S t a t u t o r y

  C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  1  
 
 
 
 
 
SCHOOL  OF  LAW  AND  GOVERNANCE  
COLLEGE  OF  LAW  
   
USC  VISION  
The  University  of  San  Carlos  sees:  
• a  WORLD  where  the  darkness  of  sin  and  the  night  of  unbelief  vanish  before  the  light  of  the  Word  and  the  Spirit  of  grace  
• a  SOCIETY  where  citizens  are  competent,  noble  in  character,  and  community-­‐oriented  
o what  they  know,  they  apply  justly  and  honestly;  
o what  they  do  not  know,  they  seek  to  learn;  
o what  they  do  not  have,  they  endeavor  to  acquire;  
o what  they  have,  they  share.  
 
USC  MISSION  
         The  University  of  San  Carlos  is  a  Catholic  institution  of  learning  that  embodies  the  principles  of  academic  discipline  of  San  Carlos  Borromeo  and  the  missionary  charism  of  the  
Society  of  the  Divine  Word  (SVD).  
 
         It   aims   to   develop   competent   and   socially   responsible   professionals   and   lifelong   learners   in   an   environment   that   fosters   excellence   in   the   academic   core   processes   of  
teaching-­‐learning,  research,  and  community  extension  service.  
           
         Its   mission   is   to   provide   timely,   relevant,   and   transformative   academic   programs   responsive   to   the   needs   of   the   local,   national,   and   global   communities   in   a   rapidly   changing  
world.  
 
CORPORATE  VALUES  
The  University  Corporate  Values  are:  
• integrity  
• excellence  
• commitment  
• social  responsibility  
• evangelization  
• leadership  
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  2  
 
USC  INSTITUTIONAL  OUTCOME  
A  Carolinian  Graduate  is  a  Witness  to  the  Word  and  embodies  the  following  graduate  attributes:  Scientia,  Virtus,  Devotio  

Scientia:   A  COMPETENT  PROFESSIONAL  

        Critical  thinker  
        Lifelong  learner  
        Skilled  researcher  
        Sound  decision-­‐maker  
        Innovative  problem-­‐solver  
        Effective  and  articulate  communicator  
 
  Virtus:     A  VIRTUOUS  EXEMPLAR  
        Incorruptible  servant  leader  
        Ethical  and  values-­‐driven  practitioner  
 
  Devotio:   A  DEDICATED  ADVOCATE  
        Committed  peacemaker  
        Culture-­‐sensitive  patriot  
        Socially-­‐engaged  citizen  
        Passionate  worker  for  the  marginalized  
 
COURSE  DETAILS  
Course  Code     :  LlB125   Professor   :  Ferdinand  G.S.  Gujilde  
Course  Title   :  Statutory  Construction   Office   :  College  of  Law  
Credit  Units   :  2.0   E-­‐mail  address   :  fgsgujilde@usc.edu.ph  
Pre-­‐requisite/s   :  None   Consultation  hours   :  Mon-­‐Fri  via  group  chat  or  private  message  
Term   :  1st  Semester  |  Academic  Year  2022-­‐2023   Date  prepared   :  August  9,  2022  
Schedule   :  36  hours  in  a  semester  (2  hours  every  week  for  18  weeks)     By   :  F.G.S.  Gujilde  with  special  thanks  to  Ms.  
Grace  C.  Magalzo-­‐Bualat  for  her  excellent  
syllabus  template    
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  3  
 
 
COURSE  DESCRIPTION  
It   studies   how   the   judiciary   construes   a   law   consistent   with   legislative   intent   through   the   application   of   intrinsic   and   extrinsic   aids   and   other   statutory  
construction   tools   and   principles.   Both   formative   and   summative   assessments   tasks   will   be   utilized   and   student-­‐centered   teaching-­‐learning   activities   would  
integrate  flipped  classroom  and  blended  learning.    
 
 
PROGRAM  LEVEL  LEARNING  OUTCOMES  
PLLO  1:  KNOWLEDGE  

PLLO  2:  ETHICS,  PROFESSIONAL  RESPONSIBILITY,  WITNESS  TO  THE  WORD    

PLLO   3:   THINKING   SKILLS   which   include   the   ability   to   identify,   simplify   and   articulate   issues;   apply   legal   reasoning   and   research   to   generate   appropriate  
responses  to  legal  issues;  engage  in  critical  analysis  and  make  an  informed  and  reasoned  choice  amongst  alternatives;  and  think  critically  in  approaching  legal  
issues  and  generating  appropriate  responses.  

