MORENO, RUBY ROSE FAITH G.

STATCON
1E

Directory Statutes

Directory statutes are statutes that are permissive or discretionary in nature. They
indicate only what should be done, with no provision for enforcement. The provisions of
a directory statute are a matter of form or framework only and do not affect any substantial
right, and do not relate to the essence of the thing to be done, so that compliance is a
matter of convenience rather than substance and that no injury can result from
disregarding it or that its objective can be attained by means other than that prescribed
and significantly the same result will be obtained.1

A statute is directory if: one, no substantial rights depend on it; two, no injury can
result from ignoring it; three, the purpose of the legislature can be accomplished in a
manner other than that prescribed and substantially the same results obtained; four,
where the directions of the statute are given merely with a view to the proper, orderly, and
prompt conduct of business; and lastly, where compliance with the statute is a matter of
convenience rather than substance.2

Statutes prescribing guidance for officers, advising manner of judicial action and
those requiring rendition of decision within a prescribed period are directory statutes.

Statutes prescribing guidance for officer

Statutes intended to guide public officers in the conduct of business are directory
statutes as long as these do not limit their power or render its exercise in disregard of the
requisitions ineffectual. These regulations are designed to secure order, system, and
dispatch in proceedings, and by a disregard of which the rights of parties interested may
not be injuriously affected. However, if accompanied by negative words such as no, shall

_______________
1 Ruben Agpalo, Statutory Construction (2009), 482-487.
2 Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 454-456.
not, never, etc., such statute becomes mandatory as it imports that the acts required shall
not be done in any other manner or time.

Statutes prescribing manner of judicial action

The steps in judicial action followed by judges in the exercise of their functions are
merely directory statutes. Its purpose is to provide an orderly conduct of public business,
but the procedure is only secondary in importance to substantive rights, and
nonobservance of the former should not be permitted to affect the latter. Hence, non-
compliance therewith is not necessary to the validity of the proceedings.

Statutes requiring rendition of decision within prescribed period

The 1987 Constitution provides the maximum periods within which a case or
matter shall be resolved from the date of its submission in the Supreme Court, lower
collegiate courts and Constitutional Commissions.3 Are these mandatory provisions?

Before the present Constitution took effect, the prevailing rule is that judgment
made after the prescribed date of promulgation is not rendered invalid as such is merely
directory in nature and nevertheless, the officer who failed to comply with the law may be
dealt with administratively, as consequence of his delay.

To ascertain whether to give the statute a mandatory or directory construction, its

legislative intent is of paramount consideration. Moreover, the difference between a
mandatory and directory statute is often made on the basis of expediency, that less injury
results to the general public by disregarding rather than enforcing the little of the law and
that judges would otherwise abstain from rendering decisions after the period to render
them had lapsed because they lacked jurisdiction to do so.

In the case of Querubin v. Court of Appeals4 involving an election case wherein

the petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction in deciding the
election case because the required period to resolve it has already expired, the Court
_______________
3 Sec. 15(1), Article VIII.
Sec. 7, Article IX(A).
4 G.R. No. L-2581, December 2, 1948.
ruled that the Court of Appeals still holds jurisdiction over the case. This is because to
hold otherwise is to defeat the administration of justice upon factors beyond the control
of the parties, defeat the purpose of due process and dismissal will constitute miscarriage
of justice and speedy trial would be turned into denial of justice. Moreover, the Court held
that a failure of judge to take action within the said period merely deprives him of their
right to collect their salaries or to apply for leaves, but does not deprive them of the
jurisdiction to act on the cases pending before them.

The same ruling was held by the Court in the case of Marcelino v. Cruz. 5 The
provision in issue was Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides
for the maximum period within which a case or matter shall be decided or resolved from
the date of its submission. The Court held that such provision is merely directory as the
same shall be given liberal construction to depart from strict compliance as a directory
interpretation of the said provision would result in less injury to the general public than it
would if it were mandatory. Moreover, the Court held that failure to observe said rule
constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge and that a
certification to this effect is required before judges are allowed to draw their salaries.

_______________
4 G.R. No. 42428, March 18, 1983.