TITLE/SUB-TITLE: is a valuable aid in determining legislative intent in case of ambiguity. Jan. TEXT of the statute. No. 1. COMELEC. 22. 1996. No. . Echavez supra) 3. 127325. must be enforced. March 19. PREAMBLE: The intent of the law as culled from its preamble and from the situation. 1997) 2. body or context. (Santiago vs. • Parts of the statute: Title. circumstances and conditions it sought to remedy. Drilon. People vs. 109404.INTRINSIC AIDS IN CONSTRUCTION & INTERPRETATION • It means “internal or within”. preamble. etc. (Eugenio vs.

1975) – – – – – – – President’s message Explanatory note of the proponent Legislative debates Reports of Commissions Prior Laws from which statute is based Amendments Adopted statutes from foreign jurisdiction . • If after availing all the intrinsic aids and still there remain some ambiguity in the statute. L-28329. ESSO Standard. No.EXTRINSIC AIDS IN CONSTRUCTION & INTERPRETATION • These are aids from outside sources. August 7. 1. then extrinsic aids may be consulted. Legislative History of the enactment: (Commissioner or Customs vs.

BLR & NAFLU. L-336393-94. NPC vs. 1991. April 8. (PAFLU vs. August 21. May 31. De Guzman. “contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege”. No. No. Cuevas. 1979) 3. No. Contemporaneous construction by executive officers. Opinions and rulings of official of the government: (VERA vs. 9. No. 106724. Actual proceedings or legislative deliberations of the legislative body (Cecilio De Villa vs. L-43760. 1976) 4. 87416. CA. Feb. 1994) .2.

– It is a close and conservative adherence to the literal or textual interpretation.STRICT AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION & INTERPRETATION • STRICT CONSTRUCTION: – Nothing should be included within the scope that does not come clearly within the meaning of the language used. . – No extension on account of implication or equitable consideration beyond the literal meaning of its terms. – Its operation must be confined to cases coming clearly within the letter of the statutes as well as within its spirit or reason.

so as to ascertain legislative intent.• LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION: – The meaning of the statute may be extended to matters which come within the spirit or reason of the law or within the evils which the law seeks to suppress or correct. – “Ut res magis valeat quam periat ”. . – Any matter reasonably within the meaning may be included within the scope unless the language necessarily excludes it. spirit and purpose of the law. – The word should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation.

(Art. – Salvador Lazo vs. June 18. 78617. shall be in favor of labor. 1990) – Exception: (Ramon Corporal vs. 86020. April 22.Construction of Specific Philippine Statutes • Labor Code of the Philippines expressly provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code. including its implementing rules and regulations. 5. 1994) . 4 of PD 442 ) – Maria Manahan vs. ECC and GSIS. Aug. L-44899. No. ECC and GSIS. ECC and GSIS. 1981. No. No.

5 – Rules of Interpretation: 1. liberally in favor of the tax payer. Tax exemption. 2. 4. General welfare provision – liberally construed to give powers to LGU . incentive or relief granted by the LGU – construed strictly against the person claiming it. Tax ordinance or revenue measure – construed strictly against the LGU. Provision on power of the local government – liberally interpreted in its favor. 3.Local Government Code of 1991 • Sec.

honest. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court) • COMELEC rules of procedure – liberally construed in order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free. COMELEC & Hon. 1994) . – Pahilan vs.• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just. Feb. 6. – (sec. 21. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. orderly. 110170. Tabalba. peaceful and credible elections and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission. Tabano GR No.

Ladjaalam. CA supra) .Penal Statutes • It is a well entrenched rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the accused – (People vs. 19. Nos. the tendency is to subject it to careful scrutiny and to construe it with strictness as to safeguard the rights of the accused. 2000). (Centeno vs. 1994. VillalonPernillos. • In the interpretation. 113092. 1. 136149-51. Sept. Ursua vs. Sept. No.

132155 Aug 16. except: – if the grantee of the exemption is a political subdivision or instrumentality.” – Aras-asan Timber Co. the grant of tax exemptions are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. vs. City of Davao and barcelon. 1996) • “Taxation is the rule. vs. . exemption is the exception. Marcos. • However. • (Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. no. 120082. CIR and CA. No. 143867.TAX LAWS • It is construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. No. Sept 11. which then become contractual and is thus covered by the nonimpairment clause of the Constitution. – Exemption is granted to private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature. 2001 – PLDT inc.

June 30. However. for taxes. where the law is clear and unambiguous. being burdens. Manila electric Co. devoid of judicial addition or subtraction. . No. April 26. Vs. IAC. L-23623. the law must be taken as it is. 69344. are not to be presumed beyond what the applicable statute expressly and clearly declares. • Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. 1991 – In case of doubts. No. tax statutes are to be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer.Tax Law Cases: • Republic. 1977 – Any claim for exemption from a tax statute is strictly construed against the taxpayer.

127240. Republic No. 2000) . march 27. – (Ong Chia vs.Naturalization Law • It should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant.

Insurance Law • Contracts of insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Sept. – (Finman General Assurance Corp. 2. vs. No. CA. 1992) . 100970.

96422 Feb. 1994) .RETIREMENT LAW • Well settled is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree’s sustenance and comfort. – (Tuntuico Jr. No. when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood. vs. 28. Domingo.

Prospective and Retrospective Statutes • Prospective Statute – A statute which operates upon acts and transactions which have occurred when the statute takes effect. which regulates the future. 1988 . Lingayen Gulf Electric Power Co and CTA. August 4. is a prospective statute. – Whether a statute operates retrospectively or prospectively depends on the legislative intent. L-23771. No. • CIR vs. that is.