PLLO  4:  RESEARCH  SKILLS  with  emphasis  on  ability  to  identify  and  simplify  issues  relevant  to  the  principle  of  law  involved.  

PLLO  5:  COMMUNICATION  AND  COLLABORATION  

PLLO  6:  SELF-­‐MANAGEMENT  

   
 
CULMINATING  COURSE  LEARNING  OUTCOME  OF  SIGNIFICANCE  
CLLO  1:  Know  how  laws  are  construed  and  envision  how  the  law  should  be.  
CLLO  2:  Apply  ethical  and  equitable  standards  to  discover  legislative  intent  through  statutory  construction.  
CLLO  3:  Identify  and  simplify  relevant  facts,  issues  and  rulings  in  the  assigned  cases  for  easy  recollection  and  application  whenever  a  legal  situation  presents  
itself.  
CLLO  4:  Find  and  use  up-­‐to-­‐date  primary  and  secondary  legal  sources  affecting  statutory  construction.  
CLLO  5:  Articulate  effectively  issues  involved  in  statutory  construction.  
CLLO  6:  Demonstrate  ability  to  work  and  learn  and  work  either  alone  or  with  a  group.  
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  4  
 
 
EVALUATIVE  MEASURES  
Evidence  of  the  above  outcome  is  measured  by:  
1.  Summative  tests:  At  least  two  major  essay  type  written  examinations  
2.  Case  digest:  Written  or  oral  
3.  Proposed  bill  
 
 
RUBRIC  FOR  PROBLEM  SOLVING  IN  WRITTEN  EXAMINATIONS  
4   3   2   1    
CRITERIA   SCORE  
BULL’S  EYE   HIT-­‐AND-­‐MISS   RAW     CHAFF  
Facts  are  correctly   Facts  are  correctly   Facts  are  misappreciated,   Facts  are  misappreciated,   (4)  10  x  .3  
appreciated  and  issued  is   appreciated  but  issue  is   issue  is  misidentified  but   issue  is  misidentified  and   (3)  6  x  .3  
Ability  to  identify  the  issue  
properly  identified.   misidentified  or  vice  versa.     answer  is  sensible.     answer  is  insensible.     (2)  3  x.3  
(1)  0    
Correct  antidote  is  applied  to   Correct  antidote  but  issue  is   Unexpected  antidote  but   Antidote  is  unexpected,   (4)  10  x  .3  
issue  identified.   misidentified.     alternates  to  correct  answer.     irrelevant  and  insensible.   (3)  6  x  .3  
Ability  to  remedy  the  issue  
(2)  3  x    .3  
(1)  0  
(1)  Neat,  concise,   Two  of  three  are  complied.   One  of  three  is  complied.   None  is  complied.   (4)  10  x  .3  
straightforward,  simple  and   (3)  6  x  .3  
coherent.   (2)  3  x  .3  
(2)  Key  words  and  phrases   (1)  0  
Presentation  
are  appropriately  chosen  and  
contextualized.  
(3)  Impeccable  grammar  and  
spelling.      
Issue  is  correctly  identified   Two  of  three  criteria  are   One  of  two  criteria  is   None  is  complied.   (4)  10  x  .1  
and  remedied  and  properly   complied.   complied.   (3)  6  x  .1  
Completeness    
articulated   (2)  3  x  .1  
(1)  0  
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  5  
 
