Search

Statutory
Download Construction 
Latin Maxims

Uploaded by Gillian Alexis

 60% (5) · 4K views · 4 pages

Document Information 
Latin Maxims in Statutory Construction
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Download
Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
 

Share this document

Statutory Construction Finals advisedly, and to have

expressed its intent by the
Chapter 15
use of such words as are
Facebook Twitter found in the statute.

Three Maxims Employed as

Aids to Construe Constitutional


)ura lex sed lex  (the law may be
Provisions
harsh, but that is the law)
• Verba leis  (plain meaning • #hen the court is clear, there
Email
rule) – whenever possible,
the words used in the
is no other recourse but to
apply it regardless of its
Constitution must be given
perceived harshness.
their ordinary meaning •  !he law is the law, and if 
Did you find this document useful?
except where technical terms
are employed.
there is a need to change,
amend or repeal it, that may
• !atio leis est anima   (the
be done through legislative
reason of the law is its soul) –
process, not by $udicial
where there is ambiguity, the
decree.
words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of  Absoluta sentential expositore
the framers non indient  (when language of 
Is this content
•
inappropriate?
"t mais Report
valeat #uam this
lawDocument
is clear, no explanation is
pereat  (that construction is re%uired)
to be sought which gives
• #hen the law is clear, what
eect to the whole of the
the courts should do is to
statute – its every word) – the
apply it, not interpret it.
Constitution is interpreted as
Construction and
a whole
interpretation come only
after it has been
demonstrated that
$atin Maxims% Their Meanin
application is impossible or
and &mportance
inade%uate with them. t is
not within the power of a
court to set aside the clear
Verba $eis 'Plain Meanin and explicit mandate of a
!ule( statutory provision.
• Also called the Cardinal E*usdem eneris (of the same
Canon "ind of specie)
• f statute is clear, plain and
free form ambiguity, it must • #here a general word or
be given its literal meaning phrase follows an
and applied without enumeration of particular
attempted interpretation. and speci&c words of the
•  !he legislature is presumed same class, the general word
to "now the meaning of the or phrase is to be construed
words, to have used words to include, or to be restricted

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million

titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

to, persons, things, or cases

a"in to, resenting, or of the
$imitations of 'xpressio unius est
same "ind or class as those
exclusion alterius
speci&cally mentioned.
• #here general words follow • oes not apply if the
an enumeration of persons or
enumeration was not
things, by words of a
intended to be exclusive*
particular meaning, such • oes not apply if the
general words are not to be enumeration is by way of 
construed in their widest example or to remove double
extent, but are to be held as only*
applying only to persons or • oes not apply in case a
things of the same "ind of  statute appears on its face to
class speci&cally mentioned. limit the operation of its
'$usdem generis to be applicable provision to particular
re%uires the following re#uisites persons or things by
to concur enumerating them, but no
reason exists why other
. A statute contains an persons or things not so
enumeration of particular enumerated should not have
and speci&c words, followed been included and manifest
by a general word or phrase* in$ustice will follow by not
+. !he particular and speci&c including them.
words constitute a class or • oes not apply when it
are of the same "ind* defeats the plainly indicated
. !he enumeration of the purpose of the legislature*
particular and speci&c words • oes not apply if it leads to
is not exhaustive or is not inconvenience, hardship and
merely by examples* in$ury to public service
-. !here is no indication of  • oes not apply if it will result
legislative intent to give the
incongruities or a violation of 
general words or phrases
the e%ual protection clause of 
broaden meaning
the constitution

Expressio unius est

Ex necessitate leis  (by
exclusion alterius  (the
necessary implication of law)
express mention of one person,
thing or conse%uence implies   Also "nown as )octrine o, 
the exclusion of all other) -ecessary &mplication
• 'very statute is understood,
• 'xpress mention is implied
by implication, to contain all
exclusion such provisions as may be
• Also "nown as the
necessary to eectuate its
Doctrine of Negative
ob$ect and purpose, or to
Implication
ma"e eective rights,
• Also "nown as neative+
powers, privileges or
opposite doctrine  what
 $urisdiction which it grants,
is expressed puts an end
including all such collateral
to that which is implied.

