Statutory Construction by Atty.
Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
STATUTES
“An act of the Legislative as an organized body, expressed in the form, and passed according to the
procedure, required to constitute it as part of the law of the land.”
Distinguished from
Constitution- Fundamental law of the land, which establishes the character and basic principles of
the government. A constitution is a system of fundamental law for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute, and unalterable except by
the authority from which it emanates.
Ordinances - act passed by the local legislative body in the exercise of its law-making authority.
AN ORDINANCE SHOULD NOT CONTRAVENE A STATUTE
Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred on them by Congress as
the national law-making body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal.
Administrative orders- Enforceable order issued by a public authority (under the powers conferred to
it by one or more statutes) to an individual or an organization to take certain corrective action, or to
refrain from an activity.
Classification
According to duration: permanent vs. temporary
Permanent- one whose operation is not limited in duration but continues until repealed
Temporary - duration is for a limited period of time fixed in the statute itself or whose life ceases upon
the happening of an event.
Exc: law with sunset clause; emergency measures (Read Sec. 23(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution)
Case: Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949
WON CA 671 has already ceased when Congress met in session
Ruling: Yes, CA 671 ceased to operate when Congrees met in session.
Under the rules of statutory construction, in order to classify the duration of an act it’s intention has
to be sought for in its nature, the object to be accomplish, the purpose to be subserved, and its
relation to the Constitution.
In the case at bar, Commonwealth Act No. 671 was promulgated in accordance with Article VI of the
Constitution, which provides that any law passed by virtue thereof should be "for a limited period."
"Limited" has been defined to mean "restricted; bounded; prescribed; confined within positive
bounds; restrictive in duration, extent or scope." It is to be presumed that Commonwealth Act No.
671 was approved with this limitation in view. The opposite theory would make the law repugnant
to the Constitution, and is contrary to the principle that the legislature is deemed to have full
knowledge of the constitutional scope of its powers. The assertion that new legislation is needed to
repeal the act would not be in harmony with the Constitution either. If a new and different law were
necessary to terminate the delegation, the period for the delegation, it has been correctly pointed
out, would be unlimited, indefinite, negative and uncertain; "that which was intended to meet a
temporary emergency may become permanent law,"
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULES
Ratio Legis: Spirit of the law/Legislative Intent as the Primary Object
interpretation according to the spirit or reason of the law; reason of the law is its soul.
As expressed in the literal reading of the text
General rule: if statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation
Verba legis (literal or plain meaning rule)
If the language of the statute is plain and free from ambiguity, and express a single, definite, and
sensible meaning, that meaning is conclusively presumed to be the meaning which the legislature
intended to convey.
CASE:
Bustamante v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61
Issue: WON an illegally dismissed employee would be entitled of his computed backwages to which until
his actual reinstatement
Ratio: The clear legislative intent of the amendment in RA 6715 (Labor Code) is to give more benefits to
workers than was previously given them under the Mercury Drug rule or the 1st way
3 ways: 1 st – before Labor Code – to be deducted from the amount of backwages is the earnings
elsewhere during the period of illegal dismissal
2nd – Labor Code Art. 279 – the amount of backwages is fixed without deductions or qualifications but
limited to not more than 3 years
3rd – amended Art. 279 – full backwages or without deductions from the time the laborer’s
compensation was withheld until his actual reinstatement
IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663
WON monthly paid employees are excluded from the benefit of holiday pay?
No. It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and
unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says.
In the case at bar, Provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are
clear and explicit- it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits. In Policy
Instruction 9, the then Secretary of Labor categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for
daily paid employees, when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday
pay.
*While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statue by executive officers
whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such construction is so
erroneous, the same must be declared as null and void.
Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 138 SCRA 273
WON the Ministry of Labor is correct in maintaining that monthly paid employees are not entitled to the
holiday pay nor all employees who rendered work during said legal holiday are entitled to the premium
or overtime pay differentials?
Under the rules of statutory construction, When the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law
must be taken to mean exactly what it says.
1
In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are
clear and explicit it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefit.
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
Primary purpose: to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers
primary task of constitutional construction is to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers of the
constitution as expressed in its language
purpose of our Constitution: to protect and enhance the people’s interests
Doctrine of constitutional supremacy - if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution, that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative, or by the executive
branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force
or effect.
Constitution is a living, document, it evolves with time.
