CHAPTER II

A I D S I N I N T E R P R E TAT I O N

AND CONSTRUCTION

CASE: DE GUIA v. GUINGONA, et al.,

G.R. No. 119525, April 18, 1995

 CONGRESS HAS THE INHERENT

POWER TO AMEND, MODIFY, AND
REPEAL ITS OWN LAWS FOR THERE
ARE NO IRREPEALABLE LAWS

Reported by ： Kassandra Mae Pineda 1.5B

I. USE INTRINSIC AIDS BEFORE
RESORTING
TO EXTRINSIC AIDS
II. WHAT ARE THE INTRINSIC
AIDS?
DE GUIA v. GUINGONA, et al.,
G.R. No. 119525, April 18, 1995
PRESUMPTIONS: AGAINST
VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY, KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING
LAWS, ACQUIESCENCE TO JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION ,JURISDICTION ,ACTI
NG WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY ,AGAINST
VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONENT
S
 I. USE INTRINSIC AIDS BEFORE
RESORTING TO EXTRINSIC AIDS

In determining the intention of the legislature, the courts may

use any of the following:

1. INTRINSIC AIDS - Elements found in the law itself

2. EXTRINSIC AIDS - Facts or matters not found in the

law

3. PRESUMPTIONS - Based on logic or established

provision of law

The established practice is to resort first to intrinsic aids before

resolving to extrinsic aids and before indulging in presumptions.

1. TITLE. - That which expresses the
subject matter of the
law. It can help in the construction of
statutes but it is not
controlling and not entitled to much
weight.
2. PREAMBLE. - That part of the statute
II. WHAT following the
title and preceding the enacting clause
ARE THE which states the
reasons or the objectives of the
INTRINSIC enactment. It cannot
AIDS? enlarge or confer powers, or cure
inherent defects in the
statute.
3. WORDS, PHRASES AND
SENTENCES, CONTEXT.
- The intention of the legislature must
primarily be
determined from the language of the statute and such language
consists of the words, phrases and sentences used therein. The
meaning of the law should, however, be taken from the general
consideration of the act as a whole and not from any single part,
portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or
sentences used.
4. PUNCTUATION. - It is an aid of low degree in interpreting the
language of a statute and can never control against the intelligible
meaning of the written word. However, if the punctuation of the
statute gives it a meaning that is reasonable and in apparent accord
with the legislative will, it may be used as an additional argument for
adopting the literal meaning of the words thus punctuated.
5. HEADINGS AND MARGINAL NOTES. - If the
meaning of the statute is clear or if the text of the statute is clear,
they will prevail as against the headings, especially if the headings
have been prepared by compilers and not by the legislature.
6. LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION AND INTERPRETATION. - If the
legislature has defined the words used in the statute and has
declared the construction to be placed thereon, such definition or
construction should be
followed by the courts.
 Facts:
Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of RA No. 7887,
enacted on February 15, 1995 insofar as it provides that elective
members of the Sanggurnang Panlungsod and Sangguniang
Bayan outside Metro Manila shall be elected at large. RA No. 7887
amended Section 3, paragraphs (c) and (d) of BA No. 7166,
Case: DE GUIA v. enacted on November 26, 1991, which provides that said officials
GUINGONA, et al., shall be elected by district on the May 8, 1995 election. He argued
G.R. No. 119525, that RA No. 7887 is contrary to and inconsistent with the earlier
April 18, 1995
law, RA No 7166" He urges the Court to strike down RA No. 7887
CONGRESS HAS THE
and to "reinstate RA No 7166".
INHERENT POWER
TO AMEND,
MODIFY AND Issue:
REPEAL ITS OWN
LAWS FOR THERE
ARE NO Is RA No 7887 contrary to or consistent with RA No 7166?
IRREPEALABLE
LAWS
 Held: Case: DE GUIA v. GUINGONA, et al.,
G.R. No. 119525, April 18, 1995

