GROUP 2

CHAPTER IV -V
Constitutionality and Validity of Statutes
General Principles in the Construction
of Statutes

Batuampar Cabulanan Cruz Espino Murillo

CHAPTER IV

Constitutionality and
Validity of Statutes
 The three branches of our government have their
CHAPTER IV respective functions and responsibilities.
There must be independence and equality of the
several departments.
There is, however, no absolute separation of the
three departments of government. Each department
is given certain powers by which it may definitely
restrain the others from exceeding their
constitutional authority. Hence, from time to time,
the Supreme Court is called upon to make a
determination if a law is constitutional or not.
CHAPTER IV As much as possible, the SC will try to avoid going
into the issue of constitutionality if there is any
available ground to decide a case.

There will always be a presumption in favor of the

constitutionality of the statute.

It will be presumed that the law has been the

subject of study and careful deliberation before it
was finally enacted
 In this jurisdiction, no constitutional question will be
CHAPTER IV heard unless the following requisites of judicial
inquiry are complied with, to wit:

The question of
There must be an actual
constitutionality must be
case of controversy;
raised by the proper party;

The constitutional question The decision of the

must be raised at the constitutional question must
earliest possible be necessary to determine
opportunity the case itself
CHAPTER IV Actual Case or Controversy
There must be an actual conflict, which needs
judicial determination. It is not a dispute, which is
hypothetical, or one that is moot or academic.

It must be a concrete case that is real, one that

admits of specific relief and definite determination
of the legal rights of the parties.
CHAPTER IV Proper Party
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in
danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act
complained of.
 Earliest Opportunity
CHAPTER IV As a general rule, a constitutional question must be raised
in the pleadings, otherwise, they cannot be considered
during the trial. This rule is subject to the following
exceptions:
every case except
CRIMINAL CASES CIVIL CASES where there is
estoppel
at any time in the at any stage if it is
discretion of the necessary to the at any stage if it
court determination of involves
the case itself jurisdiction of the
court
CHAPTER IV Decision of the Constitutional
Question is Necessary to Determine
the Case Itself
The SC may not find it necessary to resolve a
constitutional question raised on the ground that
the matter brought before it is a political question,
or that the petitioner was estopped from impugning
the constitutionality of the law.
CHAPTER IV Decision of the Constitutional
Question is Necessary to Determine
the Case Itself

The Supreme Court will finally act on the

constitutional question before it only when there are
no other available grounds which it can base its
decision. In any case, the requisites of a judicial
inquiry should be complied with.
CHAPTER IV Effect of Unconstitutional Statute
The effects will depend on whether the statute is
TOTALLY or PARTIALLY declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
CHAPTER IV Effect of Unconstitutional Statute
IF TOTALLY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FIRST VIEW - 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, inoperative as though it has been
passes
CHAPTER IV Effect of Unconstitutional Statute
IF TOTALLY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

SECOND VIEW - an unconstitutional statute is

nevertheless a statute; that is, a legislative act. Such
a statute is commonly spoken of as void. The SC
cannot set aside a statute as it can a municipal
ordinance, it simply ignores statutes deemed
unconstitutional. (Shepard v Barren (194 US 553)
CHAPTER IV Effect of Unconstitutional Statute
IF PARTIALLY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

When a part of a statute is void as repugnant to the

Organic law, while another part is valid, THE
VALID PORTION, IF SEPARABLE FROM THE
INVALID, MAY STAND AND BE ENFORCED.
CHAPTER IV Effect of Unconstitutional Statute
IF PARTIALLY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

When is a valid portion separable?

It is separable when it can stand independently as a

separate statute. In this case, it may be fair to
presume that the legislature would have enacted it
by itself if it has supposed that it could
constitutionally do so.
CHAPTER IV
What is the effect of a statute
which is declared
unconstitutional?

There are 2 schools of thought on this question.

CHAPTER IV
ORTHODOX VIEW
Article 7 of the Civil Code, which
provides that "when the courts
declare a law to be
inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall
be void and the latter shall
govern," represents the
orthodox view
(Springer v. Government of the
Philippine Islands, (297 U.S. 189)
(Fernandez v. Cu- erva, 21 SCRA 1095,
1106 [1967])
THE SECOND VIEW
The SC simply ignores
statutes deemed
unconstitutional. It does not
strike the statute from the
statute books; it does not
repeal, supersede, revoke, or
annul the statute.
(Allisan v. Corker, 60 L.R.A. 564)
CHAPTER IV What is the extent of judicial
power to declare the
unconstitutionality of assailed
legislative & executive acts?
As a rule, our courts, particularly. our Supreme
Court, have the power to declare said acts to be
unconstitutional if indeed they are contrary to the
Constitution.
CHAPTER IV Out of respect, however, to the principle of
separation of powers, our courts have shown
restraint in declaring the same to be totally
unconstitutional, if it is still possible, for instance, to
salvage the valid portions of a statute from those
which, in their assessment, should be declared
illegal and unconstitutional.
CHAPTER IV REQUISITES FOR DECLARATION OF
PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

That the legislature is That the valid portions

willing to retain the can stand
valid portion even if independently as a
the rest is declared separate statute
illegal
CHAPTER IV EXAMPLES
1. In Lim v. Pacquing (240 SCRA 649) Section 3
of PD No. 771 is violative of Article VIII of the
1973 Constitution. Reason: Section 3 offends
the Constitution, which demands faithful
compliance with the requirement of due
process, equal protection of the law, and non-
impairment of contracts.
CHAPTER IV EXAMPLES
2. The Bar Flunkers bill was sustained insofar as it
amend- ed the Rules of Court prospectively but the
part thereof which retroactively reduced the passing
average in the bar examinations was declared
unconstitutional, the same being an encroachment
to functions belonging to
CHAPTER V