GR: constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and
the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself.
EXC. When it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
provisions of the constitution are self-executing.
In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing
rather than non-self-executing, unless the contrary is clearly intended.
*Non-self-executing provisions would give the legislature discretion to
determine when, or whether, they shall be effective, subordinated to the
will of the law-making body.
CASE:
JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
Petitioner is the owner of a land called Tatalon Estate in Quezon City. They
seek to nullify RA 2616 which directs the expropriation of two lots inside the estate.
Under Art. 8, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, “The Congress may authorize, upon payment
of just compensation, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and
conveyed at cost to individuals” Petitioner contends that said law is unconstitutional
because the provision in the Constitution refers to “lands” not landed estates.
ISSUE:
W/N RA 2616 is unconstitutional.
HELD:
No. Under the rules of constitutional construction, The fundamental principle of constitutional
construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people
adopting it.
In the case at bar, The Constitution clearly states that “land” not “landed estates” can be
expropriated. It has a broader scope, allowing the legislature to expropriate more types of
land. The law does not distinguish between different types regardless of how big or small it
may be, as long as there is a need to address a growing social problem such as inequality. The
Constitution 1935, authorized the broad power of the Congress. Consti responsive to future needs.
Words are to be given their ordinary meaning. Why? bc the consti is not a lawyer’s document unless
technical terms are employed.
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON NATURAL-BORN
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES GIVEN RETROACTIVE
EFFECT
Respondents declared Jose Ong Jr., elected representative of Northern
Samar, as a natural born Filipino citizen. Petitioners contend that based on the 1987
Constitution, Jose Ong, Jr. who was born on June 19, 1948 (during which the 1935
Constitution was operative), is not a natural born Filipino citizen having been born to
a Chinese father, Jose Ong Chuan and a Filipina mother Agrifina Lao.
ISSUE:
1. W/N people who have elected Philippine citizenship under the 1935
Constitution are to be considered natural born Filipino citizens.
2. W/N this provision should be applied retroactively.
HELD:
Yes. Under the doctrine of constitutional construction, primary task of constitutional construction is to ascertain
the intent or purpose of the framers of the constitution as expressed in its language in order to protect and
enhance people’s interest. In the case at bar, Sec. 1(3) Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that those born before
January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are
citizens of the Philippines has a retroactive effect as shown to the clear intent of the framers through the language
used. They need not perform any
act of “election” granted that his father was naturalized and declared a Filipino citizen by 1957, when he was only 9
years old. The provision in question must be applied retroactively since it is curative in nature. It is explicit that the
intent of the framers is to seek remedy to the the inequitable situation under the 1935 Constitution wherein
people born of Filipino fathers and alien mothers were considered natural born while children born of
Filipino mothers and alien fathers were not.
Rules of Constitutional Construction
Apply rules of Statutory Construction
Doctrines used in Sarmiento v. Mison is a good example in which the SC applied a number of rules of statutory
construction.
Case: Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
Petitioners question the validity of appointment of Respondent as
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs on the ground that it was not confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments. The Court favored the Respondent based on
express provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:
W/N the appointment of a Commissioner of Customs is subject to confirmation by the Commission on
appointments
HELD:
No. Under the doctrine of constitutional construction, primary task of constitutional construction is to ascertain the
intent or purpose of the framers of the constitution as expressed in its language in order to protect and enhance
people’s interest.
In the case at bar, Sec. 16 Art. 7 only provides for the appointment, by the President of “heads of executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution” with
the requirement of CA approval. Deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers intended
to strike a "middle ground" in order to reconcile the extreme set-ups in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. As
such, while the President may make appointments to positions that require confirmation by the Commission on
2
Appointments, the 1987 Constitution also grants her the power to make appointments on her own without the
need for confirmation by the legislature. (cassus omissus)
SC also considered the Historical background and as well as the Deliberations. 1935 subject to COA,
“horse trading” 1973 time of Marcos it was diminished.
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
If no ambiguity: Verba legis - Give ordinary meaning to the words
If the language of the statute is plain and free from ambiguity, and
express a single, definite, and sensible meaning, that meaning is
conclusively presumed to be the meaning which the legislature intended
to convey.
