STATUTORY COSTRUCTION OUTLINE WITH CASES

by: Atty. Edgardo Bojos Luardo, Jr.

I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
a. Statutory Construction
i. Definition
ii. Importance
b. Construction vs. Interpretation
c. When Construction is Necessary
i. Purpose of Construction: to determine spirit of the law/legislative intent in case of ambiguity of the statute
CASES: Federation of Free Farmers vs. CA, 107 SCRA 352
Manila Jockey Club Inc. vs. GAB, 127 Phil 151
ii. Effect when the text of the statute utterly fails to express the legislative intent
d. Determine Legislative Intent from the text of the law itself, within the context of the whole
CASE: Aisporna vs. CA, 113 SCRA 459
e. Power to Construe: Judicial Function
i. Separation of Powers
ii. Interrelationship/Overlap of Powers
1. Executive and Legislative Powers
a. Executive rule-making power (delegated legislative power)
b. Administrative supervision of its own departments by each House of Congress
2. Executive and Judicial Powers
a. Executive Agencies With Quasi-Judicial Functions
b. Executive Contemporaneous Construction of Statutes
c. SC admin supervision of all courts and personnel
3. Judicial and Legislative Powers
a. Judicial Legislation (See Article 9, NCC)
i. Limitation on Judicial Power to Construe
CASE: Floresca vs. Philex Mining 136 SCRA 506
b. Legislative Interpretation thru interpretative clause prescribing rules of construction
iii. Power of Judicial Review: Requisites
1. Existence of appropriate case (actual case or controversy)
2. Locus standi (legal standing)
3. Constitutional question raised at the earliest opportunity
4. Necessity of deciding the constitutional question
iv. Declaration of unconstitutionality of statutes
1. Effect
2. Partial unconstitutionality: separable provisions/with separability clause
a. Exception
CASE: Lidasan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
3. Doctrine of Relative of Constitutionality
CASE: Central Bank Employees Assn., Inc. vs. BSP, 446 SCRA 299
v. Reversal of Judicial Construction
vi. Promulgation: Operative Act for the Effectivity of a Decision
CASE: Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178831-32, July 30, 2009
See also Araneta vs Dinglasan [on the effect of the death of a justice (Justice Perfecto) who voted in a
decision that was promulgated after he died]
vii. Rulings of the SC (in construing a statute)
1. Part of Legal System (See Art. 8, NCC)
2. Generally, no retroactive effect
3. NEW: Cannot be undone by Congress by re-enacting a provision previously declared unconstitutional
CASE: Sameer Oversees Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139. August 5, 2014
f.

Subjects of Construction
i. Constitution
ii. Statutes
1. Basic Rules of Construing/Interpreting Specific Statutes
a. Political Laws
i. Election Laws
CASE: Villanueva vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 352
Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
ii. Local Government Code (See Section 5, RA 7610)
iii. Expropriation laws
iv. Naturalization laws
b. Labor and Social Legislation
CASES: Manahan vs. ECC, 104 SCRA 198
Villavert vs. ECC, 110 SCRA 223
Del Rosario and Sons vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 669
c. Penal Statutes: strictly against the State; liberally in favor of the accused
CASES: Pp. vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684
Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197
d. Tax Laws
i. Those imposing taxes and custom duties
ii. Those granting exemptions
e. Civil Law
i. Family Law
ii. Wills and Succession
iii. Obligations and Contracts (Read Art. 1370-1379, NCC)
iii. Ordinances
iv. Rules of Court

II.

