“Statutory construction” is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and

intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that
intention is rendered doubtful, among others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not
explicitly provided for in the law.
The absence of a statutory definition of a term used in a statute will not render the law void for
vagueness, if the meaning can be determined through the judicial function of construction.
Elementary is the principle that words should be construed in their ordinary and usual meaning.
(Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan)1
1 G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004
2 G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
3 G.R. No. L-63318, August 18, 1984
4 G.R. No. L-30642, April 30, 1985
This conclusion firms up in the light of the mischief sought to be remedied by the law, resort to
the determination thereof being an accepted extrinsic aid in statutory construction. (Caltex Inc.
v. Palomar)2
Nature of the Rules of Statutory Construction
The basic canon of statutory interpretation is that the word used in the law must be given its
ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intent is manifest from the law itself. (PCFI v. NTC)3
Judiciary’s Role in Statutory Construction
The duty of the court is to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable and determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any part or branch of the government.
The Court should not assume the role of legislator. (Floresca v. Philex – dissenting opinion of
Justice Gutierrez)4
Strict v. Liberal Construction
The liberal construction of a law should not be countenanced if it is clear and unambiguous.
In the case of Fetalino v. COMELEC,5 the Court denied the petitioners’ appeal to liberal
construction of Section 1 of R.A. No. 1568 is misplaced since the law is clear and unambiguous.
We emphasize that the primary modality of addressing the present case is to look into the
provisions of the retirement law itself. Guided by the rules of statutory construction in this
consideration, we find that the language of the retirement law is clear and unequivocal; no room
for construction or interpretation exists, only the application of the letter of the law.
5 G.R. No. 191890, December 4, 2012
6 G.R. No. 169942, January 24, 2011
7 G.R. Nos. 119987-88, October 12, 1995
Also, in the case of Legaspi v. Creative Play,6 the Court denied the invocation of liberal
application of the rules of court when the petitioner transgressed procedural rules due to belated
filing of a petition.
Lastly, in the case of People v. Veneracion,7 the Court denied the liberal interpretation of
criminal law because it is clear under the law, that the penalty imposable for the crime of Rape
with Homicide is not Reclusion Perpetua but Death.
The provision leaves no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial judge to
impose a penalty under the circumstances described, other than a sentence of death. Hence,
the petition was granted and the Court remanded the case to the trial court for proper imposition
of the penalty. Statutory Construction Reviewer By: Ernesto N. Dayao, Jr., CPA END Law
Notes
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men. (Colossians 3:23)
What is Judicial Legislation?
The Court should give Congress a chance to perform its primordial duty of lawmaking. The Court should
not pre-empt Congress and usurp its inherent powers of making and enacting laws. While it may be the
most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare
trespass on prohibited judicial