CASE:
Saguisag v. Ochoa, January 12, 2016, G.R. No. 212426
Issue: W/N President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities
Yes. Under the principles of constitutional construction, of paramount consideration is the plain
meaning of the language expressed in the Constitution, or the verba legis rule. It is presumed that the
provisions have been carefully crafted in order to express the objective it seeks to attain. It is
incumbent upon the Court to refrain from going beyond the plain meaning of the words used in the
Constitution. It is presumed that the framers and the people meant what they said when they said it,
and that this understanding was reflected in the Constitution and understood by the people in the
way it was meant to be understood when the fundamental law was ordained and promulgated.
In the case at bar,the phrase being construed is "shall not be allowed in the Philippines" and not the
preceding one referring to "the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops,
or facilities." It is explicit in the wording of the provision itself that any interpretation goes beyond the
text itself and into the discussion of the framers, the context of the Constitutional Commission's time
of drafting, and the history of the 1947 MBA. Without reference to these factors, a reader would not
understand those terms. However, for the phrase "shall not be allowed in the Philippines," there is no
need for such reference. The law is clear. No less than the Senate understood this when it ratified the
VFA.
SC says the PH already allowed them by having previous treaties with the US.
Tano v. Socrates, supra
Ordillo v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1992)
Exception: where technical terms are employed
Issue:
SC ruled regions two or more constituent provinces. provincies, cities,
Words are used in a broad sense to cover all possible contingencies
Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance
May the President may grant decrees?
Under the 1973 Consti, amendment no. 6 that gave Marcos Legislative Powers in ordinary times it is
not allowed. SC rules that pres. has authority under amendment no. 6 Marcos wanted to lift Martial
law earlier, Congress was impugnant Pres was not exercising military powers he was exercising
legislative.
Ratio being 1973: Martial law may be lifted earlier but we have to give to the president a legitimizing
function in case of emergency situations.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
Generally, constitutional provisions are self-executing
• RULE: constitutional provisions are self executing except when provisions themselves expressly
require legislations to implement them.
• SELF EXECUTING PROVISIONS- provisions which are complete by themselves and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary legislation.
• Just because legislation may supplement and add or prescribe a penalty does not render such
provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation.
• In case of Doubt? Construe such provision as self executing rather than non-self executing.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS •
Issue: w/n the sale at public bidding of the majority ownership of the Manila Hotel a qualified entity
can match the winning bid of a foreigner •
Held: resolution depends on whether the issue is self executing or not. The court ruled that the
qualified Filipino entity must be given preference by granting it the option to match the winning bid
because the provision is self executing. SC ruled the filipino first is self-executing because it doesnot
required legislative.
Even if it is self executing Congress may create and implementing law to clarify
“Or” vs. “And”
“And” means conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the
idea that the latter is to be added or taken along with the first.
“Or” is a disjunctive particle used to express as alternative or to give a
choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what
has already been said, and in such cases, means “in other words,” “to
wit,” or “that is to say.”
• And/or (implication) it means both
It means either
3
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
Statutory
Stare
Cayetano vConstruction
decisis- it is
monsod
(same bythat,
the doctrine
(and/or)
sex Atty.
marriage, Luardo
when
shall) court has once
• Terminology • Aidslaid down a• principle,
in statcon and apply it to all
Dicini (intrinsic Cabiles case
future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and RA 122
Possible Pointers
properties are the same.for Finals (UC LAW) Is it Doctrinal?
Sereno (quo warranto)
Stare Decisis follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. Matters already Binding effect of SC pronouncements on issues not raised by the parties but the court nonetheless
decided on the merits cannot be relitigated again and again. answer in the ratio decidendi.
“Stare decisis et non quieta movere” (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been
settled.
Case:
Marine mammals
Pines City Educational Center v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 (1993)
(retroactive
People v. Macadaeg, 91 Phil 410 (1952)
grp of words
related meaning, Limitations of stare decisis - Where the facts are dissimilar, then the principle of stare decisis does not
Ratio decidendi translates as the reason for the decision. The ratio decidendi of a case is not the actual
(1) ‘guilty’
When the law does not distinguish, apply.
decision, or order, like or ‘the defender is liable to courts should not distinguish
pay compensation’. The ratio
• The rule of stare decisis is not absolute. It does not apply when there is a conflict between the
decidendi establishes a precedent, which is the rule of law used by the judge or judges in deciding the
precedent and the law.
