STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION REVIEWER

 MAX SHOOP
o What kind of jurisprudence is the Philippine Legal System?
- “If, in the PH, English Common Law principles as embodied in the Anglo-American jurisprudence are used and applied
by courts to the extent that such CL principles are not in conflict with local written laws, customs, and institutions, and
there is no foreign case law system used to any substantial extent, then it is proper to say in the sense of NY rile that
the “jurisprudence” of PH is based on English Common Law.”
- “What we really have, if we were not too modest to claim It is a Philippine Common Law, influence by the English and
American Common Law, the derecho comun of Spain and the customary law of the Islands and builded on a new case
of precedents.”
- A survey of recent Philippine Reports shows increasing reliance upon English and American authorities in formation
of what can be called PH Common Law, as SUPPLEMENTAL to the statute law of this jurisdiction.

 CHAPTER 1
o Legal Method is not concerned with the principles, doctrines and rules comprising substantive law in a specified field
o Concerns itself with methodology used by courts to create, elaborate, and apply the substance
o STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
- 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 the intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that given
case is not explicitly provided for in law

 CHAPTER 2
o Hybrid System
- PH legal system is a mixture of civil law and common law regimes (Spain, US)
- Mixture of Islamic Law, indigenous systems, Spanish Civil Law, and American Common Law
- While PH has form of government that was inspired by US, it does not prevent the use of Muslim and indigenous
laws. PH acknowledges and accepts the existence of customary laws that may have controlling force in certain
situations

o BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIAL POWER

- Under the Constitution, the PH is a democratic and republican state; sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
- Presidential type that distributes power among the 3 equal braches namely legislative, executive and judiciary
- Separation is one of the chief characteristics of our Constitution
 SC is independent of the legislative or executive
 Principle of Separation of Powers
- May be violated when there is impermissible interference and/or assumption of another branch’s
functions
- Executive power is vested in the President assisted by cabinet secretaries
 There is only one Chief Executive who directs and controls the entire executive branch, and all other officials
must implement in good faith his directives and orders
- Legislative power is vested in bicameral Congress of the PH
 Senate is composed of 24 senators elected at large
 House of Representatives is composed of not more than 250 members elected from legislative districts
apportioned among provinces, cities, and Metropolitan Manila, PH has adopted a party-list system with
representatives elected through a partylist of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties and
organizations
 Can make laws and alter or repel them
- Judicial power is vested in the courts (Article 8, 1987 Constitution)
 Duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable
and to determine WON there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on part of any branch or instrumentality of the government
 Requirements to become member of SC: 1) Natural-born; 2) at least 40 years of age; 3) more than 15 years
or more a judge of lower court or engaged in the practice of law on PH
- Judicial Hierarchy (4 levels)
  1: MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Courts), MTCC (Municipal Trial Court in Cities); MTC (Municipal Trial Court);
MCTC (Municipal Circuit Trial Court); SCC (Shari’a Circuit Courts)
 2: RTC (Regional Trial Court) in the 13 regions of PH; SDC (Shari’a District Courts)
 3: CA (Court of Appeals) 23 divisions with 3 members each; Sandiganbayan; Court of Tax Appeals; Shari’a
Appelate Court
 4: SC (Supreme Court) 1 Chief Justice, 14 Associate Justices who sit en banc or in division of 3, 5, 7
- As a general rule, litigants should not immediately invoke the SC’s jurisdiction after a setback in litigation
 Rule 65 of Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed when “there is no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”
 This rule may be dispensed with if petition raises an issue of “significant national interest” or “paramount
importance and constitutional significance” or there are “exceptional and compelling circumstance that justify
the SC’s exercise of jurisdiction”
- SEPARATION OF POWERS
 Each of the 3 branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within
its own constitutionally allocated sphere
 PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS: “What has been delegated cannot be delegated”
 The Judiciary does not settle policy issues, which is in the province of the legislative and executive branches
of government. The court can only declare what the law is, and not what the law should be. Policy issues are
within the domain of the political branches, and of the people themselves
 Courts are precluded from construction or interpretation of statutes unless application is impossible or
inadequate without it
- CHECKS AND BALANCES
Constitution created a system of checks and balances that allows one branch to restrain abuse by another:
1) Allows blending of some of executive, legislative, or judicial powers in one body; 2) Does not prevent one
branch of government from inquiring into the affairs of other branch to maintain the balance of power; 3)
Ensures that there is no encroachment on matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the other branches
 Judicial Review is intended to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and to protect substantial
rights of parties affected by its decision. 1987 expanded the role of judiciary to include the determination of
“grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on part of any branch or instrumentality
of Government”

