i 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 ‘STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION” Defined The objective of ‘atutory 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 The Requisites for “Statutory Construction” * Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997) * Olivia $, 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, (GR. 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) Statutes in General A. The Power to Make Laws ‘+ Article Vi, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution B. The Passage of a Law + Atticle VI Section 26-32, 1987 Philippine Constitution 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 ofa Statute E. Kinds of Statutes F. "Void for Vagueness Doctrine © Coates v. City of Cincinnati (402 US. 611, 1971)law) G. Kinds of Repeal: Express v. Implied H. Statutes visa vis Ordinances Basic Guidelines in Statutory Construction A. VerbaLegis (Plain Meaning Rule) * Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Communications v. National Labor Relations Commission and Imelda Salazar (G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992) + FelicitoBasbacio v. Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (G.R, No. 109445, Novemher 7, 1994) + PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming jurisdiction Inc. (GR. No. 177333, April 24, 2009) B. Statutes as a Whole: Ur res magisvalen quam pereat(construction is to be sought that which gives effect to the whole of the statute) ¢ [MM 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 legisest anima legis (The reason of the law is the soul of the law.) ‘+ Elena Selenillas and Bernardino Salenillas v. Hon, Court of Appeals et al. (GR. 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) ‘+ Inthe Matter of Application for the !ssuance of @ 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 + Lydia 0. Chua v. The Civil Service Commission et al. (G.R. No. 8897 1992) + City of Manila and City Treasurer v, judge Amador E, Gomez et al. (GR, No. L-37251, August 31, 1981) ebruary 7, E. Casus Omissus pro omissohabendusest(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&NievaDelfino 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) © LM Tuason and Co. Ine. etal. v. Mariano, etal. (G.R. No. L-33140, October 23, 1978)WL © Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 132051, June 25, 2001 © |R.A.Phils. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 177127, October 11, 2010 USE OF WORDS AND PHRASES Ubilex non distinguitnecnosdistingueredebemos (When the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish) «Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court (GR. 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. 110998, 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. jusdem Generis (Where general words of a particular, and specific meaning, such generat 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. EutropioMigrinio et al. (GR, No. 89483, August 30, 1990) + People v. Hon. Vicente B. Echaver, ret al. (GR. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980) + Misael P. Vera etal. v. Hon. Serafin R, Cuevas et al. (G.R. Nos, L33693-94, May 31, 1979) ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius (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 etal. (G.R. No. 148408, [uly 14, 2006) Noscitur A Sociis (Associated words explain and limit each other.) * Dra, Drigida S. Suenaseda, et al. v, Sec. Juan Flavier, et al. (G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993) Use of Negative and Affirmative Words © Manolo P, Fule v.71 e Honorable Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-79094, June 22, 1988) Use of Permissive and Imperative Words + PuritaBersabal 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)vu vill + 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 ‘+ PNBy. Court of Appeals (222 SCRA 134, May 17, 1993) L Use ofa “Proviso” © ALU-TUCP v. NLRC et al. (G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994) Presumptions A. Against Unconstitutionality # Aris Ine. v. NLRC etal. (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 etal. 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 etal. v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al. (G.R. No. L-72873, May 28, 1987) C. Against Implied Repeals * Berces, Jr. v. Guingona, Jr. etal. (GR. No. 112099, February 21, 1995) © Mecano v. Commission on Audit (G.R, No. 103982, December 11, 1992) + Republic v. ICC (GR. No. 141667, July 17, 2006) * GSIS. City Assessor of llofla 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 Vidlations of International Law Intrinsic Aids © Miriam Defensor Santiago et al. v. Comelec et al. (GR. No. 127325, March 19, 1997) ‘© Eugenion v. Drilon etal. (G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996) © People v. Echavez, Jr. etal. (G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980)Extrinsic Aids + Commissioner of Customs v. ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc. (G.R. No. L-28329, August 7.1975) + Veraet 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. etal. 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. etal. (G.R. No. 106724, February 9, 1994) + CASCO Philippine Chemical Co, Inc. v. Gimenez (G.R. No. L+17931, February 26, 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. WalpanLadjaalam y Milapil, GR Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000 B. TaxLaws Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al,, GR No. 69344, April 26, 1991 Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders Inc. v, Department of Finance Secretar} al. (GR No. 108524, November 10, 1994) et Labor and Social Legislations Ramon Corporal v. Employee's Compensation Commission and GSIS, GR No. 86020, August §, 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 Prospective and Retrospective Statutes Balatbat v. Court of Appeals et al, GR No. 36378, January 27, 1992XxIL Ill Erectors, Ine. v. NLRC et al. GR No. 104215, May 8, 1996 Cov. 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. DelaCerna, GR No. 83225, June 29, 1989 Conflicting Statutes Philippine National Bank v. Cruz, et al,, GR No. 80593, December 16, 1989 Lopez, Jr v. Civil Service Commission et al,, GR No, 87119, April 16, 1991 Gordon v. Veridiano If 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 etal, GR No. 143596, December 11, 2003, Statutory Construction and the Constitution Self-Executing Provisions Prohibitory Provisions Special Provisions Suprema Lex