legal
Falcisproblem raised( by the facts of the case. This rule, which is an abstraction from the facts of the
c Civ Reg • The duty of the court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in violation of law in
case, is known as the ratio decidendi of the case.
same force
Reasonsexandmarriage,
justification given by the court
• Inferior courts as well as the legislature cannot abandon a precedent enunciated by the SC except by
shall)
way of repeal or amendment of the law itself
Obiter Dictum opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is not necessary to
CASE:
the decision of the case before it; not binding as a precedent. (Agpalo)
Koppel (Phils.), Inc. v. Yatco, 77 Phil 496 (1946)
Terminology
In a judgment, Aids in statcon
any statement of Dicini
law that(intrinsic
is not anaids)
essential part of the ratio decidendi is, strictly
Appellant's second assignment of error can be summarily disposed of. It is clear that the ruling of the
speaking, superfluous. Those statements are referred to as obiter dictum. This is Latin for ‘a word
Secretary of Finance, Exhibit M, was not binding upon the trial court, much less upon this tribunal,
said while travelling’ or ‘along the way’ (obiter dicta in the plural). Although obiter dicta statements
since the duty and power of interpreting the laws is primarily a function of the judiciary. (Ortua vs.
do not form part of the binding precedent, they can be persuasive authority if taken into
Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil., 440, 444.) Plaintiff cannot be excused from abiding by this legal principle,
consideration in later cases. That is, if the judge in the later case considers it appropriate to do so
nor can it properly be heard to say that it relied on the Secretary's ruling and that, therefore, the courts
Difference: Doctrinal weight, OD is not binding compared to Ratio Decidendi.
should not now apply an interpretation at variance therewith. The rule of stare decisis is undoubtedly
Sometimes, both has the same weight. Even the court is guilty.
entitled to more respect in the construction of statutes than the interpretations given by officers of the
administrative branches of the government, even those entrusted with the administration of particular
CASE: Delta Motors v. CA, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)
laws. But this court, in Philippine Trust Company and Smith, Bell and Co. vs. Mitchell(59 Phil., 30, 36),
The Court of Appeals likewise did not commit reversible error in deleting the phrase SIHI protested
said:
as obiter dictum.
. . . The rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect. Stability in the law, particularly in the
business field, is desirable. But idolatrous reverence for precedent, simply as precedent, no
An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law
longer rules. More important than anything else is that court should be right. . . .
which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it. 39 It is a remark made, or opinion
expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, "by the way," that is, incidentally or collaterally,
Albines Ruling in Consti
and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the
determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are
not binding as precedent.
The assailed phrase was indeed obiter dictum as it touched upon a matter not raised by petitioner
4
expressly in its petition assailing the dismissal of its notice of appeal. It was not a prerequisite in
disposing of the aforementioned issue. The body of the resolution did not contain any discussion on
such matter nor mention any principle of law to support such statement.
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Period in deciding cases –24months, 12months o The term ‘shall’ - imperative or optional
Marcelino v. Cruz
• Sec 15(1) Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution – the maximum period within which a case or matter shall be
decided or resolved from the date of its submission shall be o 24 months – SC o 12 months – lower
collegiate courts o 3 months – all other lower courts • Sec 15(1) Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution –
directory
• Reasons: o Statutory provisions which may be thus departed from with impunity, without affecting
the validity of statutory proceedings, are usually those which relate to the mode or time of doing
that which is essential to effect the aim and purpose of the legislature or some incident of the
essential act – thus directory o Liberal construction – departure from strict compliance would result
in less injury to the general public than would its strict application o Courts are not divested of their
jurisdiction for failure to decide a case within the 90-day period o Only for the guidance of the judges
manning our courts o Failure to observe said rule constitutes a ground for administrative sanction
against the defaulting judge. A certification to this effect is required before judges are allowed to
draw their salaries
Does it mean that the court can no longer decide when lapsed over the period ?
No, “must” was used but the consequence there is administrative liability.
WILLIAM F. PERALTA v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
FACTS:
William Peralta was prosecuted for the crime of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment
as defined and penalized by Act No. 65 of the National Assembly of the Republic of the Philippines.
The petition for habeas corpus is based on the contention that the Court of Special and Exclusive
Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 was a political instrumentality of the military
forces of Japan and which is repugnant to the aims of the Commonwealth of the Philippines for it
does not afford fair trial and impairs the constitutional rights of the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether the creation of court by Ordinance No. 7 is constitutional.