RUBRIC  FOR  CASE  DIGEST,  WRITTEN  OR  ORAL  
4   3   2   1    
CRITERIA   SCORE  
BULL’S  EYE   HIT-­‐AND-­‐MISS   RAW     CHAFF  
Digest  is  limited  to  relevant   Digest  is  limited  to  relevant   Digest  includes  irrelevant   Digest  is  limited  to  irrelevant   (4)  10  x  .25  
Ability  to  identify  relevant  
four  aspects  of  facts,  issues,   to  three  of  four  aspects  of   aspects.   aspects.   (3)  6  x  .25  
aspects  and  contextualized  
statutory  construction   facts,  issues,  statutory   (2)  3  x  .25  
them  to  the  topic  under  
principle,  and  ruling.   construction  principle  and   (1)  0    
which  it  is  assigned.  
ruling.  
Digest  does  not  exceed  200   Digest  exceeds  200  words   Digest  exceeds  300  words   Digest  exceeds  500  words   (4)  10  x  .25  
words   but  below  300  words   but  below  500  words   (3)  6  x  .25  
Ability  to  digest  
(2)  3  x    .25  
(1)  0  
(1)  Digest  tells  it  like  an   Four  of  five  are  complied.   Two  or  three  of  four  are   One  or  none  is  complied.   (4)  10  x  .25  
ordinary  story.   complied.   (3)  6  x  .25  
(2)  Concise,  straightforward,   (2)  3  x  .25  
simple  and  coherent.   (1)  0  
(3)  Clear  of  irrelevant  
circumstances  of  time,  place  
Presentation   and  person.  
(4)  Own  words  are  used  but  
key  words  and  phrases  are  
appropriately  chosen  and  
contextualized.  
(5)  Impeccable  grammar  and  
spelling.      
Ability  to  taper  off  the   The  entire  case  is  reduced   One-­‐liner  exceeds  15  words   One  liner  exceeds  30  words   One  liner  exceeds  50  words   (4)  10  x  .25  
case  into  a  digest  and   and  captured  into  a  relevant   but  below  30  words.   but  below  50  words.   (3)  6  x  .25  
ultimately,  a  one-­‐liner  to   one-­‐liner  that  does  not   (2)  3  x  .25  
remember  by.     exceed  15  words.     (1)  0  
 
 
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  6  
 
RUBRIC  FOR  PROPOSED  BILL  
4   3   2   1    
CRITERIA   SCORE  
BULL’S  EYE   HIT-­‐AND-­‐MISS   RAW     CHAFF  
Subject  matter  of  proposed   Subject  matter  of  proposed   Subject  matter  of  proposed   Subject  matter  of  proposed   (4)  10  x  .40  
bill  is  original  and  unheard  of.   bill  appears  original  but   bill  is  parallel  to  existing  bills   bill  cloned  from  existing  bills   (3)  6  x  .40  
Novelty  
parallel  to  existing  bills  or   or  laws.   or  laws.   (2)  3  x.40  
laws.   (1)  0    
All  parts  of  the  proposed  bill   All  mandatory  parts  of  the   Majority  of  mandatory  parts   Minority  of  mandatory  parts   (4)  10  x  .20  
are  present,  mandatory  or   proposed  bill  are  present.   of  the  proposed  bill  are   of  the  proposed  bill  are   (3)  6  x  .20  
Written  formalities  
optional   present.   present.   (2)  3  x    .20  
(1)  0  
Complies  all  essential   Lacks  one  essential  requisite   Lacks  two  essential  requisites   Lacks  all  essential  requisites   (4)  10  x  .20  
requisites  to  a  valid  law.   to  a  valid  law.   to  a  valid  law.   to  a  valid  law.   (3)  6  x  .20  
Substantive  requirements  
(2)  3  x    .20  
(1)  0  
(1)  Concise,  straightforward,   Two  of  three  are  complied.   One  of  three  is  complied.   None  is  complied.   (4)  10  x  .20  
simple  and  coherent.   (3)  6  x  .20  
Presentation   (2)  Correct  styling.   (2)  3  x  .20  
(3)  Catchy  title.     (1)  0  
 
 
GRADING  SYSTEM  
Midterm  Grade  
Written  examinations:                                                                                                                            80%  
Case  digest,  oral  or  written:                                                                                                        20%  
                                                                                                                                                                                                           100%  =  1.0  
Tentative  Final  Grade  
Written  examinations:                                                                                                                            80%  
Proposed  bill:                                                                                                                                                          20%  
                                                                                                                                                                                                         100%  =  1.0  
Final  Grade                                                                                      Passing  grade  
Averaging:  (MG  +  TFG)/2  =  1.0                    65%  =  3.0  
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  7  
 
 
 
 
CLASSROOM  POLICIES  AND  GUIDELINES  
 
1. Silence  is  the  better  part  of  discretion.  
2. You  are  an  adult,  act  like  one.  
3. Nothing  is  absolute,  including  nothing.  
4. Grow  up  before  you  grow  old.  
5. Be  politically  correct.  
6. Be  sensitive  to  the  needs  of  others.  
7. There  is  a  time  and  place  for  everything.  
8. Not  all  are  funny,  but  all  should  sense  humor.  
9. Integrity  and  honesty  are  not  the  same.  
10. Disturbing  presence  precedes  deafening  absence.    
 
