STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION MODULE 5 SUMMARY

Construction and Interpretation

I. Definition
a. Construction
i. “Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding the
meaning and intention of the authors of the law, where that intention is
rendered doubtful by reason of ambiguity in its language or of the fact that
the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law” (Caltex v. Palomar,
G.R. No. 19650, Sept. 29,1966.)
ii. Construction is the deepening the intention of the authors of the law and
clearing any ambiguity in its language.
II. Purpose of Construction
a. Sole objective and purpose of Statutory Construction is to determine the true legal
intent of the legislature.
b. “The purpose of all rules or maxims in interpretation is to discover the true intention
of the law. They are only valuable when they subserve this purpose.” (Baguio v.
Marcos, G.R. No. 26100, Feb 28,1969.)
III. When is Construction resorted to?
a. “…Where the language of the law is vague and ambiguous, an interpretation is
thereof resorted to…A law is deemed ambiguous when it is capable of being
understood by reasonably well-informed persons in either two or more senses.”
(Garcia v. Social Securities Commissions, G.R. No. 170735, Dec 17, 2007.)
IV. Executive Construction
a. Executive Construction is when an agency of the government creates guidelines to
fill in the gaps of the law. It is also the interpretation that the agency assigned to the
law uses in order for them to carry out the duty given to them.
b. “Accordingly, in considering a legislative rule a court is free to make three
inquiries: (i) whether the rule is within the delegated authority of the administrative
agency; (ii) whether it is reasonable; and (iii) whether it was issued pursuant to
proper procedure.” (Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corp., G.R. No.
179579, February 1, 2012)
c. “When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it ‘makes; a
new law with the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion
or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets pre-existing law.” (Victorias
Milling Co Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-16704, Mar. 17,1962.)
V. Judicial Construction
a. Basis
i. The duty to interpret and construe a statute belong to the judiciary. The
Supreme Court construes the applicable law in controversies which are ripe
for judicial resolution.
ii. The Supreme Court may change or overrule its previous construction of a
statute. It can and has done so by amending or repealing the statute, the
 consequences of which is that the previous judicial construction of the
statute is modified or set aside accordingly.
iii. Rulings of the Supreme Court are part of the Philippine Legal System. The
Supreme Court’s decisions have effect on future decisions and give basis
for future cases.
b. Extent
i. “All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en
banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be
heard en banc” (Article 8, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution)
ii. “Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least three of such Members.” (Article 8,
Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution)
iii. The court does not interpret the law in a vacuum, it construes the law as it
decides the concrete and controverted cases based on the facts and the law
involved.
iv. “While the legislature may indicate its construction of a statute in the form
of a resolution or declaratory act, it cannot preclude the courts from giving
the statute a different interpretation.” (Edencia v. David, G.R. No. L-6355-
56, Aug 31, 1953.)
c. Limitations
i. The Courts may construe once there is an ambiguity in the statue. They
cannot construe when the law is clear. The literal meaning of the law is
applied if it is clear, plain and free from ambiguity.
ii. The Rulings of the Supreme Court has no retroactive effect. “Laws shall
have no retroactive effect unless provided” (Article 4 of the Civil Code)
iii. Courts cannot enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein situations
not provided nor intended by the lawmakers.
iv. Courts do not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice, or expediency of
legislation, for it is not within their province to supervise legislation and
keep it within the bounds of propriety and common sense.
VI. Requisites for Judicial Review
a. “…The power of judicial review is limited by four exacting requisites, viz.: (a)
there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners must possess locus
standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case.”
(Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R.
Nos. 178552, 178554, 178581, 178890, 179157 & 179461, October 5, 2010.)
i. Case of Controversy
ii. Locus Standi or right to be Heard
iii. Must be raised at earliest opportunity
 iv. Lis Mota or Reason for Suit
VII. Effects of Unconstitutionality
a. “The general rule vis-a-vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it
confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
(Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95832, August 10, 1992.)
b. "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders
and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws of the
Constitution." (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corp., G.R.
Nos. 187485, 196113 & 197156, October 8, 2013.)