HELD:
Yes, it is constitutional. There is no room for doubt to the validity of Ordinance No. 7 since the
criminal jurisdiction established by the invader is drawn entirely from the law martial as defined
in the usages of nations. It is merely a governmental agency. The sentence rendered, likewise, is
good and valid since it was within the power and competence of the belligerent occupant to
promulgate Act No. 65. All judgments of political complexion of the courts during Japanese regime
ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the Islands, as such, the sentence which convicted the
petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid.
Laws including the Consti are prospective in nature by the time it takes effect again it cannot be
applied .
Filoteo vs Sandiganbayan
Doctrine: It is a fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. Petitioner’s
contention that Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution should be given retroactive
effect for being favorable to him as an accused, cannot be sustained.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
While Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal, what is being
construed here is a constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which is
obviously not a penal statute.
SC ruled the 1987 cannot be retroactive, when it happened you don’t have any right to request a n
appearance of a counsel because when we wrote his waiver of his right to counsel 1987 was still not
effective.
Aids
Intrinsic Aids
Language of the constitution itself
Interpret Constitution as whole- consider as well the context of the entire 1987 Consti
CASES: Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra (construction of Sec. 24, Art. VI, Constitution)
Extrinsic Aids
History or realities at the time of the adoption
Object sought to be accomplished
Proceedings/debates of the Convention may or may not be applied, entitled to weight but not conslusive.
CASE:
Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
Whether the term “agriculture” as used in the Constitution embraces raising livestock, poultry and swine
Transcript of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of “agriculture”
clearly shows that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and
poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
Government. Agricultural lands do not include commercial industrial, and residential lands
Held: it is evident in the foregoing discussion that Sec 2 of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural
lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising” in the definition of “commercial farms”
is INVALID, to the extent of the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the
agrarian reform program of the State
Montejo vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)
Whether the COMELEC has the power to transfer, by resolution, one or more municipalities from one
congressional district to another district within a province, pursuant to Sec 2 of the Ordinance appended
to the 1987 Constitution
The Court relied on the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission on “minor adjustments” which
refers only to the instance where a municipality which has been forgotten (ano ba ‘to…kinalimutan ang
municipality) is included in the enumeration of the composition of the congressional district and not to the
transfer of one municipality from one district to another, which has been considered a substantive or major
adjustment
5
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Changes in the phraseology
CASE: Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
Galman was set up. An investigation by AGRAVA Board, fact finding, determining the participation.
Issue: violation of right of self incrimination
SC ruled, examine the phraseoleogy the ight of self incrimination shall only be applicable in criminal
cases the change of phrase expands the application of the context. Even in legislative proceedings.
Galman v. Pamaran • the phrase” no person shall be x x x compelled in a criminal case be a witness
against himself” is changed in such a way the words criminal cases had been deleted simply means
that it is not limited to criminal cases only.
Previous laws and judicial decisions
CASE: Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 567 (1950), dissent of J. Ozaeta
Meer • Art. 8 Sec. 9 1935 Constitution – SC’s interpretation: “shall receive such compensation as may
be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office” – exempt from
income tax
• Legislative passed RA 590 Sec. 13 – “no salary whenever received by any public officer of the Republic
shall be considered exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be a
diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law”
• Source of confusion
• Violative of principle on separation of powers
• RA 590 Sec 13 – unconstitutional,Art 8 Sec. 9 1935 – repealed by Art. 15 Sec. 6 1973 Constitution –
“no salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or employee, including constitutional
officers, shall be exempt from payment of income tax” • Thus, judiciary is not exempt from payment
of tax anymore
Consequences of alternative (more than one) constructions it is not conclusive
Marcelino vs. Cruz, supra
Contemporaneous construction and writings
De Los Santos vs. Mallare , 87 Phil 289 (1950)
This case questions the legality of the Petitioner’s removal from the same
office which would be the effect of Respondent’s appointment. Petitioner contends
that under the Constitution, he can not be removed against his will and without
cause, citing Sec. 4, Art. 12 of the Constitution which reads: “No officer or employee
of the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for a cause provided by
law.” Respondent admits that the position of City Engineer “belongs to the
unclassified service”. According to Lacson vs. Romero, all officers or employees in the
unclassified service are protected by the above provision; but notes that there is a
difference between this case and the Lacson case. Sec. 2545 of the Revised
Administration Code authorizes the President to remove at pleasure any of the
officers enumerated therein, one of who is the city engineer. The two provisions are
repugnant and absolutel irreconcilable.