REFERENCE  MATERIALS  
1. Martin,  Statutory  Construction,  1980  Edition  
2. Agpalo,  Statutory  Construction,  2009  Edition  
3. Gujilde,  Statutory  Construction,  2020  Edition  
4. Bernas,  The  1987  Constitution  of  the  Philippines:  A  Commentary,  1996  or  2006  Edition  
 
LEARNING  APPROACHES,  STRATEGIES  &  TECHNIQUES  
1.  Reading  assignments  –  students  are  required  to  read  materials  prior  to  synchronous  discussion  
2.  Interactive  class  discussion  –  students  are  required  to  cite  ambiguous  legal  provisions,  illustrate  them  and  how  they  are  enunciated  in  relevant  jurisprudence  
during  which  they  are  expected  to  identify  and  simplify  the  relevant  facts,  issues  and  ruling  in  such  a  way  that  they  digest  the  case  and  narrow  it  down  to  the  
briefest  possible  one-­‐liner  that  best  captures  the  principle  of  law  involved  for  easy  recollection  and  application.  
At  the  end  of  oral  recitations  on  a  particular  subject  matter,  the  professor  synthesizes  the  principles  of  law  involved,  harmonizes  the  seemingly  conflicting  
provisions  and  cases.  
3.  Student  Congress  –  students  propose  bills  and  simulate  legislation  as  part  of  experiential  learning  
4.  Course  outline  –  students  are  required  to  follow  the  court  outline,  read  relevant  cases  and  cross-­‐references.    
 
 
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  8  
 
COURSE  OUTLINE  FOR  MIDTERM  EXAMINATIONS  

I. INTRODUCTION

The essentials

Statutory construction, defined.

Legal hermeneutics, defined.
Construction, purpose of.
Construction, scope of.
Ambiguity, defined.
Remedy for courts in case of ambiguity.
Rules of construction, binding effect on courts.
Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apr. 23, 1992
Exception.
Exception to exception.
Construction and interpretation, distinguished.
Legislative meaning, defined.
Legislative intent, defined.
Legislative purpose, defined.
Federation of Free Farmers v CA, G.R. No. 41161, Sept. 10, 1981
Legislative intent and purpose, distinguished.

Different kinds of interpretation

Close interpretation.
Extensive interpretation.
Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, Apr. 24, 2018
Extravagant interpretation.
Judicial activism.
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Free or unrestricted interpretation.
Limited or restricted interpretation.
Predestined interpretation.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  9  
 
Authority to construe law or review

The Supreme Court, composition.

The Members of the Supreme Court, qualifications.
The Supreme Court, jurisdiction.
The lower courts, jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, expanded jurisdiction.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Judicial review, nature of.
Tatad v. Energy & Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, Nov. 5, 1997
Judicial supremacy.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003

Essential requisites for judicial review

Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
(1) Actual case or controversy.
LAMP v. Secretary of Budget & Management, G.R. No. 164987, Apr. 24, 2012
Ripeness & prematurity, justiciability.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
(2) Locus standi.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Non-traditional suitors.
Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
Citizen.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Concerned citizen.
Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
Taxpayer.
Legislator.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Association.
IBP v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160343, Nov. 10, 2003
Voters.
Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  10  
 
Minors.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Class suit, requisites.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Marine mammals.
Inanimate objects.
River.
Resident Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, Apr. 21, 2015
(3) Earliest opportunity.
Umali v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 131124, Mar. 29, 1999
(4) Lis mota.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003

