Beast Statcon Digests for 10/3/2015 meeting

A. Literal Interpretation

1. Verba legis

Risos-Vidal vs. Comelec and Pres. Estrada

Former President Estrada was pardoned by President Macapagal-Arroyo, with the condition that Estrada no longer seek
public office. He ran for President once more in 2010, but lost. He signified his intention to run for mayoralty in the city of
Manila for the 2013 elections. Petitioner questioned his qualification to run, filing for his disqualification on Jan. 25, 2013, on
the ground that Estrada had been convicted of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual Absolute Disqualification. The COMELEC
dismissed her petition, and hence, the case. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari based on Rule 64 and 65 of the Rules of
Court, accusing the COMELEC of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in ruling that Estrada
should be allowed to run. Petitioner argues that Estrada's pardon is conditional, because the 3 rd “Whereas” clause states that
Estrada has committed to not run for publoc office again. Article 36 of the RPC says that pardon shall not restore the right to
hold public office, unless it was expressly allowed in the pardon. The Court ruled in favor of Estrada. A preamble does not
confer rights or obligations. The pardon is clearly absolute in nature, and it restore his right to hold public office.
Where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the preamble can neither expand nor restrict its
operations much less prevail over its text.

Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) vs. Civil Service Commission

Petitioner seeks the reversal of the CA's affirmation of the CSC's invalidation of Arsenio de Guzman's appointment as
Financial Management Specialist IV at TIDCORP. The CSC director Atty. Bugtong denied him on the basis of the position not
being in the CSC's Index of Occupational Service. The Director IV of TIDCORP argues that Section 7 of RA 8494 or the
revised charter of TIDCORP gives its board final discretion to appoint its personnel, any contrary provision of law
notwithstanding. The Court ruled in favor of TIDCORP. Under the rules of statutory construction, if a statute is plain,
clear, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This
plain-meaning rule or verba legis is derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention)
and rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its
intent and preclude the court from constuing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the
words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the
statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. In this case,
the TIDCORP charter should be respected by the CSC, even if it has jurisdiction over the TIDCORP's decisions.

2. Dura lex sed lex

B. Departure from Literal Interpretation

1. Statutes must be capable of interpretation

2. Ratio legis est anima
3. Literal import must yield to intent
4. Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex