STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION In case of doubt, a statute should be reviewed as to
1C - Midterms Reviewer
Atty. Victor Alimurung
1. Ratio Legis (Reason of the law)
If there is a clash between the words of a statute and its
purpose, a deviation from the words may be necessary.
In the case of Chinabank
, the bank accounts law did not
intend to prohibit garnishment for valid purposes, as taken
from the deliberations in Congress.
2. Dura Lex Sed Lex (The law is harsh, but it is the law)
Requires that the law is just, equally applies to all, and
attains social justice.
In Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, the penalty of death
by lethal injection was upheld by the Supreme Court as a
penalty for statutory rape.
3. Index animi sermo (Speech is the index of the mind)
Valid presumption that the words employed by legislation
correctly expresses its intent by its usage of words.
Mar vs. PAGCOR, the Supreme Court held
In Del that
jai-alai was clearly not included in the enumeration by
looking at both the words of the statute and legislative
history.
4. Verba legis non est recedendum (From the words of a
statute, there should be no departure)
A law cannot be interpreted to extend to matters
outside of
its scope.
In Bengson vs. HRET, it was clear that the qualifications
for the members House of Representatives did not intend
that natural-born citizen means only those natural by
birth and not by repatriation.
5. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat (It is better for a thing to
have effect than to be made void)
Interpretations that validate are favoured over those that
invalidate.
In the case of JMM Productions, the Supreme Courts
interpretation that section 6 complements sections 4 and 17
of the POEA Rules validated the law. Thus, JMM was still
required to post an additional appeal bond.
6. Review of law
ascertain its scope or meaning.
In the case of MAPECON
, the Fertilizer and Pesticides
Authority (FPA) was meant only to cover agricultural
pesticides as opposed to urban pest control. Thus, FPA had
no jurisdiction over MAPECON.
7. Wisdom or Practicality of law
The more practical interpretation of the law is favoured.
In RCBC vs. IAC, the Supreme Courts first decision was
that RCBC, as BF Homes preferred client, cannot exercise
such privilege when BF Homes filed for rehabilitation as it
would destroy the very purpose of rehabilitation.
8. Executive or Administrative Interpretation
9. Literal Interpretation
Plain meaning rule - it is the task of the Court to give a
statutes words their literal meaning regardless of its
results.
In Salaria vs. Buenaviaje, the Presidential Decree
explicitly intended to suspend Art. 1673 of the Civil Code.
Thus, Salaria cannot be ejected.
10. Valid in part, void in part
When part of a statute is declared inoperative, the valid
portions of the same statute remain in effect.
In Tatad vs. Secretary of Energy, the provision of EO392
adding the depletion of the OPSF Fund as a factor in
determining full implementation of the deregulation of the
oil industry was declared unconstitutional, but the
remaining parts of the order were sustained.
11. Contra Preferentem (Ambiguity construed against the
party who cause it)
In case of doubt in contracts, it should be construed against
the one who made or drafted it.
In Reyes vs. Dela Cruz, the ambiguity between fair market
value and assessed value of the estate was interpreted
against the party that drafted the contract, thus it was
interpreted as fair market value, which was higher than the
assessed value.
12. Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus 20. Casus omissus pro omissu habendus est (A case omitted
(Where the law does not distinguish, the Court should not is held to be as intentionally omitted)
distinguish) 21. Computation of time
Courts cannot add to any valid classification or distinction New Civil Code, Art. 13: years are of 365 days; months
which the law does not contemplate. of 30 days; days of 24 hours; and nights from sunset to
In Colgate vs. Gimenez, the Supreme Court ruled that since sunrise.
the law did not distinguish between Stabilizer and Administrative Code of 1987, Chapter 8 31: Legal
flavours used in the preparation of food and those use in Periods - Year shall be understood to be 12 calendar
toothpaste, the Court could not make any distinction, and months; month of 30 days, unless it refers to a specific
thus must construe the words in their general sense. calendar month in such case it shall be computed according
13. Mandatory/Directory/Probiture to the number of days which the specific month contains;
14. Expressio units est exclusio alterius (When one or more day of 24 hours; and night from sunset to sunrise.
things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the In the case of Primetown, the Supreme Court ruled that
same class are excluded) Primetown had filed the application for tax refund within
15. Ejusdem generis (Of the same kind or nature) the reglementary period of 2 years. Specifically, the filed
If an enumeration of items of the same kind is followed by such on the 731st (last) day, by virtue of the 12-calendar
a general term (ex. and others, etc., ), the latter should be month provision in the Administrative Code.
construed as to mean those of the same kind.
In the case of Cagayan Valley Enterprise, Inc., the patent
law mentioned soda water, mineral or aerated waters,
cider, milk, and other lawful beverages to which the
Supreme Court ruled that liquor was included because the
contention of Cagayan was that liquor was an unlawful
beverage was erroneous.
16. Statement of individual legislator
Such are persuasive, but not determinative of the intent of
the legislature as a whole.
In the case of Casco, even though legislative deliberations
mentioned urea AND formaldehyde, it was not upheld as
the intent of the legislature.
17. Noscitur a sociis (The meaning of a word may be known
from the accompanying words)
18. And/Or
19. Retroactivity
Generally, laws have no retroactive effect unless expressed,
and unless no rights are violated, also when in favour of the
accused in the case of penal laws.
In Espiritu vs. Cipriano, the Supreme Court stated that
RA6126 cannot be retroactively applied because no
provision in the statute warranted such retroactive effect.