Limitations on power to construe

Under American jurisprudence.
Under Philippine jurisprudence.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Other limitations.
(1) Judicial legislation.
Aratea v Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, Oct. 9, 2012
Exceptions.
(1.a) Court-issued guidelines.
(1.b) Casus omissus.
(1.c) Correction of clerical error.
Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. CTA, G.R. No. L-9274, Feb. 1, 1957
Fariñas v. Barba, G.R. No. 116763, Apr. 19, 1996
(1.d) Doctrine of necessary implication and inferences.
Chua v. CSC, G.R. No. 88979, Feb. 7, 1992
COA v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386, Nov. 29, 2001
(2) Doctrine of political question.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Purely political questions.
Francisco Jr. v. HR, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Guingona v. Carague, G.R. No. 94571, Apr. 22, 1991
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, Mar. 2. 2001
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  11  
 
(3) Legislative wisdom.
Tatad v. Energy & Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, Nov. 5, 1997
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Dura lex sed lex.
People v. Veneracion, G.R. Nos. 119987-88, Oct. 12, 1995
Exception.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
(4) Doctrine of stare decisis.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Exceptions.
Subsequent reversal.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Authority to modify or reverse.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apr. 23, 1992
Obiter dictum.
Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, Apr. 16, 2013
Obiter dictum & ratio decidendi, distinguished.
(5) Moot & academic principle.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Funa v Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
Exceptions.
Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, Nov. 19, 2013
KMU v. Aquino, G.R. No. 210500, April 2, 2019
(6) Advisory opinion.
Ang Cho Kio, 33 SCRA 454 (1970)
Declaratory relief.
Municpality of Tupi v. Fuastino, G.R. No. 231896, Aug. 20, 2019
(7) Judicial restraint.
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  12  
 
II. SUBJECTS OF CONSTRUCTION

Constitution.
Statutes.
Implementing rules and regulations.
Ordinances.
Resolutions.
Executive Orders.
Department Circulars.

Constitution

Constitution, defined.
Doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Constitution & statute, distinguished.
Constitution, common parts of.
Constitution of liberty.
Constitution of government.
Constitution of sovereignty.
Constitution, kinds of.
Written and unwritten.
Cumulative and conventional.
Rigid and flexible.

Statute

Statute, defined.
Statute, distinguished from statute law.
Statutes, classified.
Public or private.
Public statute, classified.
General, special and local laws.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  13  
 
Authority to legislate
Legislative power, jurisdiction.
Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
Legislative power, defined.
Legislative power, scope.
Legislative power, non-delegability.
Exceptions.
(1) Doctrine of subordinate legislation.
Delegation of legislative power, basis & requisites.
Supplementary rule-making.
Contingency rule-making.
Implementing rules & regulations, nature of.
Rizal Empire Insurance Group v. NLRC, G.R. No. 73140, May 29, 1987
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Implementing rules & regulations, effectivity.
People v Reyes, G.R. No. 115022, Aug. 14, 1995
Retroactive application; promulgation & publication, distinguished.
Gutierrez v HR, G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011
Nature of administrative rules & regulations
Types of administrative rules & regulations
Test of validity of administrative rules & regulations
Lokin v Comelec, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010
(2) Local legislation.
Rubi v. Provincial Board, 39 Phil. 660, 702 (1919)
(3) Emergency powers.
Limitations.
Sec. 26(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
(4) Tax legislation.
Sec. 28(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
Prohibited laws
(1) Ex post facto law.
Sec. 22, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
Test whether prohibition against ex post facto clause is violated.
Scope of prohibition against ex post facto law.
Exception.
Art. 22, Revised Penal Code
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  14  
 
Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima, G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019
Gutierrez v HR, G.R. No. 193459, Feb.15, 2011
Exception to the exception.
(2) Bill of attainder.
Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110, Dec. 10, 2013
(3) Irrepealable law.
City of Davao v. RTC, G.R. No. 127383, Aug. 18, 2005

The Bill

Bill, defined.
How a bill becomes a law.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Introduction
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Origin of bill.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
Constitutional requirements.
Sec. 26(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
Public calamity or emergency.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
First reading.
Second reading.
Third reading.
Sec. 26(2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
The Journal.
Conference Committee.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
Doctrine of enrolled bill and authentication of bills
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Doctrine of Enrolled Bill vs. Journal Entry Rule
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
President’s approval or veto
Override of presidential veto
3 ways by which a bill becomes a law.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  15  
 
Parts of a statute
Title.
One title-one subject rule.
Sec. 26(1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
Logrolling.
Lambino v Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
Effect of insufficiency of title.
Enacting clause.
Preamble.
Body.
Declaration of principles.
Declaration of policy.
Definition section.
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004

Administrative section.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Standard of conduct.
Penalty clause.
Transitory provision.
Separability clause.
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy & Finance, G.R. No. 124360, Nov. 5, 1997
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Repealing clause.
Date of effectivity.
Tañada v Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
Phil. Veterans Bank v Vega, G.R. No. 105364, June 28, 2001
Effectivity, effects of.
Legislative veto.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  16  
 
Post-enactment legislative measures

Power of oversight, defined.