STATUTES
a. Definition
b. Distinguished from
i. Constitution
ii. Ordinances
iii. Administrative orders
c. Classification
i. According to duration: permanent vs. temporary
ii. According to time of applicability: prospective vs. retroactive
iii. According to operation: declaratory; curative
iv. According to compliance requirement: mandatory vs. directory
v. According to WON rights are given: substantive vs. non-substantive (remedial)
vi. According to form: affirmative vs. negative
vii. According to WON there is a penal provision: penal vs. non-penal
d. Enactment (How a bill becomes a law)
i. Legislative power: vested on Congress (See Sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution)
ii. Procedure (See Sec 24, 25, 26 and 27, Art. VI of the Constitution)
iii. Authentication of bill before being sent to the President
e. Enrolled Bill doctrine
f. Parts of Law
i. Title
1. One subject, one bill rule
a. Rationale
b. Effect of non-compliance
ii. Enacting clause
iii. Preamble (seldom included)
iv. Body (purview) of the Statute
v. Separability Clause
g. Effectivity (See Art. 2, Civil Code)
i. Publication requirement
CASES: Tanada vs. Tuvera (original decision), 136 SCRA 27 (1985)
Tanada vs. Tuvera (resolution of the M.R.), 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
Phil. Veterans Bank Employees Union vs. Vega, GR No. 105364, June 28, 2001 (deviation from
Tanada vs. Tuvera)
ii. Prospective operation of laws (Art. 4, Civil Code)
1. No effect on pending actions
2. Exception to prospectivity
a. Procedural laws
b. Express provision on retroactive application (Art. 4, supra)
c. Penal laws favorable to accused (See Art. 22, RPC)
i. If already convicted
ii. If detention prisoner (case is still pending)
h. Amendment
i. Coverage: only specific provisions
ii. Form
1. Generally, express
2. Amendment by implication
a. Legislative intent to repeal, found in a statement in the later act that any provision of law
inconsistent therewith is modified accordingly
b. Irreconcilable repugnancy between the provisions of a prior and a later law
iii. Construction of amendments
CASE: Estrada vs. Caseda, 84 Phil 791 (1949)
iv. Operation of amendments
1. Generally, prospective
2. Exception: express provision on retroactivity
a. Exception to the exception: when vested rights are impaired
v. Effect on jurisdiction of courts
vi. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
i. Revision and Codification
i. Construction: harmonize the different provisions of the revised statute or code
ii. Effect of omission of provision/s of the old laws
1. Generally: what is omitted is deemed repealed
2. Exception: revised statute or code provides otherwise
iii. Effect of change in phraseology
j. Repeals
i. Civil Code provision on repeals [Art. 7 (1), NCC]
ii. Distinguished from Amendments
iii. General Rule: Non-retroactive application
CASE: Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803
iv. Forms of repeal
1. Express repeal
2. Implied repeal
a. Presumption Against Implied Repeals
CASE: National Power Corporation vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)
b. Categories of implied repeal
i. Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws with similar subject matter
1. Requisites
CASES: Villegas vs. Subido, GR No. L-31711, Sept 30, 1971 (41 SCRA
190)

Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242

Later law covers whole subject of an earlier law AND is clearly intended as a substitute
1. Implied repeal because of revision or codification
CASE: Pp. vs. Almuete, 69 SCRA 410
2. Implied repeal by re-enactment
3. Nature of repealing clause (All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly): predicated on substantial (irreconcilable) conflict between prior and
later laws
v. Earlier law vs. later law
1. Irreconcilable inconsistency of two laws: later law prevails
CASE: David vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)
2. Earlier special law vs. later general law
a. Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does not repeal earlier special law)
CASE: Laguna Lake Devt Authority vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995
b. Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed an exception to the later
general law
CASE: Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)
c. Exceptions
i. Later general enactment intended to cover the whole subject and to repeal the all prior
laws inconsistent therewith
CASE: Gaerlan vs. Catubig, 17 SCRA 376 (1966)
ii. Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates specific rule
CASE: City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22 SCRA 276 (1968)
iii. manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the earlier special law
CASE: City Govt of San Pablo vs. Reyes, 305 SCRA 353 (1999)
3. Earlier general law vs. later special law
a. Effect: partial repeal of earlier general law
CASE: Lagman vs. City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579 (GR L-23305, June 30, 1966)
vi. Effect of Repeal
1. On when repealed law is rendered inoperative: date repealing act takes effect
2. On jurisdiction already acquired by courts: not lost by subsequent repeal or expiration of the law giving the
jurisdiction
a. But courts are to use the prevailing law in disposing of the merits of the case
i. Exception: where vested rights are impaired
3. On contracts previously had under the repealed law
4. On taxes assessed under the repealed tax law
5. On municipal offices under the old charter of an LGU
vii. Effect of Repeal or Declaration of Unconstitutionality of Repealing law
CASE: JG Summit Holdings vs. CA, GR No. 124293, Nov. 20, 2000
(See however the Resolutions on the MR dated Sept 24, 2003 and Jan 31, 2005)
viii. Only a law can repeal another law (NEW)
CASE: Palanca v. CA, G.R. No. 106685, December 2, 1994, reiterated in Sameer Oversees Placement Agency,
Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139. August 5, 2014
ii.

