1.

Presumption of Validity

Every statute passed by the legislature is presumed to be valid because the legislature is
supposed to have considered the question of its validity before approving it. In cases of
doubt, the court resolves in favor of its validity.

2. Presumption of Constitutionality

The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. However, if the statute is really

unconstitutional, the courts are not only authorized but must declare its unconstitutionality.
The court must see to it that the other departments have not exceeded their constitutional
authority. (Essence of Separation of Powers and System of Check and Balance)

3. Presumption of Good Faith

It is presumed that the legislative department had good motives in having considered and
adopted a particular law; that it acted with a desire to promote an intention not to
disregard the civil and political liberties of the people.

4. Presumption against Injustice

In case of doubt in the interpretation of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail (Article 10, Civil Code of the Philippines)

5. Presumption against Inconsistency/Presumption on Consistency

In case of doubt, such construction as will make all provisions on the statute consistent
with one another and with the entire act should be adopted. A word or phrase repeated in
a statute will have the same meaning throughout the statute, unless a different intention
appears.

6. Presumption against Absurdity

It is presumed that the legislature does not intend that absurdity will flow from its
enactment. The courts therefore have the duty to interpret the law in such a way as to
avoid absurd results.

7. Presumption against Ineffectiveness

It is presumed that the legislative body does not intend to adopt laws which are unnecessary
and ineffective. It is presumed that it intends to impart to its enactment such a meaning
as will render them operative and effective. There are two important rules in statutory
construction on this point, thus:

a. Where a law is susceptible of two constructions, one will render it unconstitutional

and the other upholds its validity, the latter must be adopted.
b. Where the language of the law is susceptible of two or more construction, one will
render the statute ineffective or inefficient and another will tend to give effect to
the object for which the law was adopted, then latter should prevail.

8. Presumption against Irrepealable laws

It is presumed that the law making body does not intend its laws to be irrepealable
because Congress cannot enact irrepealable laws nor limit its future legislative act. The
need of today and the situation obtaining now will not most likely be the same in the
years to come. Laws should adapt to changing times.

9. Presumption against Implied Repeal

Repeal by implication is not favored. There are two requirements before a statute can be
considered to have repealed a prior statute by implication, namely:

a. That the statute touch on the same subject matter; and

b. That the latter statute is repugnant to the earlier one.

Note: Rules to remember on the matters of repeal:

1. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or
nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, custom or practice to
the contrary. (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippine)
2. When a law which expressly repeals a prior one, the first law shall
not be thereby revived, unless expressly provided. However, when a
law repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication only, its
repeal revives the prior law, unless, the language of the repealing
statute provides otherwise.
3. A general law does not repeal special law unless it is so expressly
provided, or they are incompatible, in which case, the special law
prevails over the general law.

10. Presumption against Violation of Public Policy

It is presumed that the legislature designed to favor and foster rather than to contravene
the public policy which is based upon the principles of natural justice, good morals, and
the settled wisdom of the law as applied to the ordinary affairs of life.
 11. Presumption of Knowledge of Existing Laws

In enacting a law, the lawmaking body is presumed to have the full knowledge of existing
laws on the subject. Hence, if there are two laws on the same subject enacted in
different dates, the latter law cannot be held to have abrogated the former law unless
repugnancy is clear, convincing and irreconcilable.

12. Presumption of Acquiescence to Judicial Construction

When the court has construed a statute in a particular manner and the lawmaking body
had no move to alter or amend the said statute, it is presumed that the legislature has
acquiesced to that interpretation.

13. Presumption of Jurisdiction

A statute will not be construed in such a manner as to oust or restrict the jurisdiction
of the superior courts or to vest a new jurisdiction in them, unless, there are express
words or a necessary implication to the effect.

14. Presumption on Acting within the Scope of Authority

It is presumed that the legislature acted within the scope of its authority. If a statute
admits more than one interpretation, one that places the statute outside of the legislative
competence and one that places the legislative within the limits of legislative competence,
the court should adopt the latter interpretation.

15. Presumption against Violation of International Law

It is presumed that a statute is in conformity with the rules and principles of International
Laws, or with treaties duly entered into and accepted by our government. This is in line
with Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: “Section 2. The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.

 Doctrine of Incorporation – holds that every state is, by reason of its membership
in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international
law.
 Doctrine of Transformation – holds that an international agreement would be
binding only upon a state if that state enacts a law specifically making such
international agreement part and parcel of their laws.