Statutory Construction Reviewer

Posted: July 19, 2011 in Stat Con

Tags: Reviewer, Stat Con
Based on the book, Statutory Construction by Ruben E. Agpalo

Construction
The art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and
intention of the authors of law, where that intention is rendered doubtful
by reason of the ambiguity in its language or the fact that the given case
is not explicitly provided for in the law.
Purpose: to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the law, to
determine legislative intent.
Rules of Statutory Construction
These are tools used to ascertain legislative intent. They are not
rules but mere axioms of experience.
Legislative Intent
The essence of the law. The intent of the legislature is the law, and
the key to, and the controlling factor in, its construction and
interpretation.
The primary source of legislative intent is the statute itself.
Where the words or phrases of a statute are not obscure or
ambiguous, its meaning and the intention of the legislature must
be determined from the language employed.

Legislative Purpose
The reason why a particular statute was enacted by the legislature.
Legislative Meaning
What the law, by its language, means: what it comprehends, what it
covers or embraces, what it limits or confines.
In construing a statute, it is not enough to ascertain the intention
or meaning of the statute; it is also necessary to see whether the
intention or meaning has been expressed in such a way as to give
it legal effect and validity.

The duty and power to interpret or construe a statute or the

Constitution belongs to the judiciary.
The SC construes the applicable law in controversies which are ripe
for judicial resolution.
The court does not interpret law in a vacuum.
The legislature has no power to overrule the interpretation or
construction of a statute or the Constitution by the Supreme Court, for

interpretation is a judicial function assigned to the latter by the

fundamental law.
The SC may, in an appropriate case, change or overrule its previous
construction.
A condition sine qua non before the court may construe or
interpret a statute, is that there be doubt or ambiguity in its
language. The province of construction lies wholly within the
domain of ambiguity. Where there is no ambiguity in the words of
a statute, there is no room for construction.

A statute is ambiguous when it is capable of being understood by

reasonably well-informed persons in either of two senses.
Where the law is free from ambiguity, the court may not introduce
exceptions or conditions where none is provided.
A meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the
very language of the statute cannot be placed therein be construction.
Where the two statutes that apply to a particular case, that which
was specifically designed for the said case must prevail over the other.
When the SC has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the same.
Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect.
The court may issue guidelines in applying the statute, not to
enlarge or restrict it but to clearly delineate what the law requires. This is
not judicial legislation but an act to define what the law is.
Limitations on power to construe
Courts may not enlarge nor restrict statutes.
Courts may not be influenced by questions of wisdom.
AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
To ascertain the true intent of the statute, the court may avail of intrinsic
aids, or those found in the printed page of the statute, and extrinsic aids,
those extraneous facts and circumstances outside the printed page.

1.

1.

Title
The title may indicate the legislative extent or restrict the scope of
the law, and a statute couched in a language of doubtful import will be
construed to conform to the legislative intent as disclosed in its title.
When the text of the statute is clear and free form doubt, it is
improper to resort to its title to make it obscure.
Preamble
That part of the statute written immediately after its title, which
states the purpose, reason or justification for the enactment of a law. It is
usually expressed in the form of whereas clauses.

It is not an essential part of the statute. But it may, when the statute
is ambiguous, be resorted to clarify the ambiguity, as a key to open the
minds of the lawmakers as to the purpose of the statute.

1.

Context of the whole text

The best source from which to ascertain the legislative intent is the
statute itself the words, the phrases, the sentences, sections, clauses,
provisions taken as a whole and in relation to one another.

1.

Punctuation marks
Punctuation marks are aids of low degree; they are not parts of the
statute nor the English language.

Where there is, however, an ambiguity in a statute which may be

partially or wholly solved by a punctuation mark, it may be considered in
the construction of a statute.
1.
Capitalization of letters

An aid of low degree in the construction of statutes.

1.

1.

1.

Headnotes or epigraphs
These are convenient index to the contents of the provisions of a
statute; they may be consulted in case of doubt in interpretation.
They are not entitled to much weight.
Lingual text
Unless otherwise provided, where a statute is officially promulgated
in English and Spanish, the English text shall govern, but in case of
ambiguity, omission or mistake, the Spanish may be consulted to explain
the English text.
The language in which a statute is written prevails over its
translation.
Intent or spirit of law
Legislative intent or spirit is the controlling factor, the influence
most dominant if a statute needs construction.
The intent of the law is that which is expressed in the words thereof,
discovered in the four corners of the law and aided if necessary by its
legislative history.

1.

Policy of law
A statute of doubtful meaning must be given a construction that will
promote public policy.

1.

Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed

The purpose or object of the law or the mischief intended to be
suppressed are important factors to be considered in its construction.

1.

Dictionaries

While definitions given by lexicographers are not binding, courts

have adopted, in proper cases, such definitions to support their conclusion
as to the meaning of the particular words used in a statute.

1.

Consequences of various constructions

Construction of a statute should be rejected if it will cause injustice,
result in absurdity or defeat the legislative intent.

