ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Statutory Construction Course Description: This course introduces students to the various means

, me thods, tests and principles used by the courts for determining the meaning of a law. Course Objectives: By the end of the term, the students should be able to: 1. Define Statutory Construction 2. Explain the various means, methods, tests and principles used in statuto ry construction; and 3. Construe the meaning of a law by applying said means, methods, tests and principles. Grading System: Attendance / recitation / quizzes / digest / prelims Midterm Exams Final Exams 40% 30% 30%

Course Outline: I. Statutes, in general A. Definitions and distinctions i. What is a statute? ii. What is a law? iii. What is Construction? iv. What is Interpretation? v. What is Statutory Construction? Definition of Statutory Construction 1. Caltex vs Palomar (GR L-19650, Sept 29, 1966) B. Parts of a Statute C. Enactment of a Statute (How does a bill become a law?) D. Presidential Issuances E. Effect and Operation F. Types / Kinds of Statutes II. Statutory Construction, in general A. When does Statutory Construction come in? 2. National Federation of Labor (NFL) vs Eisma (GR L-61236, January 31, 4) 3. Paat vs CA (GR No. 111107, January 10, 1997) 4. People vs Mapa (GR L-22301, August 30, 1967) 5. Daoang vs Municipal Judge of San Nicolas R L-34568, March 28, 1988) 6. Paras vs Comelec (GR No. 123169, November 4, 1996) B. Statutory Construction vs Judicial Legislation i. Statutory Construction, whose job is it? 7. Floresca vs Philex Mining (GR L-30642, April 30, 1985) 8. Republic vs. CA and Molina (GR No. 108763, February 1997) C. Legislative Intent, how ascertained i. How must legislative intent be ascertained? 9. Aisporna vs CA (GR L-39419, April 12, 1982) 10. China Bank vs Ortega (GR L-34964, January 31, 1973) 11. Board of Administrators of the PVA vs Bautista (GR L-37867, February 1982) D. Power to Construe E. Limitations on the Power to Construe III. Aids in Construction A. Intrinsic Aids B. Extrinsic Aids

198

(G

13,

22,

12. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs SSC (GR L-15045, January 20, 196 1) C. Contemporary Construction 13. David vs. Comelec, (GR No. 128039, April 8, 1997) IV. Interpretation of Statutes A. Literal Construction 14. Salvatierra vs CA (GR No. 107797, August 26, 1996) 15. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa vs Manila Railroad Company (GR L-25316, Febr uary 28, 1979) i. Departure from Literal Construction – When literal construction is not fav ored 16. Abellana vs Marave (GR L-27760, May 29, 1974) Paras vs Comelec (supra) ii. Implications B. Executive Construction i. Basic rule in Executive Construction 17. PAFLU vs Bureau of Labor Relations (GR L-43760, August 21, 1976) ii. When Executive Construction is not given weight 18. Philippine Apparel Workers’ Union vs NLRC (GR L-50320, July 31, 1981) 19. IBAA Employees’ Union vs Inciong (GR L-52415, October 23, 1984) 20. Chartered Bank Employees Association vs Ople (GR L-44717, August 28, 198 5) C. Rule vs Opinion i. What is the difference between a rule and an opinion? 21. Victorias Milling vs Social Security Commission (GR L-16704, March 17, 1 962) D. Strict Construction vs Liberal Construction V. Subjects of Construction A. The Constitution i. How should the constitution be construed 22. Sarmiento vs Mison (GR No. 79974, December 17, 1987) 23. Perfecto vs Meer (GR No. L-2348, February 27, 1950) 24. Endencia vs David (GR L-6355 to 56, August 31, 1953) 25. Nitafan vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-78780, July 23, 1987) ii. May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional Pr ovisions? 26. Aglipay vs Ruiz (GR No. 45459, March 13, 1937) iii. Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing? 27. Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS (GR No. 122156, February 3, 1997) B. Statute i. Requirements for the publication of laws 28. Tanada vs Tuvera (GR L-63915, April 24, 1985) 29. Tanada vs Tuvera (GR L-63915, December 29, 1986) C. Ordinances i. Rule on Construction of ordinances vis a vis statutes 30. Primicias vs Urdaneta (GR L -26702, October 18, 1979) VI. Interpretation of specific types of statutes A. Tax Laws – general construction i. How are refunds on taxes construed? 31. La Carlota Sugar Central vs Jimenez (GR L-12436, May 31, 1961) ii. Who has the burden of proof in tax cases? 32. CIR vs CA (GR No. 115349, April 18, 1997) 33. Mactan Cebu (MCIAA) vs Marcos (GR No. 120082, September 11, 1996) iii. Tax on foreclosure sales 34. Serfino vs CA (GR L-40858, September 15, 1987) B. Labor Laws i. Rule in construction of labor laws 35. Manahan vs ECC (GR L-44899, April 22, 1981)