General Principles in the

Construction of Statutes
CHAPTER V STATUES MUST BE READ AND
CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE

It is basic that a statute must be read and

construed in its entirety. Hence, each
provision of the statute should be construed in
relation to the other provisions of the statute.
CHAPTER V STATUES MUST BE READ AND
CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE

Parts of a statute are not to be viewed in

isolation because a statute is passed and
approved as a whole, and more than this,
there is a precise purpose why it was enacted.
CHAPTER V LEGISLATIVE INTENT MUST BE
ASCERTAINED FROM THE STATUTE AS
WHOLE

Optima Statuli Interpretatix est Ipsum

Statutum

The best interpreter of the statute is the

statute itself. The intent is primarily
determines from the language of the statute.
CHAPTER V LEGISLATIVE INTENT MUST BE
ASCERTAINED FROM THE STATUTE AS
WHOLE

Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat

It is not enough that a statute should be given

effect as a whole but that effect should be
given to each of the provisions in the statute.
CHAPTER V NEW CASE
LORENZO T. TANGGA-AN v. PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., et al.,
G.R. No. 180636, March 13, 2013

OLD CASE
MERIDIAN ASSURANCE
CORPORATION v. DAYRIT G.R. No. 1-
59154, April 3, 1990
CHAPTER V Courts have the duty to reconcile or
harmonize the different provisions of the
statute including the conflicting provisions
thereof
Each provision in a statute is inserted for a
definite reason. Reconciling and harmonizing
them will make them consistent, harmonious,
and sensible. It is only through this that the
statute will be given effect as a whole.
CHAPTER V As a rule, the statute of LATER date
PREVAILS

The statute of a later date is presumed to be

the latest expression of legislative will on the
subject.

(Pacis v. Averia, G.R. No. L-22526, November

29, 1966)
CHAPTER V Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant

Special provisions prevail over the general

provisions. (Black in Interpretation of Laws,
2nd edition, pp. 328-329) However, if it is
possible to harmonize the general and special
provisions, said rule shall not apply. Special
provisions prevail regardless of the position it
occupies in the statute, and whether it comes
earlier or later than the general one.
CHAPTER IV Example of a special law
prevailing over a general law

Fiestan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81552, May

28, 1990
CHAPTER IV When can a GENERAL LAW prevail
over a SPECIAL LAW?
when it treats the subject in particular and the
special law refers to it in general; (Bagatsing v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, December 17, 1976)
when the legislature intended the general
enactment to cover the whole subject and to
repeal all prior laws inconsistent therewith.
(Lechoco v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 43 SCRA
670)
CHAPTER V Pari Materia Rule
All statutes relating to the same subject, or
having the same general purpose, should be
read and construed together as if they
constituted one law.

This rule is founded on the assumption that in

enacting a law, the legislature has in mind the
previous statutes relating to the same subject
matter.
 Pari Materia Rule is subject to 2
CHAPTER V qualifications
1. If two or more statutes on the same subject
were enacted at different conditions and
circumstances, THEIR INTERPRETATION
SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS
PECULIAR TO EACH. (Distingue tempra et
concordabis jura)
 Pari Materia Rule is subject to 2
CHAPTER V qualifications

2. A statute will not be construed as repealing

prior act or acts on the same subject unless the
new law is evidently intended to all prior laws on
the matter.
 In interpreting the reenacted statutes,
CHAPTER V the court will follow the construction
which such statute received when
previously in force.

REENACTED STATUTE - a statute which

reenacts a previous statute

In this, it is presumed that the legislature has the

intention of adopting the construction and the
language of the previous act
 In the case of adopted statute, the
CHAPTER V interpretation of the courts of the state
from which it is adopted should be
considered

ADOPTED STATUTE - a statute patterned, or

copied from the statute of another country

Our courts will be guided by the interpretation

and construction of the courts of the country from
which it is taken.
 In the case of adopted statute, the
CHAPTER V interpretation of the courts of the state
from which it is adopted should be
considered
Example:

Our Constitution’s due process clause and

equal protection clause as well as our law on
corporation and insolvency are of American
origin
CHAPTER V In case of a conflict between a COMMON
LAW PRINCIPLE & a STATUTORY
PROVISION, the latter prevails

In Alvendia v. Intermediate Court, G.R. No. L-

72138 and Bonamy v. Justice Paras, G.R. No.
72138, January 20, 1990, the Supreme Court
ruled that equity applies only in the absence of
and never against statutory law or judicial
rules of procedure.
CHAPTER V Implied Repeals are not Legally Presumed
in the Absence of a Clear and
Unmistakable Showing of Such Intentions

BATANGAS CATV, INC v THE COURT OF

APPEALS, et at., G R No 138810, September
29, 2004
CHAPTER V BATANGAS CATV, INC v THE COURT OF
APPEALS, et at., G R No 138810,
September 29, 2004

ISSUE:
Is Executive Order No. 205 impliedly
repealed by RA No. 7160?
CHAPTER V RULING:
At any rate, [the Court] find[s] no basis to
conclude that RA No. 7160 repealed Executive
Order No. 205, either expressly or impliedly. It
is noteworthy that RA No. 7160 repealing
clause, which painstakingly mentions the
specific laws or the parts thereof which are
repealed, does not include Executive Order
No. 205.
CHAPTER V RULING:
Neither is there an indication that
Executive Order No. 205 was impliedily
repealed by RA No. 7160. It is a settled rule
that implied repeals are not lightly presumed
in the absence of a clear and unmistakable
showing of such intention
THANK
YOU!