Power of oversight, basis.
Legislative oversight functions, categorized.
Scrutiny.
Investigation.
Supervision.
Power of oversight, limitations.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008

Validity of statute
Presumption of constitutionality.
LAMP v. Secretary of Budget and Management, G.R. No. 164987, Apr. 24, 2012
Void-for-vagueness rule.
Vagueness test.
Labay v. People, G.R. No. 241850, April 28, 2021 [Per J. Inting, Third Division]
Void-for-vagueness rule, when inapplicable.
Rationale.
Void-for-vagueness rule, application in Philippine jurisdiction.
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152259, July 24, 2009
Effects of unconstitutionality.
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Orthodox view. Art. 7, Civil Code.
Operative fact doctrine.
CIR v. San Roque Power Corp., G.R. No. 187485, Oct. 8, 2013
Operative fact doctrine, when inapplicable.
Municipality of Tupi v. Faustino, G.R. No. 231896, Aug. 20, 2019
Modern view.
Partial invalidity.
Tatad v Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997)
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  17  
 
Ordinance
Ordinance, defined.
Barangay ordinance, authority to pass and review.
Municipal ordinance, authority to pass, veto & review.
City ordinance, authority to pass, veto & review.
Provincial ordinance, authority to pass and veto.
Validity of ordinance.
Formal & substantive test.
Legaspi v Cebu City, G.R. No. 159110; Jaban v CA, G.R. No. 159692, Dec. 10, 2013
De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983
When local ordinances take effect.
Manner of computing time.
Garvida v Sales, G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
Resolution
Resolution, defined.
Kinds of resolutions.
Simple.
Concurrent.
Joint.
Executive orders
Executive order, defined.
Source of power.
Ordinance power of the President.
Abakada Guro Party List v Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Effectivity of presidential issuances.
Tañada v Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  18  
 
COURSE  OUTLINE  FOR  FINAL  EXAMINATIONS  

III. CARDINAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

Legislative intent, how ascertained.
Sps. Sanojas v. CA, G.R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996
Liberal or strict construction, factors to consider and when applied.
Statutes in derogation of common rights, how construed.
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, G.R. No. 135087, Mar. 14. 2000
Statutes prescribing formalities of wills, how construed.
In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Petronila Tampoy v Alberastine,
G.R. No. L-14322, Feb. 25, 1960
Naturalization laws, how construed.
Statute conferring the right of eminent domain, how construed.
Statutes granting rights to laborers, how construed.
Federation of Free Farmers v CA, G.R. No. 41161, Sept. 10, 1981
SSS v. Simacas, G.R. No. 217866, June 20, 2022 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
Tax laws, how construed.
Medicard Phils., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 222743, April 5, 2017
Exception.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
Election statutes, how construed.
Frivaldo v Comelec, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
Gender equality.
Alanis III v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, Nov. 11, 2020
Prospective & retrospective interpretation, distinguished.
Prospective & retrospective interpretation, how determined.
Retrospective application of law, effect of.
Prospective application of law.
Remedial statute.
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, Apr. 21, 2015
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  19  
 
IV. PARTICULAR RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

Verba legis or plain meaning rule.