III.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULES

a. Ratio Legis: Spirit of the law/Legislative Intent as the Primary Object
i. As expressed in the literal reading of the text
1. Verba legis (literal or plain meaning rule)
CASES: IBAA Employees Union vs. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663
Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople, 138 SCRA 273
a. Dura lex sed lex
CASES: Pascual vs. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561
Aguila vs. CFI, 160 SCRA 352
i. Inapplicability in criminal cases
CASE: Pp vs. Santayana, 74 SCRA 25 in relation to Pp vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164
ii. As determined through Construction
1. General Rule: Statute must be capable of construction, otherwise inoperative
CASE: Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106
2. Specific Rules
a. Mens Legislatoris: Ascertain spirit/intent/purpose of the law
CASES: Prasnik vs. Republic, 98 Phil 665
Matabuena vs. Cervantes, 38 SCRA 284
King vs. Hernandez, 114 SCRA 730
Bustamante vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61
US vs. Toribio, 15 Phil 85
Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520
Planters Assn vs. Ponferrada, 317 SCRA 463
1. When literal import must yield to spirit/intent
CASE: Villanueva vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 353 (Read the dissent of
Justice Aquino for the caveat on this rule)
2. When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases
CASE: Comendador vs. De Villa, GR No. 93177, August 2, 1991
People v. Almuete, supra
b. ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe statute as a whole
i. Harmonize and give effects to all provisions whenever possible; reconcile apparently
conflicting provisions
CASES: National Tobacco Admin vs. COA, 311 SCRA 755 (1999)
Republic vs. CA, 263 SCRA 758 (1996)
Dreamwork Contruction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009
ii. Special vs. general provisions in one statute
1. Earlier special law vs. later general law

a.

c.

d.
e.

Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does

not repeal earlier special law)
CASE: Laguna Lake Devt Authority vs. CA, 251 SCRA 42
(1995)
b. Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed
an exception to the later general law
CASE: Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)
c. Exceptions

Later general enactment intended to cover the whole

subject and to repeal the all prior laws inconsistent
therewith
CASE: Gaerlan vs. Catubig, 17 SCRA 376 (1966)

Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later

general law creates specific rule
CASE: City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22 SCRA 276
(1968)

manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the

earlier special law
CASE: City Govt of San Pablo vs. Reyes, 305
SCRA 353 (1999)
2. Earlier general law vs. later special law
a. Effect: partial repeal (amendment) of earlier general law
CASE: Lagman vs. City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579 (1966)
Construe Statute in Relation to the Constitution and Other Statutes
i. Supremacy of the Constitution
1. But when statutes admit of two constructions, one constitutional and the other
unconstitutional, construction in favor of constitutionality should be favoured
CASE: De la Cruz vs. Paras, GR No.42591, July 25, 1983
ii. Statutes in Pari Materia
1. Harmonized to form a consistent and coherent system
CASE: Vda. de Urbano vs. GSIS, GR No. 137904, Oct 19, 2001
Cabada vs. Alunan, 260 SCRA 828 (1996)
Declarador v. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208 August 18, 2006
a. If cannot be reconciled, earlier one gives way to later one
CASE: Naga City vs. Agna, GR No. 36049, May 31, 1976
When the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish
CASE: Ramirez vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)
Meaning of Words and Phrases
i. Statutory definition
CASE: Victorias Milling vs. Social Security Commission, 114 SCRA 555 (1962)
ii. Ordinary sense of the words vs. technical or legal meaning
CASES: Mataguina Integrated Wood vs. CA, 263 SCRA 490 (1996)
Mustang Lumber vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996)
iii. General words construed generally
1. foreigner
CASE: Gatchalian vs. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 435 1970)
2. government
CASE: C & C Commercial vs. NAWASA, 21 SCRA 984 (1967)
3. national government
CASE: Central Bank vs. CA, 63 SCRA 431 (1975)
iv. Specific words
1. May vs. Shall
CASES: Director of Lands vs. CA, 276 SCRA 276 (1997)
Capati vs. Ocampo, 113 SCRA 799 (1982)
a. When shall is construed as may and vice versa
CASES: PCFI vs. NTC and PLDT, 131 SCRA 200 (1984) (But
see dissent of Abad Santos, J.)
Berces vs. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539 (1995)
2. Or vs. And
CASE: GMRC vs. Bell Telecom, 271 SCRA 790 (1997)
US vs. dela Sabta, 9 Phil 22 (1907)
Hda. Luisita Inc. vs. PARC, G.R. No. 171101, Resolution,
November 22, 2011
Gonzales v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967
Romulo v. HDMF, G.R. No. 131082, June 19, 2000
3.