ISSUE: W/N the position of City Engineer is an unclassified service.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
HELD:
No. Reading Art. 12, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, it is clear that Sec. 4 protects
those appointed into the service that do not fall as any of the following: “policy-
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature”. The position of city
engineer is neither of the above-stated. This is confirmed by the enactment of C.A.
No. 177. As a contemporaneous construction, this Act affords an index to the
meaning of Civil Service as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the rules of construction inform us that the words used in construction
are to be given the sense they have in common use. The Court therefore held that
Petitioner De los Santos is entitled to remain in office as the City Engineer of Baguio
with all the emoluments, rights and privileges appurtenant thereto, until he resigns or
is removed for cause, and that Respondent’s appointment is ineffective in so far as it
may adversely affect those emoluments, rights and privileges
May be applied with the construction of the Congress
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946)
The Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress a report
regarding the national elections held in 1946. It stated that by reason of certain specified acts of
terrorism and violence in certain provinces, namely Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the
voting in said region did not reflect the accurate feedback of the local electorate.
During the session on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved referring to the report
ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been included among the
16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes and as proclaimed by the Commissions
on Elections – shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending the termination of
the protest filed against their election.
Petitioners then immediately instituted an action against their colleagues who instituted the
resolution, praying for its annulment and allowing them to occupy their seats and to exercise their
senatorial duties. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum resolution.
Issues of the Case:
Whether or Not the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes
cast in the said provinces are valid.
Whether or Not the administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose
Romero should be deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their
elections.
Held:
The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the
case was not a “contest”, and affirmed that it is the inherent right of the legislature to determine who
6
shall be admitted to its membership. Following the powers assigned by the Constitution, the question
raised was political in nature and therefore not under the juridical review of the courts
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Justices does not mean that their opinions are better, their decision making in the court is still a
number’s game.
Opinions are persuasive, the court may or may not.
The use of words “may” and “shall”
Use of the word “may” in the statute generally connotes a permissible
thing, and operates to confer discretion while the word “shall”
isimperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced.
The term “shall” may be either as mandatory or directory depending
upon a consideration of the entire provision in which it is found, its
object and consequences that would follow from construing it one way or
the other
Republic vs Sereno
‘may’ be removed from office o ‘may’ in this context may denote an option, hence, alternatives are
available.
Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy
the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose quo
warranto action against impeachable officers. The provision reads:
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public
officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment. (Emphasis ours)
It is settled rule of legal hermeneutics that if the language under consideration is plain, it
is neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic aids, like the records of the
constitutional convention, for its interpretation.165
The provision uses the permissive term "may" which, in statutory construction, denotes
discretion and cannot be construed as having mandatory effect.166 We have consistently
held that the term "may" is indicative of mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. The
grantee of that opportunity is vested with right or faculty which he has the option to
exercise.167 An option to remove by impeachment admits of an alternative mode of
effecting the removal.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
Quo warranto
The oft-cited origin of quo warranto was the reign of King Edward of England who questioned the local
barons and lords who held lands or title under questionable authority. After his return from his crusade
in Palestine, he discovered that England had fallen because of ineffective central administration by his
predecessor, King Henry III.126 The inevitable result was that the barons, whose relations with the King
were governed on paper by Magna Carta, assumed to themselves whatever power the King's officers
had neglected. Thus, King Edward deemed it wise to inquire as to what right the barons exercised any
power that deviated in the slightest from normal type of feudalism that the King had in mind. The
theory is that certain rights are regalia and can be exercised only upon showing of actual grants from
the King or his predecessor. Verily, King Edward's purpose was to catalogue the rights, properties and
possessions of the kingdom in his efforts to restore the same.
In the Philippines, the remedies against usurpers of public office appeared in the 1900s, through Act
No. 190.127 Section 197 of the Act provides for provision comparable to Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules
of Court:
Sec. 197. Usurpation of an Office or Franchise A civil action may be brought in the name of the
Government of the Philippine Islands:
1. Against person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises public civil
office or franchise within the Philippine Islands, or an office in corporation created by
the authority of the Government of the Philippine Islands;
2. Against public civil officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provisions of law,
works forfeiture of his office;
3. Against an association of persons who act as corporation within the Philippine Islands,
without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
Based from the foregoing, it appears that impeachment is proceeding exercised by the legislative, as
representatives of the sovereign, to vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the people in the hands
of the public officer by determining the public officer's fitness to stay in the office. Meanwhile, an action
for quo warranto, involves judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or
appointment of public official based on predetermined rules.