Index animi sermo est
SWS & Pulse Asia, Inc. v Comelec, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015
Dura lex sed lex.
Ratio legis.
Mens legislatories.
Ejusdem generis.
Ejusdem generis, purpose.
Reddendo singula singulis.
Francisco Jr. v HR, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Doctrine of collocation.
Distribution of antecedent and consequent
Aratea v Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, Oct. 9, 2012
Vargas Jr. v. Mamba, G.R. No. 236031 (Notice), Feb. 28, 2018
Expressio unius ext exclusion alterius.
Calderon v Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992
Exception.
Chua v. CSC, G.R. No. 88979, Feb. 7, 1992
Noscitur a sociis.
Casus omissus.
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Exception.
Chua v. CSC, G.R. No. 88979, Feb. 7, 1992
V. CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
Shall.
Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., G.R. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952
Exceptions.
Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., G.R. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952
Guingona v Carague, G.R. No. 94571, April 22, 1991
May.
Cumigad v. People, G.R. No. 245238, Aug. 27, 2020
May & shall, distinguished.
Guingona v Carague, G.R. No. 94571, April 22, 1991
May not.
Ombudsman v. Andutan, G.R. No. 164679, July 27, 2011
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  20  
 
Special or technical meaning.
Exception.
Asiatic Petroleum Co. v Collector, 30 Phil. 510
Conjunctive and.
Microsoft Corp. v. Manansala, G.R. No. 166391, Oct. 21, 2015
Disjunctive or.
SWS & Pulse Asia, Inc. v Comelec, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015
Conjunctive and & disjunctive or, distinguished.
Exceptions.
City of Cagayan de Oro v. Cepalco, G.R. No. 224825, Oct. 17, 2018
Microsoft Corp. v. Manansala, G.R. No. 166391, Oct. 21, 2015
All, any, every.
Gatchalian v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. L-32560-61, Oct. 22, 1970
Etcetera.
Grammar.
Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. 40243, Mar. 11, 1992
Punctuation.
Moreno v Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, Aug. 10, 2006
Tense.
Gender.
Number.
Gatchalian v. Comelec, 146 Phil. 435, 442-443 (1970)
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Inaccuracies, inadvertence or clerical errors.
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Foreign language.
VI. INTRINSIC AIDS IN CONSTRUCTION

Intrinsic aids, defined.

Intrinsic aids, enumerated.
Context.
SWS & Pulse Asia, Inc. v Comelec, G.R. No. 208062, Apr. 7, 2015
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, Apr. 2, 2002
Punctuation.
Period.
Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apr. 23, 1992
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  21  
 
Hyphen.
Topacio v Paredes, G.R. No. L-8069, Oct. 7, 1912
En dash (-)
Em dash (--)
Comma.
Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, Aug. 10, 2006
Capitalization.

Unabia v City Mayor, G.R. No. L-8759, May 25, 1956

Language or lingual text
Title
Poe v Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
Declaration of policy.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Chapter, article and section headings, head notes or epigraphs.
People v. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933)
Marginal notes
Preamble
Legislative definitions and interpretative clauses.

VII. EXTRINSIC AIDS IN CONSTRUCTION

Extrinsic aids, defined.
Extrinsic aids, when resorted to.
Extrinsic aids, enumerated.
Contemporaneous circumstances.
Legislative history.
Origin and history of the law.
President’s message to legislature.
Explanatory note.
Federation of Free Farmers v. CA, G.R. No. L-41161, Sept. 10, 1981
Legislative debates, views and deliberations.
Poe v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
Prior laws.
Ejercito v. Comelec, G.R. No. 212398, November 25, 2014
Contemporary construction.
Executive construction.
Legislative construction.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  22  
 
Judicial construction.
Doctrine of stare decisis.
Obiter dictum and ratio decidendi, distinguished.
Ledesma v. CA, G.R. No. 161629, July 29, 2005
Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, Apr. 16, 2013
Construction by the Bar.
Textbooks.
Poe v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 221697-700, Mar. 8, 2016
Dictionaries.
Francisco Jr. v HR, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Gutierrez v HR, G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, Apr. 2, 2002
Foreign jurisprudence.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Doctrine of necessary implication and inferences.
Chua v Civil Service Commission, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)
CoA v Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386, Nov. 29, 2001
Presumptions in aid of construction.