4.
5.

Principally/Primarily vs. Exclusively

CASES: Alfon vs. Republic, 97 SCRA 859 (1980)
Floresca vs. Phillex Mining, 136 SCRA 142 (1985)
Chavez vs. NHA, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Term vs. Tenure
CASE: Appari vs. CA, 127 SCRA 231 (1984)
Every
CASE: NHC vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-64313 January 17, 1985

v. Specific Phrases/Clauses
1. Provisos

a.

3.

IV.

Purpose: to limit application of provision; or to except something

therefrom; or to qualify or restrain its general application; or
exceptionally, to enlarge instead of restrict
Exception: to enlarge an otherwise limited phrase
CASE: U.S. vs. Sto. Nino, 13 Phil 141 (1909)
b. What a proviso qualifies: only the phrase immediately preceding it
CASE: ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 (1994)

Exception
CASE: Arenas vs. San Carlos City, 82 SCRA 318
2. Exceptions
a. Distinguished from provisos
b. Illustrations
CASES: Meralco vs. PUEA, 79 SCRA 409 (1947)
Tolentino vs. Secretary, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
vi. Associated Words
1. Noscitor A Sociis (where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous, consider
the company of words in which it is associated to ascertain the correct
construction)
CASES: Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993)
Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)
2. Ejusdem Generis (literally: same kind or species; general word or phrase that
follow an enumeration of particular and specific words, which are of the class
or kind, are restricted only to things or cases of the same kind or class as
those specifically mentioned)
CASES: Pp. vs. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212 (1995)
NPC vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)
Republic vs. Migrino, 189 SCRA 289 (1990)
a. Limitations
CASES: Colgate-Palmolive vs. Jimenez, 1 Phil 267 (1961)
RC Archbishop of Manila vs. SSC, 1 SCRA 10 (1961)
3. Expressio Unios est Exclusio Alterius (opposite of the doctrine of necessary
implication: express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others)
CASES: Santos vs. Pano, 120 SCRA 8 (1983)
Samson vs. CA, 145 SCRA 654 (1986)
Catu v. Rellorasa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
Limitations
CASES: Gomez vs. Ventura, 54 Phil 726 (1930)
Javellano vs. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042 (1962)
4. Cassus Omissus (a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must
be held to have been omitted intentionally)
CASES: Pp. vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684
Lopez vs. CA, 100 Phil 850
5. Doctrine of last antecedent (qualifying words restrict or modify only words or
phrases to which they are immediately associated)
CASES: Pangilinan vs. Alvendia, 101 Phil 794 (1957)
Florention vs. PNB, 98 Phil 959 (1956)
a. Limitation
CASE: Mapa vs. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76 (1989)
b. Variation: Reddendo Singula Singulis (refer each word or phrase to
its appropriate object, i.e., antecedents and consequences must be
read distributively)
CASE: Pp. vs. Tamani, 55 SCRA 153 (1973)
Amadora vs. CA, 160 SCRA 315 (1988)
Rules on Implications
a. Doctrine of Necessary Implication (what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that
which is expressed; opposite of the rule of expressio unios est exclusio alterius)
CASES: Chua vs. CSC, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)
Batungbakal vs. National Development Co., 93 Phil 182 (1953)

AIDS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

a. Public Policy sought to be implemented
CASES: Tinio vs. Francis, 98 Phil. 32 (1955)
Cajiuat vs. Mathay, 124 SCRA 710 (1983)
b. Presumptions
i. Of Constitutionality/Validity of Statutes
CASES: NHA vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)
Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
ii. Of the Beneficial Operation of Statutes
CASES: CIR vs. S.C. Johnson and Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 (1999)
Sesbreno vs. CBAA, 270 SCRA 360 (1997)
iii. Of Prospective Application
CASES: Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 317 (1997)
Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997)
iv. In favor of right and justice
CASE: Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)
v. Against Absurdity
CASES: Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 (1974)
vi. Against Injustice
CASES: Amatan vs. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995)

Ursua vs. CA, 256 SCRA 147 (1996)

