You are on page 1of 2


JD 1-2
[3.25-3.36 (12 Subtopics)]
B. Legislative History
3.25 Change in Phraseology by Amendments:
=> indicates a legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision fron that
it originally had
=> courst may investigate the history of provision to ascertain legislative intent
=> effect must be given to changes in statutory language (no mere semantic
*i.e. Commisioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals (nationa port)
3.26 Amendment by Deletion:
=>Rule: the amendment by deletion of certain words or phrases in a
statute indicates that the legislature intended to change the meaning
of the statute
(Presumption: legislature would not have made the deletion had the
intention been not to effect a change in meaning)
*i.e. Gloria v. CA ---deleting the provision regarding payment
of salaries during suspension
*Buenaseda v. Flavier--- RA 6770 Sec. 24 Ombudsman or his
deputy may pre-
ventively suspend any officer or employee under his
authority pending an
3.27 Exception to the Rule:
=> Rule: amendment of a statute indicates change in meaning applies only when:
a. the deleted words or phrases are not surplusage
b. the intention is clear to change the previous meaning of the old law
=>the rule does not apply when:
a. the intent, as shown on th ehistory of the enactment, is clear
that the amend-
ment is precisely to express the construction of the act
(because the language is not sufficiently sufficient
of such construction)
b. in the revision and codification of statutes, NEITHER
alteration in Phraseology nor the omission or
additon of words in th elatter statute will be held,
necessarily to alter the construction of the former act/acts
3.28 Adopted Statutes:
=>Gen Rule: Where local statutes are patterned after or copied from
those of another country, the decisions in the courts of such
country construing those laws are entitled to great weight in
the interpretation of such local statutes.
(Persuasive effect=SC of US *i.e. Rules of evidence drawn mainly from
american sources)
3.29 Limitations of Rule:
=> Gen Rule of Adopted statutes: The limitations are when:
a. the statute from where the former was patterned differs in some material aspects
b. the foreign construction is clearly erroneous or has not become settled
c. the adopting state has given the statute its own interpretation
(Philippine laws must necessarily be construed in accordance with the intention of
its lawmakers and such intention may be deduced from the language of each law and
the context of other legislation related thereto. *i.e. RP v. Meralco --serve
public interest)
3.30 Principles of Common Law:
=> not in force in this countryl; however, courts may properly resort to common
law principles in construing doubtful provisions of a statute, particularly where
such statute is modelled upon Anglo-American precedents.
=> when there is conflict between common law principles and statutory provisions,
latter prevails.
3.31 Conditions at time of enactment:
=>in th einterpretation of statute: consider the physical conditions of the country
(the courts should then place itself in the situation of the legislature and so
construe the statute as to give effect to such intent or meaning. *i.e. tax
exemption in crude petroleum)
3.32 History of the times:
statute should not be sonstrued in a spirit as if it were a protoplasm floating
around in space --examine the state of things existing when the statue was enacted
and interpret in th elight of the conditions obtaining.
=> subjects to inquiry: the evils intended to be remedied and the good to be
3.33 Generally:
=> Contemporary or PRACTICAL constructions are the constructions placed upon
statutes at the time of, or after , their enactment by the executive, legislature,
or judicial authorities as well as by those who , because of their involvement in
the process of legislation, are knowlegeable of the intent and purpose of the law,
such as draftsman and bill sponsor.
=> contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege --the
contemporary construction is strongest in the law.
3.34. Executive Construction
=> commonly understood and usually reffered to, as contemporaneous construction
=>by an executive or administrative office---the very first to interpret the law,
preparatory for its enforcement (in the form of rules and regulations, circulars,
directives, opinions,and rulings)
3 types of Executive interpretaion of the law:
1. construction by Executive or Administrative Officer
a. expressed---embodied in circular, directive or regulation
b. implied---by usage or practice
2. construction by Secretary of Justice (chief legal adviser of the gov't)
=>in the form of opinion issued upon request of administrative or
executive officials who enforce the law.
=>in the absence of judicial ruling on the matter and unless
reprobated by the President, the opinions of SJ are
generally controlling among administrative and
executive officials of the gov't.
3. interpretation handed down in an adversary proceedign in the forms of a rulign
by an executive officer exercising quasi-judiicial power.
3.35 Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction:
=> Generally, where there is doubt as to the proper interpretation of the statute,
the uniform construction placed upon it by the executive or administrative officer
charged with its enforcement will be adopted, if necessary to resolve a doubt. i.e.
Nestle Phil Inc v. CA;
=> the weigth that maybe given to a Contemporaneous Construction increases as the
period on which it is follwed and observed lengthens and its acceptability wides.
i.e. Philippine Sugar Central v. Collector of Customs

3.36 Weight accorded to usage and practice:

=>USAGE is the best interpreter of the law Optimus interpres rerum usus i.e. PCSO
draws and races