and subsidiary conse%uences

as may be fairly and logically
inferred from its terms.
Favores ampliandi sunt. odia
restrienda (/enal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given
retroactive eect)
• Art. ++. 0etroactive eect of  are
penal laws. – /enal 1aws shall
have a retroactive eect
insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual
criminal, as this term is
de&ned in 0ule 2 of Article 3+
of this Code, although at the
time of the publication of 
such laws a &nal sentence
has been pronounced and
the convict is serving the
same.
/eneralia specialibus non
deroant (a general law does not
nullify a speci&c or special law)
• /eneral rule%  !he special
must prevail since it evinces
the legislative intent more
clearly than that of a general
statute and must be ta"en as
intended to constitute an
exception to the general act.
Exceptions%
. #here the legislature
clearly intended the
later general
enactment to cover the
whole sub$ect and to
repeal all prior
inconsistent laws
+. #here the special law
merely establishes a
general rule while the
general law creates a
speci&c and special
rule.
$ees posteriors priores
contrarias abroant  (a later law
repeals a prior law on the same
sub$ect which is repugnant thereto)
• As between two laws on the
same sub$ect matter which
irreconcilably
inconsistent, that which is
passed later prevails, since it
is the latest expression of 
legislative will.
$ex proscipit non respicit  (the
law loo"s forward, not bac"ward)
• 4tatutes are to be construed
as having only prospective
application, unless the
intendment of the legislature
to give them a retroactive
eect is expressly declared
or is necessarily implied from
the language used.
/resumption is prospectively.
• Art. -. Civil Code 51aws shall
have no retroactive eect,
unless the contrary is
provided.6
!atio $eis  (interpretation
according to spirit)
• t is not the letter of the law
that "illeth, but it is the spirit
of the law that giveth life.
• Article 7, CC 5 in case of 
doubt in the interpretation
of application of the laws,
it is presumed that the
lawma"ing body intended
right and $ustice to prevail
Stare decisis et non #uieta
movera  (follow past precedents
and do not disturb what has been
settled)

•  !he reason is that the
interpretation of a statute by
the 4upreme Court forms
part of the statute itself  not distinguish)
•  8udicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form part
of the legal system of the
/hilippines (Art. 9, Civil
Code).
• As part of the legal system,
and until reversed by the
4upreme Court itself, rulings
of the 4C are binding upon
the inferior courts.
•  !he rule rests on the
desirability of having stability
in the law.
"bi lex non distinuit0 nec nos
distinuere debemus (where the
law does not distinguish, we should
•  !here should be distinction in
the application of the law
where none is indicated.
• Congress, in ma"ing no
%uali&cation in the use of 
general word of expression,
must have intended no
distinction at all.
• Courts could only distinguish
where there are facts or
circumstances showing that
the lawgiver intended a
distinction or %uali&cation. n
such a case, the courts would
merely give eect to this
lawgiver:s intent.

Share this document

    

You might also like

People vs Santiago
bebebaa

Labor Standards Azucena

Notes
Yen055

Cayetano vs Monsod Digest

Mara Odessa Ali

Magazines Podcasts

Sheet Music

Property Reviewer
JingJing Romero

Property Paras Reviewer-

castillo
AlecZandra Castillo

Nachura Constitutional Law

Reviewer.pdf
Mary Grace Dionisio-Rodriguez

Statutory Interpretation Precedent

Sources Of Law Constitutional Law

Tañada v Angara digest

kimoymoy7

CIVIL LAW COMPILATION BAR

Q&A 1990-2017.pdf
Reynaldo Yu

Conflict of Laws
MiGay Tan-Pelaez

UST Golden Notes 2011 - Torts

and Damages.pdf
pot420_aivan

Constitutional Law II Reviewer

Marc Ramos

4. tatad vs secretary of
department of energy (case
digest).docx
Dario Naharis

Show more

About Support

About Scribd Help / FAQ

Press Accessibility

Our blog Purchase help

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact us Publishers

Invite friends
Social
GiOs

Scribd for enterprise Instagram

Twitter
Legal
Facebook

Terms Pinterest

Privacy

Copyright

Cookie Preferences

Do not sell or share my

personal information

Get our free apps

Books • Audiobooks • Magazines • Podcasts •

Sheet Music • Documents • Snapshots

Language: English

Copyright © 2022 Scribd Inc.

Home Books Audiobooks Documents