o ADJUDICATIO AND IDENTIFICATION OF RULES

- MUNICIPAL LAW
 Congress may delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the law and effect
policies. This is allowed because legislative often finds it impracticable to provide laws for everyone. The rule-
making power of public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which cannot be used to abridge
the authority given to it by Congress and the Constitution, or to enlarge its power beyond scope intended
 EO 232 (Administrative Code of 1987) authorized the President to issue the ff:
- Executive Order: general or permanent in character
- Administrative Order: particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as
administrative head shall be promulgated in AOs
- Proclamations: fixing a date or declaring status or condition of public moment or interest upon
the existence of which the operation of a specific law/regulation is made to depend (shall have
force of EO)
- Memorandum Order: matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interests
which only concerns a particular officer or office of Government
- Memorandum Circulars: matters relating to internal administration (departments, bureaus,
agencies etc…)
- General or Specific Orders: capacity as Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces of the Philippines
- LOCAL ORDINANCES
 The power of local government units to legislate and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely delegated
power coming from Congress
 An ordinance, to be valid: 1) Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2) Must not be unfair or
oppressive; 3) Must not be partial or discriminatory; 4) Must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) Must not
be unreasonable; 6: Must be general and consistent with public policy
-INTERNATIONAL LAW
 Doctrine of Incorporation: the PH is bound by general accepted principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of our own laws
 Principle of pacta sunt servanda: demands performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of the
states that enter into agreement
 CHAPTER 6
o DEDUCTION
- Associated with reasoning from enacted law (statutes, regulations, EOs)
- Judges do not have the discretion in applying the rules laid down by another branch of the government and their task
is limited to interpretation
- Parts are ff: 1) Major premise ( announces the rule of law; 2) Minor premise (describe facts of client’s situation); 3)
Conclusion (whether right or duty described in the rule of law has been demonstrated to exist under the facts of client’s
situation
- First Philippine Industrial Corporation v Court of Appeals
 “Common Carrier” was only for ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships and the like. It is not for
transfer of petroleum products from Batangas to Sucat and Pandacan
 Through deduction, the Court resulted to consulting an enacted law, which is the Civil Code (Article 1732)
for the definition of “common carriers” that is any person, corporation, firm or association engaged in carrying
or transporting of persons or products or both by land, water air, by compensation offering their services to
the public