It is of no moment that RA No. 7887 is contrary and inconsistent

with RA No. 7166. HA No. 7887 was enacted precisely to amend
Section 3[c] and [d] of RA No. 7166. Congress has the inherent
power to amend, modify and repeal its own laws for there are no
irrepealable laws Its perception of what is good for our people can
change over time. This perception is reflected by them through the
amendment or outright repeal of our existing laws. By the principle
of separation of powers, the Supreme Court cannot supersede the
wisdom of Congress in enacting, amending or repealing a law. It
cannot strike down an amendatory law on the ground that the
amended law is better for the people Petitioner's supplication
that the Supreme Court '.reinstate" RA No 7166 betrays his basic
ignorance of our constitutional system.
PRESUMPTIONS IN AIDS OF
CONSTRUCTION
 PRESUMPTION AGAINST IMPLIED
REPEALS

 PRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF

PUBLIC POLICY

 PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF
EXISTING LAWS

 PRESUMPTION OF ACQUIESCENCE TO
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION

 PRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTION

 PRESUMPTION OF ACTING WITHIN THE

SCOPE OF AUTHORITY

 PRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW
 1.) PRESUMPTION AGAINST IMPLIED REPEALS

Repeals by implication is not favored. There are two requirements before a statute can be considered to have repealed a prior
statute by implication, namely:
1. That the statute touch the same subject matter; and
2. That the later statute is repugnant to the earlier one.
(Calderon v. Provincia Del Santisimo Rosario, 26 Phil.
164)
In this connection, there are three basic rules to remember on
the matter of repeal:
1. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse,
or custom or practice to the contrary. (Article 7 New Civil
Code of the Philippines)
2. When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself
repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived, unless expressly so provided. However, when a law
repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication only,
its repeal revives the prior law unless the language of the
repealing statute provides otherwise. (U.S. v. Soliman, 36
Phil. 5)
3. A general law does not repeal a special law unless it is so
expressly provided, or they are incompatible. (Compania
General
2.) de TabacosAGAINST
PRESUMPTION v. Collector of Customs,
VIOLATION OF46 Phil. 8)
PUBLIC
POLICY
It is presumed that the legislature designs to favor and foster
rather than to contravene, that public policy which is based upon
the principles of natural justice, good morals, and the settled
wisdom of the law as applied to the ordinary affairs of life. (Black,
Interpretation of Laws, 2nd Edition, p. 134)

3.) PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING LAWS

In enacting a law, the lawmaking body is presumed to have
full knowledge of all existing laws on the subject. Hence, if there are
two laws on the same subject enacted on different dates, the latter
law cannot be held to have abrogated the former law, unless the repugnancy is clear, convincing and irreconcilable. (Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, et al.)
4.) PRESUMPTION OF ACQUIESCENCE
6.) PRESUMPTION OF ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
TO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORITY
When the court has construed a statute in
It is presumed that the legislature acted within the scope of its
a particular manner, and the lawmaking
authority. Hence, if a statute admits of more than one
body made no move to alter or amend the
interpretation, one that places the statute outside of legislative
said statute, it is presumed that the
competence, and one that places the statute within the limits
legislature has acquiesced in that
of legislative competence, the court should adopt the later
interpretation.
interpretation. (Black, Interpretation of Laws. 2nd Ed., p. 138)

5.) PRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTION

7.) PRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF
A statute will not be construed in such a
INTERNATIONAL LAW
manner as to oust or restrict thejurisdiction
It is presumed that a statute is in conformity with the rules
of superior courts, or to vest a new
and principles of international laws, or with treaties, in line with
jurisdiction in them, unless there are
Section 2, Article II, of the 1987 Constitution, which provides
express words or a necessary implication
as follows:
to that effect. (G.R. No. L-41001,
"Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
September 30, 1976; U.S. v.
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
Palacio, 33 Phil. 208)
international law as part of the law of the land an d
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations."
 Click to add title Click to add title
Click to add text messageClick to add text Click to add text messageClick to add text
messageClick to add text messageClick to add messageClick to add text messageClick to add
text message text message
Thank you
Click to add text messageClick to add text messageClick to add text

messageClick to add text message

Reported by ： XXX