SKINNY CASES

Case Digests and Scratch Notes

Home
About
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION II CHAPTER 3
Posted by kaye lee on 1:21 PM

CHAPTER 3:
AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION

A. IN GENERAL

Intrinsic aids - aids to construction are those found in the printed page of the
statute itself,
Extrinsic aids - Extraneous facts and circumstances outside the printed page.

Title
The title may indicate the legislative intent to extend or restrict the scope of
the law, and a statute couched in a language of doubtful import will be construed to
conform to the legislative intent as disclosed in its title. The rule that the title may
serve as a guide carries more weight in this jurisdiction because of the
constitutional requirement that every bill shall have one subject as expressed in the
title thereof.

When Resort to title not authorized

 When the text is clear it is improper to resort to its title to make it obscure.

Preamble
It is that part of the stature written immediately after its title which states the
purpose, reason or justification for the enactment of the law and usually expressed
in the form of “whereas” clauses. Though it is not, strictly speaking, a part of a
statute, it is the key to the statute for its sets out the intention of the legislature. It
may restrict what otherwise appears to be a broad scope of a law, or require, in the
commission of a crime, an element not clearly expressed in its text. It may express
the legislative intent to make the law apply retroactively, in which case the law has
to be given retroactive effect, so as to carry out such intent (PNB v. Office of the
President).

Context of Whole Text

Legislative intent should accordingly be ascertained from a consideration of
the whole context of the stature and not from an isolated part of particular
provision (Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. City of Cebu). The context may circumscribe
the meaning of a statute, it may give to a word or phrase a meaning different from
its usual or ordinary signification. In such a case, the meaning dictated by the
context prevails.
Every section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by
reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the
legislature. The intention of the legislature must be ascertained from the whole
text of the law and every part of the act is taken into view (Commissioner of
Internal Reveneu v. TMX Sales).

Punctuation Marks
A semi-colon - indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree
greater than that expressed by a comma; and what follows a semi-colon must have
a relation to the same matter which precedes it.
The comma and the semi-colon are both used for the same purpose – to
divide sentences and parts of sentences, the only difference is that semi-colon
makes the division a little more pronounced. They are not used to introduce a new
idea.
Punctuation marks are aids of low degree and can never control against the
intelligible meaning of written word.

Capitalization of Letters
Like punctuation marks, capitalization is an aid of low degree in the
construction of statute. Example: in a statute which provides that “ a will made
within the Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or country,
which is executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which he is
a citizen or subject, and which…” , in force at a time when the Philippines was still
a territory of the US, the fact that the words “state and country” are not capitalized
does not mean that the United States is excluded form the phrase “another state or
country.”

Headnotes, Headings or Epigraphs

Are convenient index to the contents of its provisions. However they are not
entitled too much weight, and inferences drawn therefrom are of little value and
they can never control the plain terms of the enacting clause, for they are not part
of the law. Secondary aids, such as headnotes or epigraphs, may be consulted to
remove, but not to create nor to limit or control the plain language of the law.

Lingual text
Philippine laws are officially promulgated either in English, Spanish or
Filipino, or either in two such languages. The rule is that, unless otherwise
provided, where a statute is officially promulgated in English and Spanish, the
English text shall govern, but in case of ambiguity, omission or mistake, the
Spanish may be consulted to explain the English text.

Intent or spirit of the law

 The intent or spirit of the law is the law itself. For this reason, legislative
intent or spirit is the controlling factor, the leading star and guiding light in the
application and interpretation of a statute.

Policy of law
The policy of the law once ascertained should be given effect by the
judiciary. One way of accomplishing this mandate is to give a statute of doubtful
meaning, a construction that will promote public policy.

Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed

The court much look to the object to be accomplished, the evils to be
remedied, or the purpose to be subserved, and should give the law a reasonable or
liberal construction which will best effectuate its purpose.