1.

Presumptions
Based on logic, common sense; eg. Presumption of constitutionality,
completeness, prospective application, right and justice, etc.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Where a statute is susceptible of several interpretations, there is no better
means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than that
which is afforded by the history of the statute. The history of a statute
refers to all its antecedents from its inception until its enactment into law.

1.

Presidents message to the legislature

This usually contains proposed legislative measures and indicates
the Presidents thinking on the proposed legislation which, when enacted
into law, follows his line of thinking into the matter.

1.

Explanatory note
A short exposition of explanation accompanying a proposed
legislation by its author or proponent. It contains statements of the reason
or purpose of the bill, as well as arguments advanced by its author in
urging its passage.

1.

Legislative debates, views and deliberations

Where there is doubt as to what a provision of a statute means, that
meaning which was put to the provision during the legislative deliberation
or discussion on the bill may be adopted.

1.

Reports of commissions
In construing the provisions of the code as thus enacted, courts may
properly refer to the reports of the commission that drafted the code in
aid of clarifying ambiguities therein.

1.

Prior laws from which the statute is based

Legislative history will clarify the intent of the law or shed light on
the meaning and scope of the codified or revised statute.

1.

Change in phraseology by amendments

Courts may investigate the history of the provisions to ascertain
legislative intent as to the meaning and scope of the amended law.

1.

Amendment by deletion
The amendment statute should be given a construction different
from that previous to its amendment.

1.

Adopted statutes
Where local statutes are patterned after or copied from those of
another country, the decisions of courts in such country construing those
laws are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of such local
statutes.

1.

Principles of common law

Courts may properly resort to common law principles in construing
doubtful provisions of a statute, particularly where such a statute is
modeled upon Anglo-American precedents.

1.

Conditions at the time of the enactment

It is proper, in the interpretation of a statute, to consider the
physical conditions of the country and the circumstances then obtaining
which must of necessity affect its operation in order to understand the
intent of the statute.

1.

History of the times

The history of the times out of which the law grew and to which it
may be rationally supposed to bear some direct relationship.

1.

1.

CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
The constructions placed upon statutes at the time of, or after, their
enactment by the executive, legislature or judicial authorities, as well as
those who, because of their involvement in the process of legislation, are
knowledgeable of the intent and purpose of the law, such as draftsmen
and bill sponsors.
The contemporary construction is the strongest in law.
Construction by an executive or administrative officer directly called
to implement the law
May be express interpretation embodied in a circular, directive or
regulation.
May be implied a practice or mode of enforcement of not applying
the statute to certain situations or of applying it in a particular manner;
interpretation by usage or practice.
Construction by the Sec. of Justice as his capacity as the chief legal
adviser of the government
In the form of opinions issued upon request of administrative or
executive officials who enforce the law.
President or Executive Secretary has the power to modify or alter or
reverse the construction given by a department secretary.

1.

Interpretation handed down in an adversary proceeding in the form

of a ruling by an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial power
Such rulings need not have the detachment of a judicial, or semijudicial decision, and may properly carry basis.
The contemporaneous construction is very probably the true
expression of the legislative purpose, especially if the
construction is followed for a considerable period of time. It is
thus entitled to great weight and respect by the courts in the
interpretation of the ambiguous provisions of law, and unless it is
shown to be clearly erroneous, it will control the interpretation of
statutes by the courts.
The best interpreter of law is usage.
Interpretation by those charged with their enforcement is entitled to
great weight by the courts.
Contemporaneous construction is entitled to great weight because it
comes from a particular branch of government called upon to implement
the laws thus construed.
Respect is due the government agency or officials charged with the
implementation of the law for their competence, expertness, experience
and informed judgment, and the fact that they are frequently the drafters
of the law they interpret.
The court may disregard contemporaneous construction when
there is no ambiguity in the law, where the construction is clearly
erroneous, where strong reason to the contrary exists, and where
the court has previously given the statute a different
interpretation.
If through the misapprehension of the law an executive or
administrative officer called upon to implement it has erroneously applied
and executed it, the error may be corrected when the true construction is
ascertained.
Erroneous contemporaneous construction creates no vested right on
the part of those who relied upon, and followed such construction. The
rule is not absolute and admits exceptions in the interest of justice and
fair play.
Legislative interpretation
Legislative interpretation of a statute is not controlling, but the
courts may resort to it to clarify ambiguity in the language thereof.
Legislative approval
The legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of a
contemporaneous or practical construction of a statute. Legislative
ratification is equivalent to a mandate.
Reenactment

The most common act of legislative approval; the reenactment of a

statute, previously given a contemporaneous construction, is a persuasive
indication of the adaptation by the legislature of the prior construction.

Stare Decisis
The decision of the SC applying or interpreting a statute is
controlling with respect to the interpretation of that statute and is of
greater weight than that of an executive or administrative officer in the
construction of other statutes of similar import.

