Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adamson University
College of Law
First Semester, A.Y. 2022-2023
Keij Ejercito
GRADING
Recitation & Quizzes 30%
Midterms 20%
Finals 40%
Digests / Proposed Bills 10%
POLICY ON ATTENDANCE
▪ Maximum of five (5) absences
▪ Three counts of late is equivalent to one absence
▪ If called during the recitation and you are absent, a recit grade of 50% will automatically
be given.
▪ At least eighty percent (80%) of the class should be present every meeting. If more than
20% of the class is absent, the entire class will get a 50% recit grade for that particular
day.
HOUSE RULES
▪ Reading notes / books / online sources when you are called to recite is not allowed.
▪ Plagiarism will never be tolerated.
▪ No phones / social media / games and other mobile phone apps should be open during
the entire period.
▪ During recitation, always turn on your Zoom video. Always be on mute unless you are
called to recite.
REFERENCE MATERIALS
▪ Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition (2009) by Ruben E. Agpalo
▪ 1987 Philippine Constitution
▪ Assigned cases
INTRODUCTION
A. IN GENERAL
1. Laws, generally
▪ Hierarchy of Laws
2. Statutes, generally
3. Statutory Construction, definition
Cases:
▪ People v. Palma, G.R. No. L-44113, March 31, 1977
1
▪ Valera v. Tuason, Jr., G.R. No. L-1276, April 30, 1948
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
B. ENACTMENT OF STATUTES
1. Generally
2. Legislative power of Congress
▪ Senate of the Philippines
▪ House of Representatives
3. Procedural requirements in enacting a law, generally
4. Steps in the passage of bill into law
▪ Section 24-27, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
Cases:
▪ Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005.
▪ Remman Enterprises Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service and
PRC, G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014.
C. PARTS OF STATUTES
1. Statutes generally contain
▪ Article VI, Sec. 26 (1), 1987 Constitution
Cases:
▪ Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
▪ Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
▪ Municipality of Jose Panganiban v. Shell Co. of the Philippines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-18349,
▪ July 30, 1966
▪ Alalayan v. NPC, G.R. No. L-24396, July 29, 1968
▪ Cawaling, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 146319, October 26, 2001
▪ People v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. 22945, March 3, 1925
▪ Cordero v. Cabatuando, G.R. No. L-14542, October 31, 1962
▪ Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
▪ Ayson v. Provincial Board of Rizal, G.R. No. 14019, July 26, 1919
▪ People v. Valensoy, G.R. No. L-9659, May 29, 1957
▪ People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239, June 30, 1947
Cases:
▪ Araullo v. Aquino, GR No. 209287, February 3, 2015
▪ Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
▪ Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
2
D. ISSUANCES, RULES AND ORDINANCES
1. Presidential issuances
▪ David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009
Cases:
▪ People v. Lim, G.R. No. L-14432, July 26, 1960
▪ China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121158, December 5, 1996
▪ Pelaez v. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965
▪ Cemco Holdings, Inc. v. National Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 171815, August 7, 2007
Cases:
▪ Lagcao v. Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004
▪ Navarro v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010
E. VALIDITY OF STATUTE
1. Presumption of constitutionality
Case:
▪ Peralta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-47771, March 11, 1978
Case:
▪ Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R.No. 225973, November 8, 2016 (See also Justice Marvic
Leonen’s Dissenting Opinion)
▪ Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
8. Test of constitutionality
9. Effects of unconstitutionality
10. Invalidity due to change of conditions
11. Partial invalidity
3
Case:
▪ Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986
Case:
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
Cases:
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
▪ People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-19190, November 29, 1922
Cases:
▪ Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41161, September 10, 1981
▪ Associacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc. v. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., G.R.
No. L-19937, February 19, 1979
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
Case:
▪ Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, G.R. No. 170735, December
17, 2007
B. POWER TO CONSTRUE
4
Cases:
▪ Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007
▪ National Food Authority v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 163448, March 08,
2005
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc., G.R.
No. 152609, June 29, 2005
▪ Secretary of DPWH v. Spouses Herecieo and Ramona Tecson, G.R. No. 179334,
April 21, 2015
Cases:
▪ Morales v. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968
▪ People v. Garcia y Madrigal, G.R. No. L-2873, February 28, 1950
▪ People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988
Cases:
▪ Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936
▪ People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239, June 30, 1947
▪ Quintos v. Lacson, G.R. No. L-8062, July 18, 1955
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Title
Case:
▪ City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. L-26100, February 28, 1969
Cases:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
▪ People v. Echavez, Jr., G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980
Case:
▪ Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-14526, March 31, 1965
7. Punctuation marks
5
Case:
▪ Florentino v. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, April 28, 1956
8. Illustrative examples
9. Capitalization of letters
10. Headnotes or epigraphs
Case:
▪ People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, September 27, 1933
Case:
▪ Torres v. Limjap, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931
Case:
▪ Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Incorporated v. Lingad, G.R. No. L-
26406, October 31, 1969
Cases:
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
▪ Escribano v. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
15. Dictionaries
16. Consequences of various constructions
17. Presumptions
B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1. Generally
2. What constitutes legislative history
Case:
▪ Tamayo v. Gsell, G.R. No. 10765, December 22, 1916
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Esso Standard Eastern Inc., G.R. No. L-28329, August 7,
1975
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
▪ League of Cities v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176951, December 21, 2009
6. Reports of commissions
7. Prior laws from which statute is based
8. Change in phraseology by amendments
9. Amendment by deletion
6
10. Exceptions to the rule
11. Adopted statutes
Case:
▪ United States v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 9144, March 27, 1915
Case:
▪ Republic v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 141314, April 9, 2003
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., G.R. No. L-13067, December
29, 1959
C. CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
1. Generally
2. Executive construction, generally; kinds of
3. Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction
Case:
▪ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, November 13, 1991
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
Case:
▪ Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-47673, October 10, 1946
Case:
▪ Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956
9. Legislative interpretation
10. Legislative approval
11. Reenactment
12. Stare decisis
Cases:
▪ Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-47673, October 10, 1946
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No.