7
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Where the law does not distinguish
• Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus - where the law does not distinguish, courts
should not distinguish.
• Corollary principle: General words or phrases in a statute should ordinarily be accorded their
natural and general significance • General term or phrase should not be reduced into parts and one
part distinguished from the other to justify its exclusion from operation.
• Corollary principle: where the law does not make any exception, courts may not except something
therefrom, unless there a compelling reason to justify it.
• Application: when legislature laid down a rule for one class, no difference to other class.
Presumption: that the legislature made no qualification in the general use of a term.
Ramirez vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
1.) WoN the violation thereof refers to the taping of a communication other than a participant to the
communication or even to the taping by a participant who did not secure the consent of the party to
the conversations.?
a.) NO. Law did not distinguish whether the party sought to be penalized ought to be party other than
or different from those involved in the private communication. The intent is to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make any such recording, underscored by “any”
b.) Anti-Wire Tapping Law - Republic Act No. 4200 “Act to Prohibit & Penalize WireTapping and Other
related Violations of Private Communications and Other Purposes”
c.) “It shall be unlawful, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement…”
Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)
1.) WoN petitioner who was over 21 but below 22 was qualified to be an elective SK member?
a.) NO. The distinction is apparent: the member may be more than 21 years of age on election day or
on the day he registers as member of Katipunan ng Kabataan. But the elective official, must not be
more than 21 years of age on the day of election.
b.) Sec.424 of the LGC provides that a member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan must not be 21 yrs old.
c.) Sec. 428 as additional requirement provides that elective official of Sangguniang Kabataan must
not be more than 21 yrs. “on the day of election”.
Statutory definition
CASE: Victorias Milling vs. Social Security Commission, 114 SCRA 555 (1962)
“compensation” to include all renumerations, except bonuses, allowances & overtime pay
a.) Definition was amended: deleted “exceptions”
the amendment shows legislative intent that bonuses & overtime pay now included in employee’s
renumeration.
a. by virtue of express substantial change in phraseology, whatever prior judicial or executive
construction should give way to mandate of new law. A statutory definition of term containing a
general rule and an exception thereto is amended by eliminating the exception, the legislative
intent is clear that the term should now include the exception within the scope of the general rule.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
Latin Maxims
Doctrine of casus omissus
A person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted
intentionally.
The maxim operates only if and when the omission has been clearly established, and in such a case
what is omitted in the enumeration may not, by construction, be included therein.
Exception: where legislature did not intend to exclude the person, thing or object from the
enumeration. If such legislative intent is clearly indicated, the court may supply the omission if to do so
will carry out the clear intent of the legislature and will not do violence to its language
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. Rule may
be expressed in a number of ways:
Expressum facit cessare tacitum - what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied where a
statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters.
Exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis - A thing not being excepted must be regarded as
coming within the purview of the general rule
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius - The expression of one or more things of a class implies the
exclusion of all not expressed, even though all would have been implied had none been expressed;
opposite the doctrine of necessary implication
Application :
• Generally used in construction of statutes granting powers, creating rights and remedies, restricting
common rights, imposing rights & forfeitures, as well as statutes strictly construed.
Acosta v. Flor
Statute: specifically designates the persons who may bring actions for quo warranto, excludes others
from bringing such actions.
Escribano v. Avila
Statute: for libel, “preliminary investigations of criminal actions for written defamation xxx shall be
conducted by the city fiscal of province or city or by municipal court of city or capital of the province
where such actions may be instituted precludes all other municipal courts from conducting such
preliminary investigations
Peo. v. Lantin
Statute: crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio namely adultery, concubinage, seduction, rape
or acts of lasciviousness; crimes such as slander can be prosecuted de oficio.
GENERAL TERMS FOLLOWING SPECIAL TERMS
Ejusdem generis is a general rule of statutory construction that where general words
follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and
specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their
widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of
8
the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. But this
rule must be discarded where the legislative intention is plain to the
contrary.