Past decisions of the court must be followed in the adjudication of

cases: Stare decisis et non quieta movere, one should follow past
precedents and should not disturb what has been settled.

Where the court resolved a question merely sub silencio, its decision
does not come within the maxim of stare decisis

Nor does an opinion expressed by the way, not up to the point in the
issue, fall within the maxim; it is merely anobiter dictum
o
An obiter dictum is an opinion expressed by a court upon
some question of law which is not necessary to the decision of the case
before it. It is a remark, by the way; it is not binding as a precedent.
o
The rule of stare decisis is not absolute. If found contrary to
law, it must be abandoned.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION
If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis
non est recedendum, from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.

Dura lex sed lex

The law is harsh, but it is still the law. It must be applied regardless
of who may be affected, even if it may be harsh or onerous.
When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is
required.
DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION
Statutes must be capable of construction or interpretation. If no judicial
certainty can be had as to its meaning, the court is not at liberty to supply
nor to make one.

What is within the spirit is within the law

When what the legislature had in mind is not accurately reflected in
the language of the statute, resort is had to the principle that the spirit of
the law controls its letter. Ratio legis, interpretation according to the spirit
of the law.
Literal import must yield to intent
The intention of the legislature and its purpose or object controls the
interpretation of particular language of a statute.

Words ought to be more subservient to the intent and not the intent
to the words.
Construction to accomplish purpose
Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to be
achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed, and they should be
given construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and
secure the benefits intended.
When reason of law ceases, law itself ceases
Reason for the law is the heart of the law. When the reason of the
law ceases, the law itself ceases. The reason of the law is its soul.
Supplying legislative omission
Where a literal import of the language of the statute shows that
words have been omitted that should have been in the statute in order to
carry out its intent and spirit, clearly ascertainable from its context, the
courts may supply the omission to make the statute conform to the
obvious intent of the legislature or to prevent the act from being absurd.
Correcting clerical errors
In order to carry out the intent of the legislature, the court may
correct clerical errors, which, uncorrected, would render the statute
meaningless.
Construction to avoid absurdity
Courts are not to give a statute a meaning that would lead to
absurdities. Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid
inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted.
Constructing to avoid injustice
Presumed that undesirable consequences were never intended as a
legislative measure; that interpretation is to be adopted which is free from
evil or injustice.
Construction to avoid danger to public interest
Where great inconvenience will result, or great public interest will be
endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, from a particular
construction of the statute, such construction should be avoided.
Construction in favor of right and justice
In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of the law, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
The fact that the statute is silent, obscure or insufficient with
respect to a question before a court will not justify the latter from
declining judgment. That one is perceived to tip the scales which the court
believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation.
Surplusage and superfluity disregarded

The statute should be construed in accordance with the evident

intent of the legislature without regard to the rejected word, phrase or
clause.
Redundant words may be rejected
While the general rule is that every effort should be made to give
some meaning to every part of the statute, there is no obligation to give
every redundant word or phrase a special significance, contrary to the
manifest intention of the legislature.
Obscure or missing words or false description may not preclude
construction
Neither does false description neither preclude construction nor
vitiate the meaning of a statute which is otherwise unclear.
Exemption from rigid application of the law
Every rule is not without an exception. Where rigorous application
may lead to injustice, the general rule should yield to occasional
exceptions.
Law does not require the impossible
The law obliges no one to perform an impossible thing.

Number and gender

When the context of the statute indicates, words in plural include
the singular, vice versa.
2.
The masculine but not the feminine includes all genders, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
1.

IMPLICATIONS
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its
application. What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that
which is expressed.
Grant of jurisdiction
The jurisdiction to hear and decide cases is conferred only by the
Constitution or by statute. The grant of jurisdiction to try actions carries
with it all necessary and incidental powers to employ all writs, processes
and other means essential to make its jurisdiction effective.
Grant of power includes incidental power
Where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular
power necessary for the exercise of one of the performance of the other is
also conferred.
Grant of power excludes greater power
The foregoing principle implies the exclusion of those which are greater
than conferred.

What is implied should not be against the law

The statutory grant of power does not include such incidental power which
cannot be exercised without violating the Constitution, the statute
granting power, or other laws of the same subject.
Authority to charge against public funds may not be implied
Unless a statute expressly so authorizes, no claim against public finds
may be allowed.
Illegality of act implied from prohibition
Where a statute prohibits the doing of an act, the act done in violation
thereof is by implication null and void. No man can be allowed to found a
claim upon his own wrongdoing or inequity. No man should be allowed to
take advantage of his own wrong. In Pari Delicto
Exceptions to In Pari Delicto
It will not apply when its enforcement or application will violate an
avowed fundamental policy or public interest
2.
When the transaction is not illegal per se but merely prohibited, and
the prohibition by law is designed for the protection of one party
1.

What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly

What the law prohibits cannot, in some other way, be
accomplished.

legally

There should be no penalty for compliance with law

A person who complies with a statute cannot, by implication, be penalized
by it