STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CHAPTER VII – LATIN MAXIMS: THEIR MEANING AND

IMPORTANCE
I – IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL MAXIMS
Latin maxims are used not only in interpreting statutes. They are
also used by judges and justices in their decisions to add elegance to
their language and to give emphasis to the legal points therein
discussed. (Roman legal system)

II – LATIN MAXIMS APPLICABLE TO STATUTORY

CONSTRUCTION

A. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAWS SHOULD BE

PROSPECTIVE, NOT RETROACTIVE.

Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit

the law looks forward, not backward.

Lex de Futuro, Judex de Praterio

the law provides for the future, the judge for the past.

This principle is still found in Article 4, NCC

“Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary

is provided”

Exceptions: the purpose and intention of the legislature to give

them retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily
implied from the language.
In case of doubt, it shall be construed against retrospective effect.
 B. WHEN THE LAW IS CLEAR WHAT THE COURTS SHOULD
DO IS TO APPLY IT, NOT TO INTERPRET IT.

Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget

When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is
required.

Optima Statuti Interpretatix Est Insum Statutum

The best interpreter of the statute is the statute itself.

C. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS NOT THE LETTER OF THE

LAW THAT KILLETH, IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THAT
GIVETH LIFE.

Ratio Legis Est Anima

The reason of the law is its soul.

Ratio Legis
Interpretation according to spirit.

Cessante Ratione Cesat Ipsa Lex

When the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases also to
exist.

What if the letter of the law conflicts with its spirit, which prevails?
If the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, then read the
law to mean exactly what it says. If not, look for the intention of the
legislature.

D. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN

THOSE ENUMERTED ARE DEEMED EXCLUDED.
 Expersio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
Express mention is implied exclusion

E. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT SPECIAL PROVISIONS PREVAIL

OVER GENERAL PROVISONS.

Generalia specialibus non derogant

A general law does not nullify a specific or special law.

F. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHILE THE LAW MAY BE HARD,

IT IS THE LAW THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED.

Dura Lex Sed Lex

The law may be harsh but it is still the law

It is the sworn duty of the judge to apply the law without fear or
favor. It is not for the courts to decide that the law is unwise.

G. ON THE GENERAL PRINCPLE THAT WITHOUT INTENT,

THERE CAN BE NO CRIME.

Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Emeret

No man may be punished for his thought.

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Si Rea

The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intentions were so.

Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus

An act done by me against my will is not my act.
 H. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
EXCUSES NO ONE BUT IGNORANCE OF FACT MAY BE AN
EXCUSE.

Article 3, NCC – Ignorance of the law excuses no one from

compliance therewith

Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat

Ignorance of the law excuses no one

Ignorantia Facto Excusat

Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is an excuse

Exceptions: foreign laws & unpublished laws.

I. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THE LAW DOES NOT

DISTINGUISH, WE SHOULD NOT DISTINGUISH

Ubi Lex Non Distinguit Nec Nos Distiguere Debemos

Where the law does not distinguish, we should not
distinguish.

Article III, Section 1, of the 1987 Constitution – Equal protection

of the law.

III. LATIN MAXIMS AND PHRASES RELATED TO THE SUBJECT

OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Mens Legislatores
The court shall give the statute a reasonable or liberal
construction which will best effect its purpose rather than one which
will defeat it.
 Reddendo Singula Singulis (referring each to each)
Each word or phrase or clause must be referred to their
proper connection in order to give it proper force and effect, rendering
none of them useless or superfluous.

Cassus Omissus Pro Omisso Habbendus Est

A case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted.

If a person, object or thing is omitted from an enumeration in the

statute, it must be held to have been intentionally omitted.

As a rule, therefore, the court cannot insert in a statute that

which has been omitted.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. If it is necessary to obviate repugnancy or inconsistency,
or
2. Where the omission was made thru clerical error,
accident or inadvertence, or where it is necessary to
complete the sense of the statute.

Noscitur A Sociis
Where a particular word or phrase in a statute is
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings,
its true meaning may be made clear and specific by considering
the company in which it is found or with which it is associated.

Ejusdem Generis
 When the general words follow the designation of particular
things, or classes of persons or subjects, the general words will
usually be construed to include only those persons or things of the
same class or general nature as those specifically enumerated.

CHAPTER VIII – INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES

USED IN A STATUTE

I - HOW ARE WORDS AND PHRASES IN A STATUTE

INTERPRETED?

It depends. If the words and phrases used are defined in the

statute itself, such definitions controls the meaning of the statutory
word, irrespective of any other meaning the word or phrase may have
in its ordinary or usual sense.

If there is no such definition, the words or phrases in the statute

should be interpreted in accordance with its well-accepted meaning
and they should be construed in the light of the context of the whole
statute.

II – IS THE STATUTORY DEFINITON CONCLUSIVE TO THE

COURTS?

A statutory definition is not necessarily conclusive to the courts in

the ff cases:

1. When such definition creates obvious incongruities;

2. When it contravenes the major purpose of the statute; and
 3. When it becomes illogical as a result of a change in its factual
basis.

In such cases, the words will be given a meaning that will serve the
purpose of the law, or which will make the law logical and free from
incongruities.

III – RULES THAT GOVERN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS

1. When a word used in a statute has a general meaning;

2. When the word used has a technical meaning;
3. When the word used has no meaning in harmony with the
legislative intent; and
4. When the word or phrase is repeatedly used in a statute.

IV – WHEN THE WORD USE IN A STATUTE HAS A GENERAL

MEANING

The general word should not be given a restricted meaning

unless it is otherwise indicated.

Generalia Verba Sun Generaliter Intelligencia

What is generally mentioned shall be generally understood.

V – WHEN THE WORD USED HAS A TECHNICAL MEANING

When the words or phrases used have a technical meaning, they

are considered to have been used in their technical sense.
VI – WHEN THE WORD USED HAS NO MEANING IN HARMONY
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

When the words used have no meaning in harmony with the

legislative intent, they can be treated as surplasage and they may
entirely be ignored. Before resorting to this, however, the courts
should construe the statute in its entirety and find out if the words
used can still admit a reasonable construction which will give them
force and meaning. In the absence of any reasonable construction,
then the said words can be ignored.

VII- WHEN THE WORD OR PHRASE IS REPEATEDLY USED IN A

STATUTE

A word or phrase used in one part of a statute shall receive the

same interpretation when used in every other part of the statute
unless a different meaning is intended. Likewise, when a word or
phrase is repeatedly used in a statute, it will, as a rule, bear the same
meaning throughout the statute.

VIII – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES

1. The words “OR” and “AND”

2. The terms “AND/OR”
3. The words “SHALL” and “MAY”
4. The words “ALL,” “EVERY” and “ANY”
5. The phrase “AND SO FORTH”
6. The phrase “AND THE LIKE”
7. Negative words and phrases like “CANNOT,” “SHALL NOT”
 8. Affirmative words and phrases like “THE FOLLOWING MAY,”
“THE FOLLOWING SHALL”

THE WORD “OR”

As a Rule:
“or” is a disjunctive term which indicates an alternative.
Hence when “or” is used, the various members of the sentence are to
be taken separately.

It should be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies,

that it is a disjunctive word.

The word “OR” is NOT DISJUCTIVE in the ff cases:

1. When the spirit or the context of the law warrant it; and
2. Although the persons who can pardon the offender under Article
344 of the RPC are mentioned disjunctively, the said provision
should be construed to mean that the right to institute criminal
proceedings in said cases is exclusively and successively
reposed in said persons in the order in which they are named.

THE WORD “AND”

As a Rule:
“and” is a conjunctive term, and if it is used in a sentence, it
means that the members of a sentence are to be taken jointly.

EXCEPTION:
The word “AND” ay mean “OR” if this is the plain intention
of the legislature which could be gleaned from the context of the
statute.
THE TERM “AND/OR”

Effect shall be given to both the conjunctive “and” and the

disjunctive “or” depending on which one will serve the legislative
intent.

THE WORD “SHALL”

Is imperative. When used in a statute, it operates to impose a

duty, which may be enforced.

The rule is not absolute. It may be construed as “MAY” when so

required by the context or by the intention of the statute.

THE WORD “MAY”

Is permissive and it operates to confer jurisdiction.

THE WORD “ALL,” “EVERY,” and “ANY”

The word “all” may be used in its universal sense or in its

comprehensive sense.

THE WORDS “AND SO FORTH,” and “THE LIKE”

The words “and so forth” refers to those similar to what is

enumerated or mentioned preceding the words “and so forth.” Similar
to the phrase “and others of similar character.”

NEGATIVE TERMS “CANNOT.” And “SHALL NOT,” and “NO”

 Indicates the intention of the legislature to make the law
mandatory and prohibitive.

IX – DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Has procedural and substantive requirements.

From the procedural point of view, it simply means that the

procedure to be observed should be fair. (Law which hears before it
condemns)

A substantive requirement of due process is actually a provision

against oppressive or arbitrary laws.

REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS

The due process clause should be interpreted both as a

substantive and as a procedural guarantee. Hence the requirements
of due process are: (1) Substantive due process; and (2) Procedural
due process.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

Is a guarantee that life, liberty, and property shall not be taken

away from anyone without due process of law. If a law is invoked to
take away one’s life, liberty, and property, the more specific concern of
substantive due process is not to find out whether said law is being
enforced in accordance with procedural formalities but WON the said
law is a proper exercise of legislative power. This will necessarily
require the ff:

1. There must be a valid law upon which it is based;

 2. The law must have been passed o approved to accomplish a
valid governmental objective;
3. The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner; and
4. The law as well as the means to accomplish the objective
must be valid and not oppressive.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Refers to the regular methods of procedure to be observed

before one’s life, liberty or property can be taken away from him.
Simply, stated, it means that the procedure to observe must be fair.

A guarantee to obtain a fair trial in a court of justice according to the

mode of proceeding applicable to each case. Now, this includes not
only any curt of justice but also any and all administrative boards,
bodies or tribunals.

2 ASPECTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

1. Procedural due process in judicial proceedings; and

2. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings.

REQUIREMENT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS

1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial

power to hear and determine the matter before it;
 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant and over the property which is the subject matter of
the proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

REQUIREMENT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s

case and submit evidence in support hereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its t his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision; and
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render
its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding
can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered.
X – COURTS POWER TO CONSTRUE STATUTES ARISES ONLY
IF THE STAUTE IS NOT CLEAR

Absoluta Sententia Expositore Non Indiget

When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it
is required.

XI- IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUING A STATUTE, WHAT ARE

THOSE THAT THE COURT CAN DO AND CANNOT DO

WHAT THE COURT CAN DO?

1. Primarily, the court’s duty is to ascertain the true intent of the

statute.
2. In the pursuit of this duty, the court can resort to all legitimate
aids to construction. These aids are those found in the law itself,
known as intrinsic aids, and those extraneous facts and
circumstances outside of the statute, known as extrinsic aids.
3. It can depart from the language of the statute if by so doing, the
legislative purpose could be carried out.
4. It may correct clerical errors, mistakes or misprints, which, if not
corrected, would render the statute meaningless.
5. It can issue guidelines in applying the statute in order to
delineate what the law requires.

WHAT THE COURT CANNOT DO?

1. The court cannot speculate as to the intent of the law.

 2. The court cannot supply a meaning not found in the phraseology
of the law.
3. The court cannot assume a purpose, which is not expressed in
the statute.
4. The court cannot change the meaning o he law, especially if the
meaning will defeat the purpose of the law.
5. The court cannot rewrite the law and invade the domain of the
legislature
6. The court cannot interpret into the law a requirement, which the
law does not prescribe.
7. The court cannot enlarge the scope of the statute and include
transactions or situations not provided by the legislatures.

XII – WHAT HAPPENS IF THE STATUTE IS NOT CAPABLE OF

INTERPRETATION OR CONSTRUCTION?

When a statute is not capable of interpretation or construction

because it fails to express a meaning, or if the absurdity in the law
cannot be reconciled despite resorting to all aids in construction, it
becomes inoperative.

XIII- CAN THE SUPREME COURT ABANDON OR OVERRULE ITS

EARLIER DECISION?
 The SC, sitting en banc may abandon or overrule its earlier
decision, if it is right and proper to do so but the new decision
modifying or overruling a doctrine or principle should only be applied
prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the
doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.

XIV- IF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN A

PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT CORRECT, SHOULD IT BE
FOLLOWED BY THE INERIOR COURTS?

Unless and until that decision of the SC is reversed by itself,

sitting en banc, it shall be binding not only upon the inferior courts but
also upon all branches of the gov’t.
Article 8. NCC:
“Judicial decision applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”

CHAPTER IX – RULES ON CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS

Article 1305, NCC
Contract = “meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one
binds himself with respect to the other, to give something or render
some services.”
I – CAN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES ENTER INTO ANY KIND OF
AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISH SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THAT THEY MAY DEEM PROPER?

Article 1306, NCC

The contracting parties may enter into any kind of
agreement and establish such terms and conditions that they like
provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.

II- WHO ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?

GENERAL RULE: “contracts take effect only between the

parties, their assigns and heir,” and therefore generally, its terms
cannot determine the rights of third persons.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where the obligations arising from the contract are not
transmissible by their nature, by stipulation or by provision of law
(Article 1311);
2. Where there is a stipulation pour autrui (a stipulation in favor of a
3rd party);
3. Where a third person induces another to violate his contract
(Article 1314)
 4. Where in some cases, third persons may be adversely affected
by a contract where they did not participate;
5. Where the law authorizes the creditor to sue on a contract
entered into by his debtor. (Accion Directa)

III- WHEN IS IT NECESSARY AND NOT NECESSARY TO

INTERPRET THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?