XIII. AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL

Amendment
Amendment, defined.
Amending authority.
Amendment, how effected.
Express amendment
Implied amendment
Amendment, when effective.
Amendment, how construed.
Amendment, effect of.
Amendment, how it operates.
Amendment, effect on vested rights.
Amendment, effect on jurisdiction.
Erectors, Inc. v NLRC, 256 SCRA 629 (1996)
Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  23  
 
Revision and Codification

Revision, defined.
Codification, defined.
Revision and codification, purpose.
Revision and codification, effects.
Insertion of new provisions
Omission of old provisions
Mecano v Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500 (1992)
CSC v Salas, G.R. No. 123708, June 19, 1997
Lim-Bungcaras v Comelec, G.R. No. 209415-17, Nov. 15, 2016
Change in phraseology
Lokin v Comelec, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010
Rearrangement of sections

Repeal

Repeal, defined.
Repealing authority.
Constitutional prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws.
City of Davao v RTC, G.R. No. 127383, August 18, 2005
Repeal, kinds of.
Express repeal.
Implied repeal.
Javier v Comelec, G.R. No. 215847, Jan. 12, 2016
Cumigad v. People, G.R. No. 245238, Aug. 27, 2020
Repeal by implication, conditions.
Agujetas v. CA, G.R. No. 106560, Aug. 23, 1996
Repeal by implication, categories or modes.
Agujetas v CA, 261 SCRA 17 (1996)
Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, Dec. 11, 1992
Hagad v Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995)
David v Comelec, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997
Two laws on same subject matter, which prevails.
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.
Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, Dec. 11, 1992
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  24  
 
Statutes in pari materia, defined.
Statutes in pari materia, how determined.
Statutes in pari materia, how construed.
Sardea v Comelec, G.R. No. 106164, Aug. 17, 1993
Morales v CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
In pari materia rule, purpose.
In pari materia rule, limitation.
General and special laws, rule on repeal.
Generalia specialibus non derogant.
David v. Comelec, G.R. No. 127116, Apr. 8, 1997
Repeal, general effects.
Repeal, effect on jurisdiction.
Effects of repeal and expiration of law, distinction.
Repeal, effect on jurisdiction to try criminal cases.
Repeal, effect on actions, pending or otherwise.
Repeal, effect on vested rights.
Repeal, effect on contracts.
Repeal, effect on tax laws.
Repeal, effect on penal laws.
Repeal, effect on municipal charter.
Repeal or nullity of repealing law, effects.
Proviso, defined.
Proviso, function.
Exception, defined.
Exception, how construed.
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
Fernandez v. COA, G.R. No. 205389, Nov. 19, 2019
Exception and proviso, distinguished.
Saving clause, defined.
Saving clause, purpose.
Saving clause, limitation.
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  25  
 
IX. CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTION
Constitution, defined.
Constitutional construction, primary purpose.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Constitution, how construed.
Ordillo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 93054, Dec. 4, 1990
Rationale.
Francisco Jr. v House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Statutory construction principles, applicability of.
Verba legis.
Francisco Jr. v House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Ratio legis est anima.
Francisco Jr. v House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Ut magis valeat quam pereat.
Francisco Jr. v House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, Feb. 22, 1991
Originalist theory.
Living Constitution theory.
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
Conflicting constitutional provisions, how construed.
De Castro v JBC, G.R. No. 191002, Mar. 17, 2010
Amendments to Constitution, how construed.
Words with restricted and general meanings, which prevail.
Gutierrez v. HR Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011
People v. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, Dec. 5, 2018
Intrinsic aid to constitutional construction.
Extrinsic aids to constitutional construction.
History or realities existing at the time of adoption of the Constitution
In re Bermudez, 145 SCRA 116, 162 (1986)
Proceedings of constitutional convention
Poe v Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
Foreign jurisprudence.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Mandatory or directory character of constitutional provisions.
Marcelino v Cruz, G.R. No. 42428, March 18, 1983, 121 SCRA 51
 S t a t u t o r y   C o n s t r u c t i o n   S y l l a b u s   | P a g e  |  26  
 
Preamble and titles, how construed.
Constitutional prohibitions, how construed.
Constitutional grant of power, how construed.
Prospective or retroactive application.
Guingona v. Carague, G.R. No. 94571, Apr. 22, 1991
Self-executing provision, defined.
Guingona v Carague, G.R. No. 94571, April 22, 1991
Gutierrez v HR, G.R. No. 193459, Feb. 15, 2011
Self-executing provisions, enumerated.
TMCEA v CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007
Self-executing and non-self-executing provisions, distinguished.
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Non-self-executing provisions.
Pamatong v Comelec, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Exceptions.
Oposa v. Factoran Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
Self-executing provisions with enabling law.
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997