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Presumptions
Of Constitutionality/Validity of Statutes
- In the absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in
question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every law
has in its favor.
- [GR] Statutes are presumed to be valid
-[EX] If it clearly appears that the statute violates the fundamental law (Constitution)
CASES:
NHA vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983) → SUPERSEDED by EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 29,
198
Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
Of the Beneficial Operation of Statutes
CASES:
CIR vs. S.C. Johnson and Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 (1999)
Sesbreno vs. CBAA, 270 SCRA 360 (1997)
Of Prospective Application
CASES:
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 317 (1997)
Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997)
Grego v. Comelec • A statute despite the generality of its language, must not be so construed as to
overreach acts, events, or matters which transpired before its passage • Statute: Sec.40 of the LGC
disqualifying those removed from office as a result of an administrative case from running for local
elective positions cannot be applied retroactively. • Held: It cannot disqualify a person who was
administratively removed from his position prior to the effectivity of said Code from running for an
elective position. • Rationale: a law is a rule established to guide actions with no binding effect until
it is enacted. • Nova constitution futuris formam imponere debet non praeteretis – A new statute
should affect the future, not the past
In favor of right and justice
CASE: Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)
Greg Bartelli raped his alleged niece 10 times and detained her in his apartment for 4 days
Court gave a favorable judgment of more than 1MPhp BSP rejected the writ of attachment alleging
Sec 113 of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 (applicable to transient foreigners)
Issue: whether the dollar bank deposit in a Philippine bank of a foreign tourist can be attached to
satisfy the moral damages awarded in favor of the latter’s 12-year-old rape victim
BSP did not honor the writ of attachment pursuant to RA6426 Sec 8 – “foreign currency deposits
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court,
legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever”
Court applied the principles of right and justice to prevail over the strict and literal words of the
statute.
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
The purpose of RA 6426 to exempt such assets from attachment: at the time the said law was enacted,
the country’s economy was in a shambles. but in the present time, the country has recovered
economically. No reason why such assets cannot be attached especially if it would satisfy a judgment to
award moral damages to a 12-year-old rape victim.
Against Absurdity
- Statutes must receive a sensible construction such as will give effect to the legislative intention so
as to avoid an unjust and absurd conclusion.
- Presumptions against undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure.
CASE: Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 (1974)
Issue: whether or not the suspension order against an elective official following an information for
violation of the AntiGraft law filed against him, applies not only to the current term of office but also to
another term if the accused run for reelection and won
Sec 13 of the Anti-Graft Law – suspension unless acquitted, reinstated!
Held: only refers to the current term of the suspended officer (and not to a future unknown and
uncertain new term unless supplemented by a new suspension order in the event of reelection) for if
his term shall have expired at the time of acquittal, he would obviously be no longer entitled to
reinstatement; otherwise it will lead to absurdities
Against Injustice
- The law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this never lies within the
legislative intent.
- Judges do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to the literal
command without regard to its cause and consequence.
legislature did not intend to work a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse of authority or
act of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to impose hardship on the other
- ART 10, CC; “In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.”
CASES:
Amatan vs. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995)
Rodrigo Umpad was charged with homicide
Pursuant to some provision in criminal procedure, he entered into a plea bargaining agreement, which
the judge approved of, downgrading the offense charge of homicide to attempted homicide to which
Umpad pleaded guilty thereto.
Fiat justicia, ruat coelum – let the right be done, though the heavens fall
Stated differently, when a provision of the law is silent or ambiguougs, judges ought to invoke a
solution responsive to the vehement urge of conscience
Against Implied Repeals
- In the absence of an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law
unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in terms of the new and old laws.
- REQUISITES:
9
a. Statutes must touch the same subject matter; and
b. There is irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy between the statutes.
 Statutory Construction by Atty. Luardo
Possible Pointers for Finals (UC LAW)
Credits to: Nwuybi and Tacio xo
This rule is commonly called the “ejusdem generis” rule, because it
teaches us that broad and comprehensive expressions in an act, such as
“and all others”, or “any others”, are usually to be restricted to persons or
things “of the same kind” or class with those specially named in the
preceding words. It is merely a tool of statutory construction resorted
to when legislative intent is uncertain.
Ejusdem Generis (literally: same kind or species; general word or phrase that follow an enumeration of
particular and specific words, which are of the class or kind, are restricted only to things or cases of the same
kind or class as those specifically mentioned)

10