Sl.t.TUIQR'; CONSTRVCTIOt• AhO IUl[Rf'<U TAl1C,,.

111 ~ 1011 }018

e Statute
i. Defin1t1on
i1 Nomenclature of statutes in the Philippines
in Parts of a Statute
I2 • BANA T v COMELEC. GR 177508, August 7, 2009
/3 • Abakada Guro Parly List v Puns,ma, GR No 166715, August 14, 2008
f. Ordinance
i. Definition
i1 Test of a valid ordinance
I ~• Whit~ Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta Mesa
Tounst & Development Corporation vs City of Mam/a GR No. 122846,
January 20, 2009 '

g Doctrine of Vagueness vs Doctrine of Overbreadth

/.5 • Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network v. Anti-Terrorism Council, GR
No. 178552. October 5, 2010

IV. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

a. In General

i. The sole object of interpretation and construction

JC, • Ortega v People, GR No. 151085 August 20, 2008
17 • Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio, GR No. 43683 July 16, 1937

ii. Ascertainment of legislative intent

1-q • Litex Employees Assoc. v. Eduvala, GR No. L-41106 September 22, 1977
-- - -r1 .. - Repub/i,;. F/ou, ~ii/is /1,i;. v. Commf.;siofler of (.uscoms. GR No. L-28463
May 31, 1971

b. Rules in Determining Legislative Intent

i. Literal Rule
2,o • Philippine National Bank vs Tejano, GR No 173615 October 16, 2009
Z( • Cynthia Bolos vs Danilo Bolos, GR No. 186400, October 20, 2010

ii. Purpose Rule

1,, • Go vs Distmct1on Properties Development and Cons'.ruction, Inc. GR No
194024, April 25, 2012
2) • Municipality of Nueva Era. /locos Norte vs. Municipality of Marcos, /locos
Norte, GR No. 169435, February 27, 2008

iii. Mischief Rule

s~. iv Golden Rule

'l'i • Brent School Inc. v. Zamora, GR No. L-48494, February 5, 1990

V. AIDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF LAWS

a Intrinsic Aids: Parts of the Statute

i. Tille
• Central Cepiz v Ramirez, GR No. L-16197 March 12, 1920 - l\1,#rn\~ ti~
1i. Preamble
• U.S. v Go Chico, GR No. 4963 September 15, 1909 - ,A-WI.S~

P:,g,, l~ 10

,/
 i,t.l

SIATUltmv CONSTRVCIION AJ.0 INT(llPllf l~ 1""4

• " - 10H l'l•I

iii. Body
• Leynes v GOA· GR No 143596 Decembor 11 2003 - 1!,Ac:M-
iv. Punctuation marl\
• In the matter of the Estate of Emll H Johnson. GR No L-12767. Novambor
16, 1918 _ ~"""ott
v. Capital1zat1on
• In Re Estate of Johnson. supra _ 1l17 oorw
vi. Headnotes and epigraphs
vii. Lingual text
• Baking v. Director of Prisons, GR No. L-30364 July 28, 1969 - ~ LIP
b. Extrinsic Aids

i. History of the legislative enactment

• Gonzales Ill vs Office of the President, GR No. 196231 September 4, _
2012, 679 SCRA 614 _ C"- 1% 2?9 , J1l'lJ g, 2ol'/ - f.MT1)Yl1" !Ov

,,
ii. Dictionary
·~
• Tamayo v. Gsell, GR No. 10765 December 22, 1916 - VIW

• In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., Against Associate Justice

Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8, 2011 - f€)™V

iii. Judicial Decisions

0
• Caltex vs. Palomar, No. L-19650 September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 247 - W.-1.Dll/lfl

iv. Administrative Regulations or Decisions

:%e':i'&8WfM:,~~%i&:'Oil @«0 lfflVt fr9k2P, ~ . ~- -
• Munoz & Co. v. Hord, GR No. 4832 Jclluary 28, 1909 - Ml\hl-A~vf
v. Constitutional Deliberations
• Gamboa vs. Teves, GR No. 176579, October 9, 2012 - c.oN1'1t,f71,,k-'
vi. Foreign Jurisprudence
• PDIC vs Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. GR No.
181556, December 14, 2009 - f,\-~ 6,1 t.l N

vii. President's Message to Legislature

• Camacho v. Court of/ndustrial Relations, GR No. L-1505 May 12, 1948 - -Affll:frN'O

viii. Explanatory Note Accompanying the Legislation

• People v. Udres, GR No. L-12495 July 26, 1960 - 1¥&MM - BA Cl\ rt
ix. Legislative Debates
• DeVillav. CourtofAppeals, GRNo. 87416Apri18, 1991 - ...,.,4.ltMll~Vt'

x. Report of the Code Commission perrttof'J . _. 1 ,-J-}"

• Escalante v. Santos, GR No. 36828 February 2, 1932 -- e,e.iW ~ -

xi. History of the Amended Provision

• Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, GR No. L-48886-88
July 21, 1993 - ,1.,t,StiW

xii. Foreign Statute After Which Statute was Patterned

• Cu v. Republic, GR No L-3018 July 18, 1951 - b o~or.,,
xiii. Limitation lo Adoption of Foreign Law
• Republic v. Mera/co, GR No 141369 AprU 9, 2003 - jlV 00 l\,O
 -
r ~•1:•Qltl co..ir""-.·vo ...: .. -1 - ·••,o,.
, .. _.... Jf),•,t,,

c Other Factors lo Consider

1
The Spint Prevails Over the Lenu,
• Ma111ta Raco Ho,~11 T1,1,nu1s Assoc v ()6 Ln I IJ(Jt1t11. C,R No L /W l
January II 195 I - \IA 1,Pf'/lt' t o

11 Public Policy
• Adong v ChoongSengGetJ. GRNo 18081McHt h 3. IIJ'l'I - ~ (llllV

Iii Objective of !he S!alute

• Home lnsutance Company v Eastom Shippmg L111us. GR No L 34 3'12
July 20, 1983 _ f fr\-MO

1v Definition of Words and Phrases

• Ramtrez v Court of Appeals. GR No 93833 September 28 1995
- l,-p.itt,IJ't
VI PRESUMPTION

a. Effect in Construction and Interpretation

b. Relevant Presumptions

i. Presumption against Unconstitutionality

• Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) vs Secretary of Budget
and Management. GR No 164987, April 24, 2012
• Tana v. Socrates, GR No. 110249 August 21, 1997

ii. Presumption against violation of International Law

• Article 11, Section 2 o' thP Hl87 Cons!Jtu!lon
• Deu/sche Bank AG Manila v CommJSSJOner of lntemal Revenue, GR No
188550,August28. 2013

iii. Presumption against lnJusbee

• Article 10, Civil Code
• Salvaoon vs. Centrii 8iri olthe Phipplll8S, GR No. 94723, August 21,
1997

iv. Presumption against Absurdity

• PrivaJ,zat,on and Management Office v. Strategic Development and/or
Philippine Estate Corporation. GR No 200402. June 13, 2013

v. PresumpbOn against lneflectrveness

vi. Presumption against Undesirable Consequences

• Cesario Ursua v Court of Appeals. GR No. 112170, April 10, 1996

vii. Presumption against Implied Repeal

• Article 7, Civd Code
• Express vs Implied
• Repeal vs Amendment
• Execut,ve $(/creta,y v Forennner Mull, Resources. Inc GR No 1~324.
January 7, 20 t 3
• Rosalina Penera v Commiss,on M El8Ctions. GR No 181613. ~
25, 2009

viii. Pre5UfflPIIOO againsi Retrospective Operation of L~