Statutory Construction

- It is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intentions of the authors
of the law with respect to its application with a given case, where that intention is rendered
doubtful. Amongst others, by the reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided
for in the law

Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas

Rule: To the effect that a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face need not be interpreted;
otherwise, the rule is that only statutes with an ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be the subject of
statutory construction.

Although it is true under proper circumstances that some aid may be derived or legislative construction
of statutes, it is ultimately the court’s province and duty to construe laws enacted by the legislature.
Moreover, statutes are considered to have been enacted with a view to their interpretation according to
the settled maxims and principles of statutory interpretation.

The act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an invasion of the will
defined and established province and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

Endencia v. David

Rule: The Supreme Court has the constitutional duty not only of interpreting and applying the law in
accordance with prior doctrines but also of protecting society from the improvidence and wantonness
wrought by needless upheavals in such interpretations and applications.

Interest re publicae ut finis sit litium – The interest of the State demands that there be end to litigation.

Silva v. Cabrera

Rule: Court’s primary duty to apply the law

- Where the law is clear, neither this court nor the commission may on grounds of convenience.
Expediency or prompt dispatch of cases, disregard the or circumvent the same. The remedy lies
with the legislature if it be convinced of the necessity of amending the law.

People v. Mapa

Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is
impossible or inadequate without them

Cebu Portland Cement v. Municipality of Naga

Where the language of the law is clear and the intent of the legislature is equally plain, there is no room
for interpretation and construction of the statute.’
United Christian Missionary Society v. SSS

The first and fundamental duty of the Courts is the application of the law according to its express terms,
interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible. No process of
interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law peremptorily calls for
application. Where a requirement or condition is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion
is left to the Judiciary.

People vs Quijada

When the provision of the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be applied without
attempted or strained interpretation.

Index animi sermo est – speech is the index of intention

Ala Mode Garments vs NLRC

Courts have no power to change the law

- Court has no power to change, but only to interpret the law as it stands at any given time.

Enrile vs Salazar

The court does not legislate in the instant case. The Court merely applies and gives effect to the
constitutional guarantees of social justice.

Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court

Ubi lex on distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos – When the law makes no distinction, we (this Court)
also ought not to recognize any distinction.

Courts are not authorized to distinguish where the law makes no distinctions.

BDP vs Equitible bank

Same with Phil Brit v. IAC

Macabenta vs Davao

Legislative findings of fact bind the courts

- It is not the court’s duty to examine the validity of legislative findings articulated in the Anti-
Subversion Law.

People v. Ferrer

Mutatis Mutandis – The necessary changes having been made

(used when comparing two or more cases or situations) making necessary alterations while not affecting
the main point at issue.
Paras v. Commissions on Elections

As to words, phrases, and provisions

- Presumptions as to the words, phrases, and provisions used in statutes include presumptions
that the legislature understood their meaning and intended their usage, and used the m in their
ordinary and common meaning, and that every word, sentence, or provision has a purpose and
is to be given some effect. (82 C.J.S. Statutes 316)
- Statures are to be interpreted in their ordinary common accepted usage.

Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v NLRC

When the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal. Their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says.

People v. Nazarrio

Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper frienda est, ut evitatur inconveniens et absurdum - Where there is
ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc.

Intent ascertained frome the whole statute

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must give effect to the general legislative intent
that can be discovered from or is unraveled by the four corners of the statute, and in order to discover
said intent, the whole statute, and not only a particular provision thereof, should be considered.

Manila Lodge No. 761 v CA

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the whole statute; words and phrases and
clauses should not be studied in isolation or detached from the rest.

Aisporma v. CA

Same with Manila Lodge

Director of Lands v. Abaja

Other guides to intent

- Where the statutory language is vague, ambiguous or uncertain, the court may look to the
subject matter of the act, or to its expediency, occasion and necessity, or reasonable practicality,
as well as to the remedy provided, the condition of the country to be affected the consequences
following upon the enactment, and logic and sound economic principles. (82 C.J.S. Statutes 322)

Construction to effect Legislative Purpose

- In construing a statute, the court must look the object to be accomplished, the evils and
mischief sought to be remedied, or the purpose to be subserved, and place on it’s a reasonable
or liberal construction which will best effect its purpose rather than one which will defete it. (82
C.J.S Statutes 322)
- The intention of an act is to be sought for in its nature, the object to be accomplished, the
purpose to be sub served, and its relation to the Constitution. The words “limited period” as
used in the Constitutional are beyond question intended to mean restrictive in duration.

Litex Employees Association v. Eduvala

Justice Frankfurter – The generating consideration is that legislation is more than composition. It is an
active instrument of government which, for purposed of interpretation, means that laws have ends to
be achieved.

Liberal Construction period – 30 days within which to file application for exemption is in accord with that
purpose.

Casela v. Court of Appeals

If there is ever any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirt of
the law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose discernible in
such Codal provision would not be attained.

Matabuena v Cervantes

“The policy of the law which embodies a deeply-rooted notion of what is just and what is right would be
nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with disabilities would be attended with
benefits.”

“The spirit of the law rather than its literal reading should have guided COMELEC in resolving the issue of
last-minute withdrawal and substitution of other persons as candidate”

Chua v Civil Service Commission

Matters Omitted

- As a general rule, the court cannot supply omissions in a statute.

Meaning of Language.

1. In General
a. General Considerations
The words and phrases used in a statute should be given the meaning intended by the
lawmakers.
b. Natural and Commonly Understood Meaning
- As a general rule words used in a statute are to be given their usual and commonly
understood meaning unless it is plain from the statute that a different meaning is intended.
-The word “principally” is used in the codal provision is not equivalent to “exclusively” so
that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child should choose to use the
surname of its mother to which it is equally entitled.

Maxims:

Necessitate Legis – because of the need of the law or because of a legal requirement

In eo quod plus sit, simper inest et minus – the greater less is always included or the less is included in
the greater

Alfon v Republic

It is always well settled that the word “may: is merely permissive and operates to confer discretion upon
a party under ordinary circumstances. The term “may be: connotes possibility; it does not connote
certainty. “May” is an auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity permission or possibility.

Capati v. Ocampo

The word used in the law must be given its ordinary meaning. Hence the phrase “may be promulgated
should not be construed to mean “shall” or “must”

National Housing Corporation v Juco

“every” means each one of a group, without exception It means all possible and all taken one by one.

The statute relates “previous” to the date of conviction, not to the date of the commission of the crime.

Diokno v Rehabilitation Finance Corp.

It is a basic rule of Statutory Construction that a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or
reflected in the very language of the statute cannot be placed therein.

Javellana v Kintanar
The word “term” in a legal sense means a fixed and definite period of time which the law describes that
an officer may hold an office. The term of office is the period during which an office may be held. Upon
the expiration of the officer’s term, unless he is authorized by law to hold over, his rights, duties and
authority as a public officer must ipso facto cease.

Tanada vs Tuvera

Associated Words

In accordance with the rule or maxim of noscitur a solic doubtful words and phrases used in statutes are
construed in connection with, and their meaning is ascertained by reference to, the words and phrases
with which they are associated.

In the Postal Law, the term “gift enterprise” is used in association with the word “lottery.” Under the
principle of noscitur a sociis. The term must be accorded no other meaning that consistent with the
nature of the word associated therewith. If lottery is prohibited only if it involves a consideration, so
almost must the term “gift enterprise” be so construed.

Caltex v Palomar

Same concept with Tanada v Tuvera

San mig v NLRC

Same concept with Tanada v Tuvera noctis a solic