STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Common Meaning Rule (or Plain Meaning Rule)

This rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the
language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise.
In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its
ordinary meaning.

Related cases: Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Central Bank, BAYAN vs. Zamora

Consequential Analysis or Absurdity Rule

Also known as "Scrivner's Error" in which statutes must be construed to their plain
meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions and to uphold the law and justice.

Related cases: Lina Obana vs. Judge Zamora and Jaime Liron, Santos, Jr. vs. PNOC

Noscitur a sociis (A word is known by the company it keeps)

In law, it is a rule of language used by the courts to help interpret in legislation under
which the questionable meaning of a doubtful word can be derived from its association
with other words. Under this rule, statutes should be construed in light of their context.

Related cases: People vs. Santiago, Coca- Cola Bottlers Philippines vs. Gomez

Ejusdem generis rule (Of the same kinds, class or nature)

Meaning "of the same kind", used to interpret loosely in the written statutes. Where a
law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the
general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.

Example: If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-
powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes since the list was of land-
based transportation.

Related cases: Mutuc vs. COMELEC, Gaanan vs. IAC







Expressio unius est exclusio alterus
(The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another)

Meaning: "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another" wherein items on the
list are not hereby assumed not to be covered or a contract term. However sometimes a
list in the statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by the word
such as "includes" or "such as".

Related cases: Santos To vs. Cruz Pano, Go-Tan vs. Tan

Casus Omissus (An omitted case)

When a statute or an instrument of writing undertakes to foresee and provide for certain
contingencies, and through mistake or some other cause, a case remains to be
provided for, it is said to be a casus omissus. For example, when a statute provides for
the descent of intestates estates, and omits a case, the estate descends as it did before
the statute, whenever that case occurs, although it appear to be within the general
scope and intent of the statute.

Related cases: People vs. Manantan

Reddendo Singula Singulis

By rendering each of his own, for example, when two descriptions of property are given
together in one mass, both the next of kin and the heir cannot take, unless is cases
where a construction can be made reddendo singula singulis.

Related cases: Amadora vs. Court of Appeals

Doctrine of last antecedent or the last antecedent rule

A doctrine of interpretation of statutes that any qualifying words or phrases refer to the
language immediately preceding the qualifier, unless common sense shows that it was
meant to apply something to more distant or less obvious.

Related cases: Mapa vs. Arroyo

Ubilex non distingut nec nos distinguere debemus
(Where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish)

When the law does not expressly state to distinguish particular items within a statute,
statute should be construed on its common or plain meaning.

Related cases: MTRCB vs. ABSCBN Broadcasting Corp., Guerrero vs. COMELEC