Dr. Lieber in his work on Hermeneutics gives the following classification of 6.
6. Predestined interpretation – takes place when the interpreter, laboring
the different kinds of interpretation:
1. Close interpretation – adopted if just reasons connected with the
character and formation of the text induce as to take the words in the
narrowest meaning. This is generally known as “literal”
interpretation.
2. Extensive interpretation – also called as liberal interpretation, it adopts
a more comprehensive signification of the words.
3. Extravagant interpretation – substitutes a meaning evidently beyond
the true one. It is therefore not genuine interpretation.
4. Free or unrestricted interpretation – proceeds simply on the general
principles of interpretation in good faith, not bound by any specific or
superior principle.
5. Limited or restricted interpretation - influenced by other principles than
the strictly hermeneutic ones.
under a strong bias of mind, makes the text subservient to his
preconceived views and desires.
CHAVEZ V. JBC GR NO. 202241
NATURE:
The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision
rendered July 17, 2012 that JBC’s action of allowing more than one
member of the congress to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional
FACTS:
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was
added to the JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the
JBC – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate,
with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in
separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided to allow the
representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full
vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C.
Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of
the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this
petition. it should mean one representative each from both Houses which
comprise the entire Congress. Respondent contends that the phrase “ a
representative of congress” refers that both houses of congress should This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no
have one representative each, and that these two houses are permanent liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC.
and mandatory components of “congress” as part of the bicameral system
of legislature. Both houses have their respective powers in performance of
their duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution provides for the component FALLO: The motion was denied.
of the JBC to be 7 members only with only one representative from
congress.
AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE LAW OR REVIEW

ISSUE:

Whether the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the
House of Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members to be  Supreme Court, composition
unconstitutional as provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution.

Composition and Manner of appointment

HELD: Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the phrase
“a representative of congress” should be construed as to having only one
representative that would come from either house, not both. That the
framers of the constitution only intended for one seat of the JBC to be
allotted for the legislative.
Pursuant to Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the
Court is composed of the Chief Justice and of the fourteen Associate
Justices,[a] all of whom are appointed by the President from a list of
nominees made by the Judicial and Bar Council

It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to

its primary function in government – to legislate. In the passage of laws, - 15 members odd numbers to break the tie
the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of each house in the
process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers. An
inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these
[b] An appointment to the Supreme Court needs no confirmation of the
powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
Commission on Appointments as the nomination is already vetted by the
Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally-created body which An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is
recommends appointments within the judiciary. that a judge "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity,
and independence.

Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position of Chief Justice or
Associate Justice, the President fills the vacancy by appointing a person
from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.

 Members of the Supreme Court, Qualifications

 The Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Qualifications
Judicial Power and Jurisdiction
According to the Constitution, for a person to be appointed to the Supreme
Court, he must be:
Under Article VIII, §1, the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be provided by law. This power
(1) a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights that are
legally demandable and enforceable and to determine if any branch or
(2) at least forty years of age, and
instrumentality of government has acted with grave abuse of discretion
(3) have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.
in the practice of law in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction.

It exercises original jurisdiction (cases are directly filed with the SC in the The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and court
first instance without passing through any of the lower courts) over cases personnel. (Article VIII, §6) It exercises this power through the Office of the
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over Court Administrator.
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
 Lower Courts, Jurisdiction
corpus. (Art. VIII, §5(1)). It also has original jurisdiction over writs of
amparo, habeas data and the environmental writ of kalikasan. 1. Court of Appeals

2. Sandiganbayan
It exercises appellate jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or 3. Court of Tax Appeals
affirm final judgments, and orders of the lower courts in:
4. Regional Trial Courts

5. Metropolitan Trial Courts

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, 6. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. 7. Municipal Trial Courts
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or 8. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
9. Shari'a District Courts
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
10. Shari'a Circuit Courts
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
ffffffffffffffffffffffffchigher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (Art. VIII, Oposa vs Factoran
§5(1), (2)) Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational
Responsibility

GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al.,
representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and
represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of
DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his
agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements
(TLA) in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises.” They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State
in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining
forests constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural
resources property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors
and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following
grounds:
1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;
2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political
question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of
the government.
ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to
“prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well
as generations to come. The Supreme Court ruled that they can, for
themselves, for others of their generation, and for the succeeding
generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such
a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which indispensably
include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management,
renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters,
fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end
that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible The petitioner question the constitutionality of RA No. 8180 “An Act
to the present as well as the future generations. Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes.” The
deregulation process has two phases: (a) the transition phase and the (b)
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to
full deregulation phase through EO No. 372.
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced
and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their
right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the
The petitioner claims that Sec. 15 of RA No. 8180 constitutes an undue
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for
delegation of legislative power to the President and the Sec. of Energy
the generations to come
because it does not provide a determinate or determinable standard to
guide the Executive Branch in determining when to implement the full
deregulation of the downstream oil industry, and the law does not provide
ONE LINER: every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve
any specific standard to determine when the prices of crude oil in the
that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
world market are considered to be declining nor when the exchange rate of
healthful ecology
the peso to the US dollar is considered stable.

FRANCISCO S. TATAD, petitioner,

Issues:

vs.
Whether or not Sec 5(b) of R.A. 8180 violates the one title one subject
requirement of the Constitution.

THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE SECRETARY OF Whether or not Sec 15 of R.A. 8180 violates the constitutional prohibition
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents. on undue delegation of power.

Whether or not R.A. No. 8180 violates the constitutional prohibition

against monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade and unfair
Facts: competition

Discussions:
The Court consistently ruled that the title need not mirror, fully index or
catalogue all contents and minute details of a law. A law having a single
general subject indicated in the title may contain any number of provisions,
no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent
with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in
furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of
carrying out the general subject.
Adopting the ruling from Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, the Court
states that:
“There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid
delegation of legislative power, viz: the completeness test and the
sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in
all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it
reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.
Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to
prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is
not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power
essentially legislative.
A monopoly is a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more
persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right or power to carry on
a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control
the sale or the whole supply of a particular commodity. It is a form of
market structure in which one or only a few firms dominate the total sales
of a product or service. On the other hand, a combination in restraint of
trade is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons, in
the form of a contract, trust, pool, holding company, or other form of
association, for the purpose of unduly restricting competition,
monopolizing trade and commerce in a certain commodity, controlling its
production, distribution and price, or otherwise interfering with freedom of
trade without statutory authority. Combination in restraint of trade refers
to the means while monopoly refers to the end.
Rulings:
The Court does not concur with this contention. The Court has adopted a
liberal construction of the one title – one subject rule. The Court hold that
section 5(b) providing for tariff differential is germane to the subject of R.A.
No. 8180 which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. The
section is supposed to sway prospective investors to put up refineries in
our country and make them rely less on imported petroleum.[i][20] We
shall, however, return to the validity of this provision when we examine its
blocking effect on new entrants to the oil market.
Sec 15 of R.A. 8180 can hurdle both the completeness test and the
sufficient standard test. It will be noted that Congress expressly provided in
R.A. No. 8180 that full deregulation will start at the end of March 1997,
regardless of the occurrence of any event. Full deregulation at the end of
March 1997 is mandatory and the Executive has no discretion to postpone
it for any purported reason. Thus, the law is complete on the question of
the final date of full deregulation. The discretion given to the President is
to advance the date of full deregulation before the end of March 1997.
Section 15 lays down the standard to guide the judgment of the President.
He is to time it as far as practicable when the prices of crude oil and
petroleum products in the world market are declining and when the
exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable.

Section 19 of Article XII of the Constitution allegedly violated by the

aforestated provisions of R.A. No. 8180 mandates: “The State shall regulate
or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.”