o ANALOGY
- A form of logic by which the one reasons that because 2 items are alike in at least one respect, they are alike in at
least one other respect. A lawyer identifies at least one prior case, one precedent, that seems to have facts in common
with client’s situation
- The most common form of analogical reasoning is the use of precedent
- Analogy is different from deduction
 Analogy: Lawyer uses one specific case to decide another specific case
 Deduction: Lawyer uses general rule to decide specific case
- If a court finds that a case is sufficiently similar to the one it is considering, then the older case is considered “on all
fours” with the present case. If not “on all fours” it cannot be applied to the new case
- Lasoy v. Zenarosa
 Fast facts: Petitioner was charged with selling of 42.410 grams of prohibited drugs. After arraignment and
conviction, and application for probation, the Respondents wanted to amend the information stating that it was
not in grams but in KILOS.
 Citing the case of Galman v Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that it was not in “all fours” with the recent
case because in the case mentioned, there was an authoritarian closely monitoring the progress of the case
until the end – which was not present in the case at bar
 Respondent People of the Philippines argues, citing the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan that the trial
was a sham. We do not agree with the respondent as the trial in the Galman case was considered a mock
trial owing to the act of a then authoritarian president who ordered the therein respondents Sandiganbayan
and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and who closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure a predetermined
final outcome of acquittal and total absolution of the respondents-accused therein of all the charges.42
- Candijay v Court of Appeals:
 Fast facts: Brgy. Pagahat was a part of Municipality of Alicia when Municipality of Candijay wanted it to be
part of its jurisdiction though EO 265. The CA denied the motion of Candijay. Petitioner invoked the case of
Pelaez v Auditor in General, stating that in this case, EO 265 was deemed null and void because Section 68
of Revised Administrative Code (where EO 265 is based) was declared unconstitutional, therefore Municipality
of Alicia cannot invoke EO 265
 Through analogy, the court denied the petition of Candijay stating that it invoked the wrong case as Pelaez
v Auditor in General was not “on all fours” with the case, but rather the Court cited the case Municipality of
San Narciso v Mendez, Sr.
 In the said case: Municipality of Alicia was existing for over 16 years when Pelaez v Auditor in General was
promulgated. Inasmuch as respondent Alicia is similarly situated as Municipality of San Andres, it should
benefit from the effects of Local Government Code and considered as a regular de jure municipality
 Pelaez has never been overturned. It was inapplicable in light of the fact that San Narciso and Candijay
became de jure after Local Government Code

 CHAPTER 5
o Court Decision as Laws
- Judicial decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily
become the criteria which must control the acts of parties and of those duty-bound to enforce obedience to decision
 - Decisions of the SC are universal in their scope and application, and are equally mandatory in character. They are
binding judicial precedent based on the doctrine of stare decisis
- If the case is still the subject of motion for reconsideration, still not deemed decided
Judicial interpretation becomes part of the law as the date that it was originally passed
- When a doctrine of court is overruled and adopts a different view, it should be applied prospectively
- Supreme Court rulings “should be definitive and authoritative, binding on those occupying the lower ranks in the
judicial hierarchy”

o STARE DECISIS
- lower courts should adhere to the doctrinal rule stablished by SC in its final decision:
 The decisions of the higher court bind the lower courts
 The courts of co-ordinate authority do not bind each other
 The one highest court does not bind itself, because it is invested with innate authority to rule according to
its best lights
- Principle of Stare Decisis means that like cases should be decided alike
- Sometimes called “doctrine of precedence”, assures certainty and stability in our legal system
-Judgment reached in one case should be applied to successive ones in which facts are substantially identical, even
though parties may be different. Like cases ought to be decided alike
- “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” – stand by the decision and disturb not what is settled. For the sake of certainty,
a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even
though parties may be different
- FIRST PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE: absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided
alike (economy and stability)

- Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v Court Of Appeals:

 Fast facts:
- SD works as bar only against issues litigated in a previous case. There issue involved was not raised nor presented
and not passed upon by court in previous case, decision is not stare decisis.
- Cases dismissed on procedural technicality does not set any controlling doctrine and stare decisis will not apply
- SD encourages private settlement of dispute and discourage individuals from forum and judge shopping. It promotes
efficiency because it disposes the need to litigate every issue and discourage rush litigation whenever there is a change
in court personnel
-EXCEPTION: When governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, the SC is not constrained to follow
precedent
 Must be based on strong and compelling reasons
- Ebralinag v Division of Superintendent of Schools of Cebu
 Fast facts: Petitioners are Jehova’s Witness members who refused to salute the flag, sing the national
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required in RA 1265. Their religion prohibit them from “worshipping”
the flag as it is an idol or image representing the State. They contend that it is a violation against freedom of
religion. This issue was already resolved in Gerona v Secretary of Education, and the SC ruled against the
JW pupils stating that they should be dismissed for non-compliance. The case at bar raised the issue of
unconstitutionality of the RA 1265
 The court tool the opposite position in ruling the case at bar. “After all, what the petitioners seek is only in
exemption from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from public schools where they may study the Constitution…
Forcing a small religious group , through the iron hand of law, to participate in ceremonies that violate their
religious belief, will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for authorities
- Sometimes a doctrine may be abandoned because Congress amended the pertinent law that was the basis of SC’s
decision
- De Mesa v Pepsi Cola Products Philippines
 Fast facts: Petitioner was one of those who were holders of a winning combination “349” in a contest held
by the respondent called “Number Fever”. On the night of the announcement, director of Pepsi called DTI that
due to some security code problems, a mistake has been made in the announcement. The Mendoza and
Rodrigo group case were dismissed and the De Mesa group petitioned for certiorari
The court ruled that while parties involved in the case are different, the Court observed that the legal rights
and relations of parties, facts, applicable laws, cause of action, issue, evidence are exactly the same. There
was already finality of judgment. The court cited Article 8 of the Civil Code stating that Judicial decision form
part of the legal system of the Philippines (SD entrenched in here)
- Wherein a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the
same, even though the parties may be different
-Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34
  Fast facts: Petitioner and colleagues were arrested by military authorities and transferred to the detention
center in Camp Crame. Petitioners went to this court, after having been convicted of death by electrocution,
to file Petition or prohibition and habeas corpus. They asked the Supreme court to revisit the issue of whether
military commissions or tribunals had jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during Martial
Law. In Aquino Jr. v Milirary Commission no. 2, the court ruled that the MCs has been lawfully constituted and
validly vested jurisdiction to hear cases against civilians since the country was in a state of violence and Martial
Law was in effect.
 The Supreme Court, in the case at bar, overturned the Aquino case ruling that the creation of Military
Commissions to try civilians was unconstitutional
 “Certainly, the rule of SD is entitled to respect because stability in jurisprudence is desirable but it cannot
prevail when constitutionalism and the public policy demand otherwise. Thus a doctrine which should be
abandoned should be abandoned and modified accordingly. After all, more important than anything else is
that this Court should be right.

o RES JUDICATA
- “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment”
- An existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other
actions or suits in the same or other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the
first suit
- Principle: parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been
judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction should be conclusive upon parties and privity with
them in law or estate
- Principle: it is the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a subject
once fully and fairly adjudicated
- REQUISITES:
 Former judgment or order must be final
 Judgment or order must be on the merits
 Must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the same subject matter and parties
 There must be, between first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of
action
- Last requisite is sometimes called the elements of RJ
1. Identity of parties or at least such ad representing the same interest in both actions
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on same facts
3. Identity in 2 particulars in such that any judgment which may be rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to RJ in actions under consideration
- If there is identity of parties but not of causes of action: first judgment conclusive only as to those matters actually and
directly converted and determined
- Applicable only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not in administrative proceedings
EXPT: When admin takes on adversary character, RJ applies
- INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: one which deals with incidental matters and does not resolve actual merits of the case,
does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be done and decided upon, it deals with
preliminary matters and the trial on merits is yet to be held and judgment rendered
 Different from Final Order (disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular
proceedings or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has
determined
 DOES NOT RESULT IN RES JUDICATA
- LITIS PENDENTIA: ground for dismissal of a civil action which arises where two actions are pending between same
parties for same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious
 REQUISITES: identity of parties in the 2 actions; substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs
sought by parties; identity between 2 actions should be such that ant judgment that may be rendered in one
case, would amount to RJ in the other
- Focal point of RJ is the judgment, whereas in SD it is the doctrine created
 Res Judicata: Judgments on the merits on a previous case would bind a subsequent case if there exists
identity in parties, subject matter, causes of action
 Stare Decisis: A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are
substantially the same, even though parties may be different.
 o LAW OF THE CASE
- Law of the case: operates only in the particular case and only as a rule of policy and not as one law
- Need not be followed as a precedent in subsequent litigation between other parties, neither by appellate court which
made the decision followed on a subsequent appeal in same case, nor by any other court
- Adhered to in the single case where it arises, but not carried into other cases
- Whatever is once irrevocably established as controlling legal principle or decision, continues to be the law of the case
between same parties in the same case, whether correct om general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court
- GR: decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of case whether that question is right or wrong,
and remedy of parting of party deeming himself aggrieved is to seek rehearsal
- When an appellate court passes on a question and remands the cause to the lower court for further proceeding, the
question settled becomes the law of the case on subsequent appeal
- A decision becomes the law of the case once is attains finality
- Different from Res Judicata
 First judgment is generally not yet final. Relates entirely to questions of law and confined in its operation to
subsequent proceedings in the same case
 LC: same case; RJ: forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another case
 LC: rule made in appellate court cannot be departed from subsequent proceedings in same case and
relates entirely to question of law; RJ: applicable to the conclusive determination of issues of fact and is
generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding

