio legis or interpretation by considering spirit and intent of law (Golden rule) Agpalo. pp.AND DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT Agpalo. 342 SCRA 449 [2000] Cf.90 Macabenta vs. pp. 9-10 Floresca vs. Sp. Chap. p. Verba legis or literal interpretation (Plain meaning rule) Colgate Palmolive vs. 80 SCRA 548 D.

IAC. 175 SCRA 76 (1989) J. Casus Omissus People vs. Civil Service Commission. Doctrine of necessary implication Agpalo. ABS Broadcasting Corp. 145 SCRA 112 F. Ejusdem Generis rule Mutuc vs. CTA. 206 SCRA 65 L. 336 SCRA 458 [2000] K. Verbal or clerical errors Rufino Lopez vs. Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 315 (1988) I. Manantan. COMELEC. 567 SCRA 231 G. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule Santos To vs. 571 SCRA 18 E. Florentino. Redendo singula singulis Amadora vs. Santiago.People vs. Tan. Commission on Elections. Number. 120 SCRA 8 Go-Tan vs. Chapter IV. Conjunctive and disjunctive words Romulo Mabanta Law vs.Inc. 14 SCRA 563 N. Arroyo. 100 Phil. 36 SCRA 228 Gaanan vs. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos MTRCB vs.. 5 SCRA 684 H. 5 SCRA 231 Coca-Cola Bottlers. Miranda. Cruz Pano. vs. Shall and may Bersabal vs. Salvador. Doctrine of last antecedent Mapa vs. 850 M. Home Development Mutual Fund. 84 SCRA 176 Don Tino Realty vs. Gomez. 314 SCRA 197 [1999] ### 1 . 448 SCRA 575 Guerrero vs.. Planta 538 SCRA 79 (2008) O. 333 SCRA 777 [2000] Lanaria vs. Gender and Tense Santillon vs. Phils. pp 164-176 Chua vs.