Dictionaries
While definition s given by lexicographers are not binding, courts have
adopted, in proper cases, such definitions to support their conclusion as to the
meaning of the particular words or terms used in a statute, esp where no strong
reason exists why their dictionary meaning should not be adopted in the
construction of the statute.

Consequences of various constructions

In construing a statute, the objective should always be to arrive at a
reasonable and sensible interpretation that is in full accord with the legislative
intent. As a general rule, a construction of a statute should be rejected that will
cause injustice or hardship, result in absurdity, defeat legislative intent or spirit,
preclude accomplishment of legislative purpose or object, render certain words or
phrases a surplusage, nullify the statute or make any of its provisions nugatory.

Presumptions
 Include: presumptions in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, of its
completeness, of its prospective operation, of right and justice, of its effective,
sensible, beneficial and reasonable operation as a whole, as well as those against
the inconsistency and implied repeal, unnecessary changes in law, impossibility,
absurdity, injustice and hardship, inconvenience, and ineffectiveness.
B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Generally
It is a well settled rule of statutory construction that where a statue is
susceptible of several interpretations or where there is ambiguity in its language,
there is no better means of ascertaining the will and intention of the legislature than
that which is afforded by the history of the statute.

What constitutes legislative history

If the statute is based on, or is a revision of, a prior statute, the latter’s
practical application and judicial construction, the various amendments it
underwent, and the contemporary events at the time of its enactment form part of
its legislative history. If the statute is borrowed from, or modeled upon, Anglo-
American precedents or other foreign sources, its history includes the history of
such precedents, and for a proper construction of the statue sought to be construed,
it is oftentimes essential to review such legislative history and find authoritative
guide for its interpretation from such precedents, their practical application , and
the decisions of the courts construing and applying such precedents in the country
of origin.

President’s message to legislature

The president’s message indicates his thinking on the proposed legislation which,
when enacted into law, follows his line of thinking on the matter.

Explanatory Note
 Where there is ambiguity in a statue or where a statute is susceptible of more
than one interpretation, courts may resort to the explanatory note to clarify the
ambiguity and ascertain the purpose or intent of the statute

Legislative Debates, views and deliberations

Courts may resort to the legislative deliberations in the legislature on a bill which
eventually was enacted into law to ascertain the meaning of its provisions. Thus,
where there is doubt as to what a provision of a statute means, that meaning which
was put to the provision during the legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill
may be adopted.
However the views expressed by the legislators during the deliberation of a bill as
to the bill’s purpose, meaning, or effect are not controlling in the interpretation of
the law.
The opinions expressed by legislators in the course of debates concerning the
application of existing laws are not also given decisive weight, especially where
the legislator was not a member of the assembly that enacted said laws.

Reports of commissions
In the codification of laws, commissions are usually formed to compile and collate
all laws on particular subject and to prepare the draft of the proposed code

Prior law from which statute is based

In ascertaining the intention of the lawmaker, courts are permitted to look to
prior laws on the same subject and to investigate the antecedents of the statute
involved.

Change in phraseology by amendments

The change in phraseology by amendment of a provision of law indicates a
legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision from that it originally had.
In construing the amended provision, courts may investigate the history of the
provision to ascertain legislative intent as to the meaning or scope of the amended
law.

Amendment by deletion
As a rule, the amendment by deletion of certain words or phrases in a statute
indicate that the legislature intended to change the meaning of the statute, for the
presumption is that the legislature would not have made the deletion had the
intention been not to effect a change in its meaning. The amended statute should
accordingly be given a construction different from that previous to its amendment.

Exceptions to the rule

The rule that an amendment of a statute indicates a change in meaning from
that which the statute originally had applies only when the deleted words or
phrases are not surplusage or when the intention is clear to change the previous
meaning of the old law. The rule does not apply where the intent, as shown by
history of the enactment, is clear that the amendment is precisely to plainly express
that construction of the act prior to its amendment because its language is not
sufficiently expressive of such construction.

