STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

# 18 (4TH TOPIC)
When courts need not resort to interpretation or construction

CASES: 
1. GO KA TOC SONS v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, G.R. No. L-23607,
May 23, 1967

2. PEOPLE v. MAPA, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967

3. LUZON SURETY v. DE GARCIA, G.R. No. L-25659, October 31, 1969

1. GO KA TOC SONS v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, G.R. No.
L-23607, May 23, 1967

• “What the court a quo did was to resort to statutory construction.

But this was improper as well as incorrect. The law is clear in
enunciating the policy that only Filipinos and associations,
partnerships or corporations 100% Filipino can engage even in the
trade and acquisition of the by-products of rice and/or corn. So the
court’s only duty was to apply the law as it was. The purpose of the
Act, as expressed in the introductory note of the bill, can control the
language of the law only in case of ambiguity. There is none here.”
2. PEOPLE v. MAPA, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967

• “The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret

agent. As such he is not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first
and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. “Construction
and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
application is impossible or inadequate without them.”
3. LUZON SURETY v. DE GARCIA, G.R. No. L-25659, October
31, 1969

• “Its language is clear; it does not admit of doubt. No process of

interpretation or construction need be resorted to. It peremptorily
calls for application. Where a requirement is made in explicit and
unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the judiciary. It must see
to it that its mandate is obeyed. So it is in this case.”