STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

COURSE OUTLINE
Angeles University Foundation School of Law
By: ATTY. BOBBY QUITAIN

 Based on the book “Statutory Construction” authored by Judge Noli C. Diaz

I. “STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION” Defined

II. The objective of “statutory construction” (Legislative Intent)

 Socorro Ramirez v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Ester S. Garcia (G.R. No. 93833,
September 25, 1995)
 Gerbert R. Corpuz v. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General, G.R. No.
186571, August 11, 2010

III. The Requisites for “Statutory Construction”

 Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997)
 Olivia S. Pascual and Hermes Pascual v. Esperanza C. Pascual Bautista, et al. (GR No.
84240, March 25, 1992)
 Abello et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue et al. (G.R. No. 120721, February 23,
2005)
 People of the Philippines v. Mario Mapa Y Mapulong (G.R. No. L-22301, August 30,
1967)
 People of the Philippines v. Patricio Amigo (G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996)

IV. Statutes in General

A. The Power to Make Laws

 Article VI, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution

B. The Passage of a Law

 Article VI, Section 26-32, 1987 Philippine Constitution

C. The Constitutional Test

 “One Title-One Subject” Rule: Article VI, Section 26 (1), 1987 Philippine Constitution
 “Three Readings and No Amendment” Rule: Article VI, Section 26 (2), 1987 Philippine
Constitution
 “Executive Approval and Veto Power”: Article VI, Section 27 (2), 1987 Philippine
Constitution

D. Parts of a Statute
E. Kinds of Statutes
F. Void for Vagueness Doctrine

 Coates v. City of Cincinnati (402 U.S. 611, 1971)

 G. Kinds of Repeal: Express v. Implied
F. Statutes vis a vis Ordinances

V. Basic Guidelines in Statutory Construction

A. Verba Legis (Plain Meaning Rule)

 Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Communications v. National Labor Relations

Commission and Imelda Salazar (G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992)
 Felicito Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (G.R. No.
109445, November 7, 1994)
 PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. (G.R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009)
 Bolos v. Bolos (G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010)

B. Statutes as a Whole: Ut res magis valen quam pereat (construction is to be sought

that which gives effect to the whole of the statute)

 JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and
Ulpiano L. De Los Santos (G.R. No. 109835, November 22, 1993)
 Radiola Toshiba Philippines, Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 75222,
July 18, 1991)
 Hannah Eunice Serana v. Sandigabayan (G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008)

C. Spirit and Purpose of the Law: Ratio legis est anima legis (The reason of the law is
the soul of the law.)

 Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas v. Hon. Court of Appeals et al. (G.R. No.
78687, January 31, 1989)
 B/Gen. Jose Commendador et al. v. B/Gen. Demetrio Camera et al. (G.R. No. 96948,
August 2, 1991)
 In the Matter of Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus Richard
Brian Thornton for and in behalf of the minor child Sequeria Jenifer Delle Francisco
Thornton (G.R. No. 154598, August 16, 2004)

D. Doctrine of Necessary Implication: Ex Necessitate Legis (From the necessity of the

law)

 Lydia O. Chua v. The Civil Service Commission et al. (G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992)
 City of Manila and City Treasurer v. Judge Amador E. Gomez et al. (G.R. No. L-37251,
August 31, 1981)

E. Casus Omissus pro omisso habendus est (a person or thing omitted from an
enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally)

 People v. Manantan (G.R. No. L-14129, July 31,1962)

 Sps. Nereo & Nieva Delfino v. St. James Hospital Inc. (G.R. No. 166735, November 23,
2007)

F. Stare Decisis (Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has already been
settled)

 J.M Tuason and Co., Inc. et al. v. Mariano, et al. (G.R. No. L-33140, October 23, 1978)
  Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No.
132051, June 25, 2001
 J.R. A. Phils. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 177127, October 11,
2010

VI. USE OF WORDS AND PHRASES

A. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (When the law does not distinguish,
courts should not distinguish)

 Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court
(G.R. No. L-72005, May 29, 1987)
 Juanito Pilar v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 115245, July 11, 1995)
 People v. Hon. Judge Antonio Evangelista et al. (G.R. No. 110898, February 20, 1996)
 Cecilio de Villa v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991) - When the law
does not make any exceptions, courts shouldn’t make any.

B. Ejusdem Generis (Where general words of a particular, and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to
persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned

 Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. v. Hon. Pedro M. Jimenez (G.R. No. L-14787,

January 28, 1961) - General Terms limited by Special Terms
 Republic v. Hon. Eutropio Migrinio et al. (G.R. No. 89483, August 30, 1990)
 People v. Hon. Vicente B. Echavez, Jr. et al. (G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980)
 Misael P. Vera et al. v. Hon. Serafin R. Cuevas et al. (G.R. Nos. L 33693-94, May 31,
1979)

C. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of one person, thing or
consequence is tantamount to an express exclusion of all others.)

 San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No.

147749, June 22, 2006)
 Parayno v. Jovellanos et al. (G.R. No. 148408, July 14, 2006)

D. Noscitur A Sociis (Associated words explain and limit each other.)

 Dra. Brigida S. Buenaseda, et al. v. Sec. Juan Flavier, et al. (G.R. No. 106719,
September 21, 1993)

E. Use of Negative and Affirmative Words

 Manolo P. Fule v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-79094, June 22, 1988)

F. Use of Permissive and Imperative Words

 Purita Bersabal v. Hon. Judge Serafin Salvador (G.R. No. L-35910, July 21, 1978)
 Jenette Marie B. Crisolog v. Globe Telecom, Inc., et al. (G.R. No. 167631, December 16,
2005)
  Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
117188, August 7, 1997) – The word “must” is not always imperative.
 Munoz v. COMELEC et al. (G.R. No. 170678, July 17, 2006)

G. Use of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Words

H. Computing Time

 PNB v. Court of Appeals (222 SCRA 134, May 17, 1993)

I. Use of a “Proviso”

 ALU-TUCP v. NLRC et al. (G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994)

VII. Presumptions
A. Against Unconstitutionality

 Aris Inc. v. NLRC et al. (G.R. No. 90501, August 5, 1991)

 Lim v. Pacquing et al. (G.R. No. 115044, January 27, 1995) and Guingona et al. v.
Reyes et al. (G.R. No. 117263, January 27, 1995)
 Lim et al. v. People et al. (G.R. No. 149276, September 27, 2002)

B. Against Injustice

 Salvacion v. Central Bank (G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997)

 Alonzo et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al. (G.R. No. L-72873, May 28, 1987)

C. Against Implied Repeals

 Berces, Jr. v. Guingona, Jr. et al. (G.R. No. 112099, February 21, 1995)
 Mecano v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992)
 Republic v. ICC (G.R. No. 141667, July 17, 2006)
 GSIS v. City Assessor of Iloilo City et al. (G.R. No. 147192, June 27, 2006)

D. Against Ineffectiveness
E. Against Absurdity

 Ursua v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996)

F. Against Violations of International Law

VIII. Intrinsic Aids

 Miriam Defensor Santiago et al. v. Comelec et al. (G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997)
 Eugenion v. Drilon et al. (G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996)
 People v. Echavez, Jr. et al. (G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980)
IX. Extrinsic Aids

 Commissioner of Customs v. ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc. (G.R. No. L-28329, August
7, 1975)
 Vera et a. v. Cuevas, et al. (G.R. Nos. L33693-94, May 31, 1979)
 PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations et al. (G.R. No. L-43760, August 21, 1976)
 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. et al. v. International Communications
Corp. (G.R. No. 135992, January 31, 2006)
 De Villa v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991)
 NAPOLCOM v. De Guzman, Jr. et al. (G.R. No. 106724, February 9, 1994)
 CASCO Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez (G.R. No. L-17931, February 28,
1963)

X. Strict and Liberal Interpretation

 Differentiate: Strict v. Liberal Interpretation

A. Penal Statutes

 Centeno v. Villalon, et al., GR No. 113092, September 1, 1994

 People v. Walpan Ladjaalam y Milapil, GR Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000

B. Tax Laws

 Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al., GR No. 69344, April 26, 1991
 Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders Inc. v. Department of Finance Secretary, et
al. (GR No. 108524, November 10, 1994)

C. Labor and Social Legislations

 Ramon Corporal v. Employee’s Compensation Commission and GSIS, GR No. 86020,

August 5, 1994
 Maria E. Manahan v. Employees’ Compensation Commission and GSIS, GR No. L-44899,
April 22, 1981

D. Election Rules

 Pahilan v. Tabalba, et al., GR No. 110170, February 21, 1994

XI. Prospective and Retrospective Statutes

 Balatbat v. Court of Appeals et al., GR No. 36378, January 27, 1992

  Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC et al., GR No. 104215, May 8, 1996
 Co v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 100776, October 28, 1993
 Ocampo v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 79060, December 8, 1989
 Briad Agro-Development Corporation v. Dela Cerna, GR No. 83225, June 29, 1989

XII. Conflicting Statutes

 Philippine National Bank v. Cruz, et al., GR No. 80593, December 18, 1989
 Lopez, Jr v. Civil Service Commission et al., GR No. 87119, April 16, 1991
 Gordon v. Veridiano II et al., GR No. L-55230, November 8, 1988
 City of Manila v. Teotico et al., GR No. L-23053, January 29, 1968
 Arenas v. City of San Carlos et al. GR No. L-34024, April 5, 1978
 Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 120865-71, December
7, 1995
 Leynes v. COA et al., GR No. 143596, December 11, 2003

XIII. Statutory Construction and the Constitution

 Self-Executing Provisions
 Prohibitory Provisions
 Special Provisions
 Suprema Lex