Adopted statute
The general rule is that where local statutes are patterned after or copied
from those of another country, the decisions of the courts in such country
construing those laws are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of such local
statutes. The reason is that the legislature, in adopting from another country a
statute which has previously received judicial construction in that country, is
deemed to have adopted the statute with such construction and practical application
in the country of origin.
The adopted statutes are thus generally construed in accordance with the
construction given similar statutes in the US, unless special reasons, local customs,
and practice require otherwise.

Limitations to the rule

 The general rule that a statute which has been adopted from that of a foreign
country should be construed in accordance with the construction given it in the
country of origin is not without limitations.

Principles of common law

While common law as known in Anglo-American jurisprudence is not in
force in this country, save only insofar as it is founded on sound principles
applicable to local conditions and is not in conflict with existing laws, nevertheless
many of the principles of the common law have been imported into this jurisdiction
as a result of the enactment of laws and establishment of institutions similar those
of the United States. Courts may thus properly resort to common law principles in
construing doubtful provisions of a statute, particularly where such statute is
modeled upon Anglo-American precedents. However there is a conflict between a
common law principle and a statutory provision, the latter prevails.

Conditions at time of enactment

In enacting a statute, the legislature is presumed to have taken into account
the existing conditions of things at the time of its enactment. For this reason, it is
proper, in the interpretation of a statute to consider the physical conditions of the
country and the circumstances then obtaining which must of necessity affect its
operation in order to reach an understanding as to the intent of the legislature, or as
to the meaning of the statute.

History of times
The court may look to the history of the times, examine the state of things
existing when the statue was enacted, and interpret it in the light of the conditions
obtaining. Generally, it may be said that in determining the meaning, intent and
purpose of a law or constitutional provision, the history of the times out of which it
grew and to which it may be rationally supposed to bear some direct relationship,
the evils intended to be remedied, and the good to be accomplished are proper
subjects of inquiry.
C. CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION

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 those who, because of their involvement in the
process of legislation, are knowledgeable of the intent and purpose of the law, such
as draftsmen and bill sponsors.
Contemporanea exposition est optima et fortissima in lege--- the contemporary
construction is strongest in law.

Kinds of Executive Construction, generally

What is commonly known as contemporaneous construction is the
construction placed upon the statute by an executive or administrative officer
called upon to execute or administer such statute. Accordingly, executive and the
administrative officers are generally the very first officials to interpret the law,
preparatory to its enforcement.
Three type of executive interpretations:
(1) construction by an executive or administrative officer directly called to
implement the law, expressed or implied, expressed such as circular, directive, or
regulation;
(2) by the Secretary of Justice in his capacity as the chief legal adviser of the
government, in the form of opinions issued upon the request of the executive
(3) interpretation handed down in an adversary proceeding in the form of a ruling
by an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial power.

Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction

Generally speaking, where there is doubt as to the proper interpretation of a
statute, the uniform construction placed upon it by the executive or administrative
officer charged with its enforcement will be adopted, if necessary to resolve the
doubt. In the absence of error or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the
legislative enactment creating or charging a governmental agency, the action of the
agency would not be disturbed by the courts. As aptly said in a case: “the principle
that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the executive officers of the
government, whose duty it is to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should
ordinarily control the construction of the statute by the courts, is so firmly
embedded in our jurisdiction that no authorities need be cited to support it.”

Weight accorded to usage and practice

-Optimus interpres rerum usus- the best interpreter of the law is usage

Construction of rules and regulations

An administrative agency has the power to interpret its own rules and such
interpretation becomes part of the rules.

Reasons why contemporaneous construction is given much weight

(1)it comes from the particular branch of government called upon to
implement the law thus construed.
(2) executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all
the considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have
formed an independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon.
(3) there are frequently the drafters of the law they interpret. In short, due to
their competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment. And there is a
need for certainty and predictability in the law.

When contemporaneous construction disregarded

 It is neither controlling nor binding upon the court. The court may disregard
the law CC, where there is no ambiguity, where the construction is clearly
erroneous, where strong reason to the contrary exists, and where the court has
previously given the statue a different interpretation. If it is erroneous then should
be declared null and void.

Erroneous contemporaneous construction does not preclude correction nor create

rights; exceptions
The error may be corrected when the true construction is ascertained. As a
rule, an erroneous CC creates no vested right on the part of those who relied upon,
and followed such construction. A vested right may not arise from a wrong
interpretation of a law by an administrative or executive officer whose primary
duty is to enforce, and not to construe, the law. And the government is never
estopped by the mistake or error on the part of its agents.
The rule is not absolute, but admits exceptions in the interest of justice and
fair play. (true in tax cases)

Legislative interpretation
The fact that the interpretation of a statue is primarily a judicial function
does not preclude the legislature form indicating its construction of a statute it
enacts into law. It may thus provide in the statute itself an interpretative or
declaratory clause prescribing rules of construction or indicating how its provisions
should be construed. It may also define the terms used in a statute, enact a
declaratory act construing a previous law or pass a resolution indicating its sense or
intention as to given statute. However the legislature cannot limit or restrict the
power granted to the courts to interpret the law. While their interpretation is not
controlling, the courts may resort to it to clarify ambiguity in the language thereof.
It is entitled of respectful consideration.

Legislative approval
The legislature may by action or inaction, approve or ratify such
contemporaneous construction. It may be manifested in many ways: as when it
reenacts a statute previously given a CC, uses words similar in their import to the
language of an earlier law which has received a practical application or amend a
prior statute without, in the amending act, providing anything which would restrict,
change or nullify the precious CC placed upon the prior law. It may be also shown
by the legislature appropriating money for the officer designated to perform a task
pursuant to an interpretation of a statute. Where the legislature has notice or
knowledge of a construction placed upon a statue by an executive officer charged
with its implementation, without repudiating it, its silence is acquiescence
equivalent to consent to continue practice. There is an implied approval by its
failure to change a longstanding administrative construction.
Ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur- legislative ratification is equivalent to a
mandate

Reenactment
The most common act of legislative approval of CC of a state is by
reenactment. The principle is the reenactment of a statute, previously given CC, is
a persuasive indication of the adoption by the legislature of the prior construction.
It must be reenacted and not merely amended and the CC thereof must be in the
form of regulation to implement the law and duly published and not merely
administrative ruling embodied in a letter to a specified individual and not
published. It is accorded with greater weight and respect than the CC of the statute
before its ratification. The reason for such is: there is an agreement between two
departments – the legislative and executive— to the meaning of the law, and it
devolves upon the judiciary to give it deferential treatment.

Stare decisis
The decision of the SC applying or interpreting a statute is controlling with
respect to the interpretation of that statute and is of greater weight than that of an
executive or administrative officer in the construction of other statutes of similar
import. The reason: the SC’s interpretation forms part of the statue itself and of the
legal system and comes form that branch of government entrusted with the duty to
construe or interpret the law.
 Stare decisis et non quieta movere- one should follow past precedents and
should not be disturbed what has been settled. The rule rests on the desirability of
having stability in the law. Interest republicae ut sit finis litium—the interest of the
state demands that there be an end to litigation.
For a ruling of SC be under the doctrine of stare decisis, it must be a direct
ruling and not through sub silencio and obiter dictum.
The facts of the precedent and the case to which it is applied should be the
same for stare decisis to be applied.
The rule of stare decisis is not absolute. The principle does not blind
adherence to precedents. If it is found contrary to law, must be abandoned. The
principle should not apply when there is conflict between the precedent and the
law. However only the SC itself can change or abandon a precedent enunciated by
it, neither by inferior court, nor by legislature unless they repeal or amend the law
itself. If the inferior courts feel that the precedent is against their way of reasoning,
they may state their personal opinion but still they are bound to follow it.
Categories: Statutory Construction, Statutory Construction Case Digests