 CHAPTER 9
o RATIO DECIDENDI
- Ultimate issue directly before the court, expressly decided in the course of the consideration of the case, any resolution
must be an authoritative precedent
- Only RD constitutes binding precedent
- It is an opinion “the formation of which is necessary for decision of a particular case
- Mercado v People of the Philippines
 Fast facts: Mercado and friends were charged with a violation against the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.
Petitioner argues that since his prison term was increased from 17 years and 4 months to 30 years, the
Supreme Court should automatically review it since it was reclusion perpetua. Supreme Court ruled that
automatic review is only for cases with reclusion perpetua or higher as a single indivisible penalty. SC ruled
that it cannot be RP because RP is an indivisible penlty of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, it cannot be divided
into three periods, and the charge against them was a violation of a special law, and should not be designated
with terms of RPC
 When the CA relied in a Footnote in People v Omotoy to affirm the conviction of Mercado, they were right.
It may not be the ratio decidendi of the case or it may not be on all fours, but it still constitutes an important
part of the decision since it enunciates a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of appeals

o OBITER DICTUM
- Matter that was not raised expressly and therefore, not a prerequisite in the disposition of the case
- Remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly
upon a question before the court, or upon point not necessarily involved in determination of cause
- Lacks force of an adjudication
- Entirely unnecessary for the case, not binding as precedent
- May be followed if sufficiently persuasive (if it reflects a more rational and just interpretation of the law)
- Villanueva v Court of Appeals
 Fast facts: Petitioner Villanueva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against IBC-13 where the laborer
ruled in his favor. IBC appealed to the NLRC with a Surety Bond issued by the BF General Insurance
Company, but later on the documents were found to be falsified. Complaints filed against Villadores and Diaz
were dismissed but later on Diaz got dismissed and Villadores was found to be an accused in 2 criminal cases.
Rico and Associates, counsel for Villanueva filed a Motion to Amend Information alleging damages were
sustained by Villanueva as result of crimes committed by Villadores. Thereafter, Villadores filed for
disqualification of Rico and Associates as private prosecutor for Villanueva in RTC Manila Branch 41.
 Branch 41 RTC and CA ruled that Villanueva is indeed not a party to the case as he could not possibly
sustain damages, it should be IBC who was prejudiced since they were the ones who bought fake Surety
Bonds.
 Rico and Associates opposed the said motion because it was a mere obiter dictum
  Supreme Court ruled that it was not an obiter dictum, as it touched upon a matter clearly raised by
respondent Villadores. So also, where a case presents 2 or more points, any one of which sufficient to
determine the ultimate issue, but court actually decides all such points, the case as an authoritative precedent
to every point decided (even if disposition of case is made on other grounds), and none of such points can be
regarded as having status of dictum, and one point should not be denied authority merely because another
point was more dwelt on and more fully argues and considered, nor does a decision on one
proposition make statements of court regarding other propositions as dicta.
- Lhuillier v British Airways
 Fast facts: Petitioner Lhuillier filed a Complaint against British airways before RTC in Makati City because
allegedly she was given tortuous behavior by the flight attendants in the said flight (when they did not help
with her bags, singled her out from business class to brief her on safety, and when they did not apologize).
Respondents claim that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because only the courts of London, United Kingdom or
Rome, