STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION De La Salle University College of Law First Semester, A.Y. 2019-2020 ‘Anna Teresita A. Marcelo (CHAPTER Il: AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION A. IN GENERAL ict Bu 11302 meee amide 1. Generally = chaper & 2 Tite aa a B96 HON EI @ 1. City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No, L-26100, February 28, 1969 wae ec Oneiey re poate per 3. When resort to title not authorized 4, Preamble 5. Illustration of rule Cases: 1. People v. Purisima, G.R, Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978 2. People v. Echavez, Jr GR. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980 6. Context of whole text cme: Se ee ene | 7. Punctuation marks cue: @ ON. Florentino v. PNB, GR. No. 8782, April 28, 1956 8. Illustrative examples 9. Capitalization of letters 10, Headnotes or epigraphs case @ "1. People y. Yabut, GR. No, 39085, September 27, 1933 11, Lingual text 12 Intent or sprit of law Case: @ 1. Torres v. Limjap, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931 13. Policy of law case: @®@ 1. Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Incorporated v, Lingad, G.R. No. L-26406, October 31, 1969 | 14, Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed ‘Cases: 8 1. Caltex (Phils), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966 2, Escribano v. Avila, GR. No. 30375, September 12, 197815. Dictionaries 16, Consequences of various constructions 17. Presumptions B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1, Generally 2, What constitutes legislative history cae GPT Ga, GR No. 1765, December 2,916 3. President's message to legislature 4. Explanatory note 5. Legislative debates, views and deliberations Case: 1. Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, GR. No, L-12727, February 29, 1960 2. Casco Phil. Chemical Co,, Ine. v. Gimenez, G.R. No, L-17931, February 28, 1963 Reports of commissions Prior laws from which statute is based ‘Change in phraseology by amendments Amendment by deletion 10. Exceptions tothe rule | 11, Adopted statutes as @ "1. United states. de Garman, G.R. No. 9144, March 27,1915 12, Limitations of rule cus: 1 Republic v. Maia Elec Co, GR. No, 141314, April, 2003 13. Principles of common law 14, Conditions at time of enaetment Case: 1. Commissioner of Customs v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc, GR. No. L-13067, December 29, 1959 | MQSS RL 15. History of the times i C. CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 1. Generally 2. Executive construction, generally; kinds of 3. Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction Case: 1. Nestle Philippines, Ine v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, November 13, 1991 4, Weight accorded to usage and practice Case:1. Manita Jockey Club, Ine. ». Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. 1-12727, February 29, 1960 5. Construction of rules and regulstions 6 Reasons why contemporaneous construction is given much weight 7, When contemporaneous construction disregarded 1. Koppel Philippines), Ine. v. Yateo, G.R. No. L-47673, October 10, 1946 '8, Erroneous contemporaneous construction does not preclude correction nor create rights; exceptions, Case: 1. Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956 9, Legislative interpretation 10, Legislative approval 11, Reenactment 12 Stare decisis Cases: 1. Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Yatco, G.R No, 47673, October 10, 1946 2. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue v. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd, G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014 3, Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez, GR. No. 137571, September 21, 2000 (CHAPTER IV: ADHERENCE 10, OR DEPARTURE FROM, LANGUAGE OF STATUTE, ‘A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION 1. Literal meaning or plain-meaning rule Case: 1, Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996 2, Dura ex sedex Cases: 1. People v. Amigo, G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 196 2. Aguila v. Court of First Instance of Betangas, G.R, No, L-48335, April 15, 1988 B, DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION 1. ‘Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise inoperative Cases: 1. Regaladov. Yulo, G.R. No. 42935, February 15, 1935 2. Santiago v. Commission on Eletions, C.R. No. 127525, March 19, 1997 2. What is within the spirit is within the law 3. Literal import must yield to intent Case: 1. Ty Sue v. Hord, G.R. No. 4495, January 14, 19094, Intent ofa statute is the law 5, Limitation of rule 6. Construction fo accomplish purpose 7 Mustration of rule Cases: Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996 2. United States v. Toribio, G.R. No. $060, January 26, 1910 5 Planters Association of Southern Negros, Inc, v. Ponferrada, G.R. No, 114087, October 26, 1999 8. When reason of law ceases, law itself ceases 9. Supplying legislative omission 10, Correcting clerical errors 11, Tilustation of rule 12, Qualification of rule Cases: 1. Lamp v. Phipps, GR. No. 7806, July 12, 1912 2 Casco Phil. Chemical Co, Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963 13, Construction to avoid absurdity Case: 1, Commissioner of Intemal Revenue y. TMX Sales, In., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992 21. paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996 14, Construction to avoid injustice Petecagettae: “L People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978 15. Construction to avoid danger to public interest Case: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945 16. Construction in favor of right and justice Case: ‘1. Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997 17, Surplusage and superfluity disregarded 18, Redundant words may be rejected 19. Obscure or missing word or false description may not preclude construction 20, Exemption from rigid application of law Case: 1. People v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970 21. Law does not require the impossible 22. Number and gender of words C. IMPLICATIONS 1, Doctrine of necessary implicationCases: Chua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992 2) Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, GR. No. 141386, ‘November 29, 2001 Remedy implied from a right Grant of juisction ‘What may be implied form grant of jurisdiction Grant of power includes incidental power Cases: ‘| Angarav. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936 3. Unbvenity of Santo Tomas v, Board of Tax Appeals, GR. No. L-5701, June 23, 1953 6. What is implied should not be agains the law 77, Authority to charge against public funds may not be implied 8. legality of act implied from prohibition 9, Exceptions to the rule 10. What cannot be done direetly cannot be done indieetly Case: 1. People v. Concepelon, G.R No, L-19190, November 29, 1922 11. There should be no penalty for compliance with law (CHAPTER V: INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES ‘A. IN GENERAL Generally Statutory definition Qualification of rule ‘Words construed in their ordinary sense General words construed generally Case: iL. Lo Cham v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-831, November 21, 1946 2 Getz Corp., Phils, Inc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-59823, August 21, 1982 6. Application of rule 7. Generic term includes things that arise thereafter Case: 1. Geotine v, Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-33500, August 30, 1971 8. Words with commercial or trade meaning 9. Words with technical or legal meaning 10, How identical terms in same statute construed 11, Meaning of word qualified by purpose of statute 12, Word or phrase construed in relation to other provisions Case: 1 Claudio v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 140560, May 4, 2000 13, Meaning of term dictated by context Case:1. United States v. Estapia, G.R. No, 12891, October 19, 1917 14, Where the law does not distinguish case 1, Guerrero v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000 15, Mustration of rule Cases: 1. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Coll. of int. Rev., G.R. No. L-9415, April 22, 1957 2) Tiu San v. Republic, G.R. No. L-7301, April 20, 1985 3, Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95832, August 10, 1992 44, Sanciangco v. Rofio, G.R. No. L-68709, July 19, 1985 16, Disjunctive and conjunctive words B. ASSOCIATED WORDS 1. Noscitur a sociis Cases: 7. Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945 2. Caltex (Phils), Inc v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 28, 1966 3. Chaves v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No, 202242, July 17, 2012 2. Application of rule Cases: 1. Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. Inc., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994 2) Carandang v. Santiago, ete. and Valenton, G.R. No. 1-8238, May 25, 1955 3, Bjusdem generis Case: 1. Murphy, Mortis & Co, v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 4608, October 16, 1908 4, Iustration of rule Cases: 1, Mutue v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970 2 CuUnjieng Sons, Ine. v. Board of Tax Appeals and Coll. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L~ £6296, September 29, 1956 3. Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No, 189755, July 4, 2012 4. Pelizioy Realty Corporation v. Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, April 10, 2013 5. Commissioner femal Revenev- Cour of Tax Apes, CR, No, 207885, July 15, 5. Limitations of ejusdem generis cases: 1, Colgate-Palmolive Phil. Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, J lo. , January 28, 1961 2. Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No, L-33471, January 31, 1972 6. Expressio untus est exclusio alterus( 1. Parayno v, Jovellanos, G.R. No. 148408, July 14, 2006 2. San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner 147749, June 22, 2006 loner of Intemal Revenue, GR. No, 3, Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Ine. v, Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2008, 7. Negative-opposite dos 8. Application of expressio unius rule Escribano v, Avila, G.R. No. 1-30375, September 12, 1978 Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976 Centeno v. Villaton-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994 ‘Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144573, September 24, 2002 De La Salle-Araneta University v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 221706, March 13, 2018 anavnnh 9. Limitations of rule Case: 1. Eseribano v. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978 10. Doctrine of casus omissus Case: 1, People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14128, July 31, 1962 11. Doctrine of last antecedent Case: 1. Florentino v. PNB, G.R No. L-8782, April 28, 1956 12. Mlustration of rule 13. Qualification of the doctrine 14, Reddendo singula singulis Case: 1. King v. Hemaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962 C. PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS AND SAVING CLAUSES. Provisos, generally Proviso may enlarge scope of law . Proviso as additional legislation ‘What proviso qualifies Exception tothe rule Repugnancy between proviso and main provision Exceptions, generally Exception and proviso distinguished lustration of exception SPN ABABEE Cases: 1. Manila Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Employees’ Assn., G.R. No. L-1206, October 30, 1947 2. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 199400081 1910 [FEHR BE eee ee nn 10. Saving clause CHAPTER Vi: STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES A. STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE 1. Generally Cases: 1, Catis v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 153979, February 9, 2006 2. Aquino v. Quezon City, G.R. No, 137534, August 3, 2006 2. Intent ascertained from statute as whole Case: 1. Gaanan . Intermediate Appellate Court, GR. No, L-69809, October 16, 1986 3, Purpose or context as controling guide 44. Giving effect to staute as a whole 5. Apparently conflicting provisions reconciled Cases: 1. Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996 2. Sajonas v, Court of Appeals, GR. No. 102377, July 5 1996 (6, Special and general provisions in same statute 7. Construction as not to render provision nugatory 8. Reason forthe rale 9. Qualification ofrle Case: 1. Cuyegkeng, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No, 1-16263, July 26, 1960 10, Construction as to give life to law cas: “l. Paras ¥. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996 11, Construction to avoid surplusage 12. Application of rule Case 1. Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976 13, Statute and its amendments construed together B, STATUTE CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO CONSTITUTION AND OTHER STATUTES 1. ‘Statute construed in harmony with the Constitution 2. Statutes in pari materia 3. How statues in pari materia construed Case 1. Corona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97356, September 30, 1992| | 44, Reasons why laws on same subject are reconciled Cases: 1. Bagatsing v, Ramirez, G.R. No, 41631, December 17, 1976 2. City of Naga v. Agna, G-R. No. L-36049, May 31, 1976 5, Where harmonization is impossible Case: 7. City of Naga v. Agna, G.R, No. L-36049, May 31, 1976 6. Illustration of the rule Cases: 1. King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962 2. Manila Jockey Club, Ine. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998 7. General and special statutes 8, Reason forthe rule 9, Qualifications ofthe rule 10, Reference statutes 11, Supplemental statutes 12. Reenacted statutes 15. Adoption of contemporaneous construction 14. Qualification ofthe rale 15. Adopted statutes