Against Implied Repeals
CASES: NPC vs. Province of Lanao del Sur, 264 SCRA 271 (1996)
Velunta vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, 157 SCRA 147 (1988)
Intrinsic Aids
i. Title
CASES: City of Baguio vs. Marcos, 27 SCRA 342 (1969)
Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 (1987)
ii. Preamble
CASES: Pp. vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
Pp. vs. Echavez, 95 SCRA 663 (1980)
iii. Body of the statute
1. Context of the whole text
CASE: CIR vs. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992)
2. Punctuation marks
CASES: Agcaoili vs. Sunguitan, 48 Phil 678 (1926)
Pp. vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545 (1975)
iv. Head notes and epigraphs of sections
CASE: Pp. vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933)
Extrinsic Aids
i. Legislative History
1. Presidents message to the Legislature
CASE: Camacho vs. CIR, 80 Phil 848 (1948)
2. Explanatory Note of the author/s
CASE: Nepomuceno vs. Ocampo, 95 Phil 292 (1954)
3. Committee Reports on the legislative investigations and public hearings
4. Sponsorship Speech
5. Debates and Deliberations
CASES: Palanca vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 (1920)
Phil. Assn. of Govt Retirees, Inc. vs. GSIS, 121 Phil 1402 (1965)
Disini v, Secretary, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014 (re provision on cybersex)
6. Changes in the phraseology before final approval
CASES: Akbayan vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147066, March 26, 2001
CIR vs. CTA, 224 SCRA 665 (1993)
7. Amendment by deletion
CASE: Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287 (1999)
8. Prior laws from which the statute is based
CASES: Director of Lands vs. Abaya, 63 Phil 559 (1936)
Salaysay vs. Castro, 98 Phil 364 (1956)
9. Origin of Adopted Statute
CASE: Pp. vs. Pagpaguitan, 315 SCRA 226 (1999)
a. Limitations
CASE: Procter & Gamble vs. Commissioner of Customs, 23 SCRA 691 (1968)
ii. Contemporary Construction
1. Executive Construction
a. Kinds
i. construction by an executive/administrative officer called to implement the law
CASE: San Miguel Corp. vs. Inciong, 103 SCRA 139 (1981)
ii. by the DOJ Secretary in his capacity as Chief legal adviser of the government
(See Sec. 83, Revised Administrative Code)
CASE: Maceda vs. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771 (1991)
iii. by an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial function
b. Weight: entitled to great weight
CASES: Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. CA, 203 SCRA 504 (1991)
Phil. Sugar Central vs. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil 143 (1927)
i. erroneous construction: does not bind the courts; does not preclude judicial correction
nor does it create rights; exception
CASES:Legaspi vs. Mathay, 68 SCRA 253 (1975)
ABS-CBN vs. CTA, 108 SCRA 142 (1981)
2. Legislative Interpretation
CASE: Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696 (1953)
iii. Stare decisis
CASES: Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 (1993)
Pp. vs. Macadaeg, 91 Phil 410 (1952)
1. Ratio decidendi vs. obiter dictum
CASE: Delta Motors vs. CA, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)
2. Limitations of stare decisis
CASE: Koppel (Phils.), Inc. vs. Yatco, 77 Phil 496 (1946)
vii.

c.

d.

V.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
a. Primary purpose: to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers
CASES: JM Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
Co vs. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
b. Rules of Constitutional Construction
i. Applicability of the rules of Statutory Construction
CASE: Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
ii. No ambiguity: Verba legis
1. Give ordinary meaning to the words
CASES: Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
Ordillo vs. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1992)

iii.

a. Exception: where technical terms are employed

2. Words are used in a broad sense to cover all possible contingencies
Ambiguity exists
1. Rules
a. Ratio Legis Est Anima: Consider intent of the framers/object to be accomplished
CASE: Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance, 115 SCRA 418 (1982)
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
b. ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe the constitution as a whole
CASE: Daro Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Phils., G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
c. Self-executing rather than needs an implementing statute
CASE: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
d. Mandatory rather than directory
CASE: Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)
e. Prospective rather than retroactive
CASES: Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil 285 (1945)
Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996)
2. Aids in Constitutional Construction
a. Intrinsic Aid
i. Language of the constitution itself
ii. Interpret Constitution as whole
CASES: Peralta vs. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 (1978)
Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra (construction of Sec. 24, Art. VI,
Constitution)
b. Extrinsic Aids
i. History or realities at the time of the adoption
ii. Object sought to be accomplished
iii. Proceedings/debates of the Convention
CASES: Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
Montejo vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)
iv. Changes in the phraseology
CASE: Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
v. Previous laws and judicial decisions
CASE: Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 567 (1950), particularly the dissent of Justice
Ozaeta
vi. Consequences of alternative (more than one) constructions
CASE: Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)
vii. Contemporaneous construction and writings
CASES: De Los Santos vs. Mallari, 87 Phil 289 (1950)
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946)