7
197192, June 4, 2014
▪ Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000
A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION
Case:
▪ Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996
Cases:
▪ People v. Amigo, G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996
▪ Aguila v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, G.R. No. L-48335, April 15, 1988
Cases:
▪ Regalado v. Yulo, G.R. No. 42935, February 15, 1935
▪ Santiago v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Case:
▪ Ty Sue v. Hord, G.R. No. 4495, January 14, 1909
Cases:
▪ Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996
▪ United States v. Toribio, G.R. No. 5060, January 26, 1910
▪ Planters Association of Southern Negros, Inc. v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 114087, October
26, 1999
Cases:
▪ Lamp v. Phipps, G.R. No. 7806, July 12, 1912
▪ Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
8
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992
▪ Paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
Case:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
Case:
▪ Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945
Case:
▪ Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997
Case:
▪ People v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970
C. IMPLICATIONS
Cases:
▪ Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936
▪ University of Santo Tomas v. Board of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-5701, June 23, 1953
Case:
▪ People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-19190, November 29, 1922
9
CHAPTER V: INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Statutory definition
3. Qualification of rule
4. Words construed in their ordinary sense
5. General words construed generally
Case:
▪ Lo Cham v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-831, November 21, 1946
▪ Getz Corp., Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-59823, August 21, 1982
6. Application of rule
7. Generic term includes things that arise thereafter
Case:
▪ Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-33500, August 30, 1971
Case:
▪ Claudio v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 140560, May 04, 2000
Case:
▪ United States v. Estapia, G.R. No. 12891, October 19, 1917
Case:
▪ Guerrero v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000
Cases:
▪ Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Coll. of Int. Rev., G.R. No. L-9415, April 22, 1957
▪ Tiu San v. Republic, G.R. No. L-7301, April 20, 1955
▪ Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95832, August 10, 1992
▪ Sanciangco v. Roño, G.R. No. L-68709, July 19, 1985
B. ASSOCIATED WORDS
1. Noscitur a sociis
Cases:
▪ Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L•5, September 17, 1945
10
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
2. Application of rule
Cases:
▪ Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
▪ Carandang v. Santiago, etc. and Valenton, G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955
3. Ejusdem generis
Case:
▪ Murphy, Morris & Co. v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 4608, October 16, 1908
4. Illustration of rule
Cases:
▪ Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970
▪ Cu Unjieng Sons, Inc. v. Board of Tax Appeals and Coll. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-
6296, September 29, 1956
▪ Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189755, July 04,
2012
▪ Pelizloy Realty Corporation v. Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, April 10, 2013
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 207843, July
15, 2015
Cases:
▪ Colgate-Palmolive Phil., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, January 28, 1961
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-33471, January 31, 1972
Cases:
▪ Parayno v. Jovellanos, G.R. No. 148408, July 14, 2006
▪ San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 147749, June 22, 2006
▪ Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005
7. Negative-opposite doctrine
8. Application of expressio unius rule
Cases:
▪ Escribano v. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
▪ Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 01, 1994
▪ Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144573, September 24, 2002
▪ De La Salle-Araneta University v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017
▪ Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 221706,
March 13, 2018
9. Limitations of rule
Case:
▪ Escribano vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
Case:
▪ Florentino v. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, April 28, 1956
Case:
a. King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962
1. Provisos, generally
2. Proviso may enlarge scope of law
3. Proviso as additional legislation
4. What proviso qualifies
5. Exception to the rule
6. Repugnancy between proviso and main provision
7. Exceptions, generally
8. Exception and proviso distinguished
9. Illustration of exception
Cases:
▪ Manila Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Employees’ Assn., G.R. No. L-1206, October 30,
1947
▪ Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
Cases:
▪ Catiis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153979, February 09, 2006
▪ Aquino v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 137534, August 3, 2006
Case:
▪ Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986
Cases:
12
▪ Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
▪ Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102377, July 05, 1996
Case:
▪ Cuyegkeng, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-16263, July 26, 1960
Case:
▪ Paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
Case:
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
Case:
▪ Corona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97356, September 30, 1992
Cases:
▪ Bagatsing v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, December 17, 1976
▪ City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049, May 31, 1976
Case:
▪ City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049, May 31, 1976
Cases:
▪ King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Strict construction, generally
3. Liberal construction, defined
4. Liberal construction applied, generally
Case:
▪ Javellana v. Mirasol and Nuñez, G.R. No. 14881, February 05, 1920
Case:
▪ People v. Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998
▪ People of the Philippines v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000
Cases:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
▪ Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116033, February 26, 1997
6. Limitation of rule
Cases:
▪ People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962
▪ People v. Gatchalian, G.R. Nos. L-12011-14, September 30, 1958
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107135, February
23, 1999
14
15. Qualification of rule
16. Statutes concerning the sovereign
17. Statutes authorizing suits against the government
18. Statutes prescribing formalities of will
19. Exceptions and provisos
Case:
▪ Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong, G.R. No. L-
52415, October 23, 1984
▪ GSIS v. Vicencio, R.R. No. 176832, May 21, 2009
Case:
▪ Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-13744, November 29, 1918
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Tondeña Distillers, Ltd. G.R. No. 175188, July
15, 2015
8. Amnesty proclamations
9. Statutes prescribing prescriptions of crimes
10. Adoption statutes
Case:
▪ Duncan v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
Case
▪ Tantuico Jr. v. Domingo, G.R. No. 96422, February 28, 1994
Case
▪ Finman General Assurance Corp. v. CA, GR No. 100970, September 2, 1992
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Mandatory and directory statutes, generally
3. When statute is mandatory or directory
4. Test to determine nature of statute
15
5. Language used
6. Use of “shall” or “must”
Case:
▪ Enriquez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005
7. Use of “may”
Case:
▪ Grego v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997
B. MANDATORY STATUTES
Case:
▪ Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997
Case:
▪ Vda. De Mesa v. Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966
C. DIRECTORY STATUTES
Case:
▪ Querubin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2581, December 02, 1948
Case:
▪ Marcelino v. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. L-42428, March 18, 1983
A. IN GENERAL
Case:
16
▪ Co v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993
Case:
▪ People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, December 22, 1955
Case:
▪ Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L•50581•50617, January 30, 1982
3. Bill of attainder
Case:
▪ People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972
Case:
▪ United States v. Macasaet, G.R. No. 4432, October 15, 1908
Case:
▪ Republic v. Samia, G.R. No. L-17569, May 31, 1963
7. Qualification of rule
8. Statutes affecting vested rights
Case:
▪ Rattan Art & Decorations, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-17744, April
30, 1965
Case:
▪ People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, December 22, 1955
Case:
▪ Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev’t. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 54305, February
14, 1990
17
2. Exceptions to the rule
3. Procedural laws
4. Exceptions to the rule
5. Curative statutes
Case:
▪ Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
6. Limitations of rule
7. Police power legislations
8. Statutes relating to prescription
9. Apparently conflicting decisions on prescription
10. Prescription in criminal and civil cases
11. Statutes relating to appeals
A. AMENDMENT
1. Power to amend
2. How amendment effected
3. Amendment by implication
4. When amendment takes effect
5. How amendment is construed, generally
6. Meaning of law changed by amendment
7. Amendment operates prospectively
8. Effect of amendment on vested rights
9. Effect of amendment on jurisdiction
10. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
1. Generally
2. Construction to harmonize different provisions
3. What is omitted is deemed repealed
4. Change in phraseology
5. Continuation of existing laws
C. REPEAL
1. Power to repeal
2. The Constitution prohibits passage of irrepealable laws; all laws are repealable
3. Repeal, generally
4. Repeal by implication
5. Irreconcilable inconsistency
6. Implied repeal by revision or codification
7. Repeal by reenactment
8. Other forms of implied repeal
9. “All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly,” construed
10. Repeal by implication not favored
11. As between two laws, one passed later prevails
12. General law does not repeal law, generally
13. Application of rule
14. When special or general law repeals the other
18
15. Effects of repeal, generally
16. On jurisdiction, generally
17. On jurisdiction to try criminal case
18. On actions, pending or otherwise
19. On vested rights
20. On contracts
21. Effect or repeal of tax laws
22. Repeal and reenactment, effect of
23. Effect or repeal of penal laws
24. Distinction as to effect of repeal and expiration of law
25. Effect of repeal of municipal charter
26. Repeal or nullity or repealing law, effect of
1. Constitution defined
2. Origin and history of the Philippine Constitutions
3. Primary purpose of constitutional construction
4. Constitution construed as enduring for ages
5. How language of Constitution construed
6. Aids to construction, generally
7. Realities existing at time of adoption; object to be accomplished
8. Proceedings of the convention
9. Contemporaneous construction and writings
10. Previous laws and judicial rulings
11. Changes in phraseology
12. Consequences of alternative constructions
13. Constitution construed as a whole
14. Mandatory or directory
15. Prospective or retroactive
16. Applicability of rules of statutory construction
17. Generally, constitutional provisions are self-executing
18. Three maxims employed as aids to construe constitutional provisions
19. Constructions of US Constitutional provisions adopted in 1987 Constitution
20. Other illustrative cases in constitutional construction
19