36. Villavert vs ECC (GR L-48605, December 14, 1981) 37. Del Rosario & Sons vs NLRC (GR L-64204, May 31, 1985) C. Insurance Laws i. Rule in the interpretation of insurance provisions 38. Ty vs First National Surety (GR L-16138, April 29, 1961) 39. Dela Cruz vs Capital Insurance (GR L-21574, June 30, 1966) ii. Ambiguous provision interpreted against insurer 40. Qua Chee Gan vs Law Union and Rock Insurance (GR L-4611, December 17, 19 55) ==================Midterm Coverage===================== D. Corporate Laws i. Rule in the interpretation of Corporate Law provisions 41. Home Insurance vs Eastern Shipping Lines (GR L-34382, July 20, 1983) E. Naturalization Laws i. Rule in the construction of Naturalization Laws 42. Co vs Republic (GR L-12150, May 26, 1960) 43. Lee Cho (Sem Lee) vs Republic (GR L-12408, December 28, 1959) F. Agrarian Reform Laws i. Rule in the construction of Agrarian Reform Laws 44. Guerrero vs CA (GR L-44570, May 30, 1986) G. Rules of Court i. Rule in the construction of the Rules of Court 45. Bello vs CA (GR L-38161, March 29, 1974) H. Expropriation Laws 46. City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila (GR No. 14355, October 31 , 1919) I. Election Laws 47. Villanueva vs Comelec (GR L- 54718, December 4, 1985) J. Wills 48. In Re: Tampoy (GR L- 14322, February 25, 1960) VII. Construction of Words and Phrases A. “May” and “Shall” 49. Capati vs Ocampo (GR L- 28742, April 30, 1982) B. “And” and “Or” 50. GMCR vs. Bell Telecommunications (GR No. 126796 / 126526, April 30, 19 97) C. “Principally” and “Exclusively” 51. Alfon vs Republic (GR L-51201, May 29, 1980) D. “Previously” and “Simultaneously” 52. Rura vs Lopena (GR L-69810 to 14, June 19, 1985) E. “Every”, “Each”, and “Particularly” 53. NHA vs Juco (GR L-64313, January 17, 1985) F. “Term” and “Tenure” 54. Aparri vs Court of Appeals (GR L-30057, January 31, 1984) G. Surplusages 55. Demafiles vs Comelec (GR L-28396, December 29, 1987) H. Punctuations 56. Arabay vs CFI of Zamboanga del Norte (GR L-37684, September 10, 1975) 57. US vs Hart (GR L-8848, November 21, 1913) I. Provisos, Exception and Saving Clauses VIII. Particular Latin Phrases A. Verba Legis 58. Victoria vs Comelec (GR No. 109005, January 10, 1994) B. Ratio Legis 59. CIR vs SeagateTechnology (GR No.153866, February 11, 2005) C. Mens Legilatoris 60. Matabuena vs Cervantes (GR No. L -28771, March 31, 1971) D. Dura Lex Sed Lex 61. People vs Santayana (GR No L-22291, November 15, 1976) E. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

62.

Rubio Jr vs Paras (GR No 156047, April 12, 2005)

F. Ejusdem Generis 63. Mutuc vs Comelec (GR L-32717, November 26, 1970) G. Cassus Omissus 64. People vs Manantan (GR L-14129, July 31, 1962) 65. Lopez vs CTA (GR L-9274, February 1, 1957) H. Noscitur A Sociis 66. Sanciangco vs Rono (GR L-68709, July 19, 1985) IX. Statute Construed as a Whole and in Relation to Other Statutes 67. Lozano vs Yorac (GR L-94521 / 4626, October 28, 1991) X. Special vs General provisions A. What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of the same statute? 68. Manila Railroad Company vs Collector of Customs (GR No. 30264, March 12 , 1929) 69. Almeda vs Florentino (GR No. L-23800, December 21, 1965) B. What is the rule regarding conflicting provisions of different statutes? 70. Laxamana vs Baltazar (GR L-5955, September 19, 1952) 71. Butuan Sawmill vs City of Butuan (GR L-21516, April 29, 1966) 72. Arayata vs Joya, (GR L-28067, March 10, 1928) C. What is the rule in case of conflict between a special provision of a ge neral law and a general provision of a special law? 73. City of Manila vs Teotico (GR L-23052, January 29, 1968) David vs Comelec (supra) XI. Mandatory and Directory Statutes XII. Prospective and Retroactive Statutes XIII. Amendment, Revision, Codification and Repeal 74. Tac-An vs CA (GR L-62251, July 29, 1985) 75. Villegas vs Subido (GR L-31711, September 30, 1987) Class Policies: • Attendance is checked at 8:15am. Please make an effort to be on time so as not t o disrupt the class. Each student is allowed a maximum of four (4) absences. O n the fifth, the student is considered “FA – failed due to absences”. • If a student is called to recite and he or she is absent, the student will get a recitation grade of 65. • Keep mobile phone in silent mode. If the phone will cause disruption of class, every student present will get a grade of 75 for one recitation. • Every week, ten (10) cases will be submitted in digest form, following the forma t below: o Facts (Relevant to the assigned topic) o Issue o Decision (Ratio decidendi) Submission of cases in digest form will be graded as follows: • Quantity (30%) - ten cases every week as listed in the syllabus; total of 75 ca ses for the entire semester • Quality (40%) - neatness, legible handwriting, grammar and English construction, relevance to the topic • Timeliness (30%) o on or before the date due for submission – 100% o submitted on the following week after its due date 85% o submitted on the 2nd following week after its due date 75% o beyond two (2) weeks late 65% Deadlines:

June 26, 2011 – cases 1 to 10 July 3, 2011 - cases 11 to 20 July 10, 2011 – cases 21 to 30 July 17, 2011 - cases 31 to 40 July 24, 2011 – cases 41 to 50 August 14, 2011 – cases 51 to 60 August 21, 2011 – cases 61 to 70 August 28, 2011 – cases 71 - 75