WHEN NECESSARY
When the terms of the contract are not clear and there is doubt
regarding the intention of the contracting parties, it becomes
necessary to resort to interpretation. This becomes the duty of the
court when the parties decide to seek judicial intervention.

In case of doubt, it is the intention of the contracting parties that

prevails, for the intention is the soul of a contract, not its wording
which is prone to mistakes, inadequacies, or ambiguities. To hold
otherwise would give life, validity, and precedence to mere
typographical errors and defeat the purpose of agreements.

WHEN NOT NECESSARY

 When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, interpretation of the
same is not necessary.
Article 1370, CC
If the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting arties, the literal meaning of its stipulations
shall control.

IV – IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WORDS OF THE

CONTRACT AND EVDENT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, WHICH
PREVAILS?

2nd paragraph of Article 1370, NCC

“If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention
of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.”

V – HOW TO JUDGE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES?

Article 1371, NCC
“In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties,
their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
considered”
VI – RULES GOVERNING THE FOLLOWING:
1. Effect of the use of several terms
2. Effect of stipulations that admit of several meaning effect of
words which may have different significations
 3. Effect of usage or custom of the place
4. Effect of obscure words or stipulation in a contract.
5.
VII- USE OF GENERAL TERMS
However general terms of a contract may be, they shall not be
understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are
different from those upon which the parties intended to agree.

VIII – STIPULATIONS THAT ADMIT GENERAL MEANINGS

If some stipulations of any contract should admit of several
meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most
adequate to render it effectual.

IX – USAGE OR CUSTOM OF THE PLACE

The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the
interpretation of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the
omission of stipulations that are ordinarily established.

X –OBSCURE WORDS OR STIPULATION

The interpretation of obscure words or stipulation in a contract
shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.

XI – RULE IN CASE OF DOUBT AS TO THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT

AND AS TO THE INCIDENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES
 When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules
established in the preceding articles, and the doubts refer to incidental
circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission o rights
and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall
be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity o interests.
XII – OTHER RULES OF INTERPRETATION

Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an

agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors
in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term "agreement" includes wills.

4. Interpretation Of Documents

Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. — The

language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it
bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.
Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. — In
the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give
effect to all.

Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular

provisions. — In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the
parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it.

Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances. — For the proper

construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those who language
he is to interpret.

Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of a writing are

presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but
evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.

Section 15. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists

partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.

Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain

writings. — When the characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the
evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand
the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.

Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. — When the terms of an

agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to
it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other
understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in
whose favor the provision was made.

Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is

equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted.

Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be

construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.

CHAPTER X – OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS INVOLVING

THE SUBJECT OF STATCON
 Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context.
 Where a general word or phrase follows an enumeration o
particular and specific words of the same class the general
word or phrase is to be construed to include – or to be
restricted to – things akin to or resembling, or of the same
kind or class as, those specifically mentioned.
 The date of the violation of the law becomes the operative
date for the commencement of the period of the prescription.
 Equity cannot prevail over law (aequitas nunquam contravenit
legis)
 Laws should be published as a conditions for their effectivity
 Repeal by implication is not favored
 Strictissimi juris = strict interpretation
 Administration interpretation has weight
 Executive and administrative acts must be in harmony with
statutes
 Tax statutes are to be construed strictly against the
government and liberally in favor of the taxpayers
 All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality
 The franchise is the law between the parties and they are
bound by the terms thereof
 Legislative proceedings may serve as guides in determining
the construction of statute of doubtful meaning
 A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history
of times
 No provision of the constitution is to be separated from all
others.
 The constitution is not to be interpreted as demanding the
impracticable
 Penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor
the person guilty of a felony.
 Waiver in derogation of statutory right is not favored
 Equitable reasons will not control against any well-settled rule
of law
 In the absence of a clear contrary intention, words and
phrases in statutes should not be interpreted in isolation from
one another.
 Labor legislation and labor contract shall be construed in favor
of the safety and decent living of the laborer
 A specific statute prevails over a general statute
 Foreign jurisprudence is only persuasive
 Resort to foreign jurisprudence is proper only if there is no law
or jurisprudence that is available locally to settle a controversy
 A literal interpretation should be rejected if it would be unjust
or it would lead to absurd results.
 One who seeks equity must himself be deserving of equity
 General legislation must give way to special legislation
 In case of doubt, it is the duty of the judiciary to exert every
effort to prevent the invalidation of the law
 Whereas clauses are not part of a statute
 Legislative intent must be ascertained from the whole statute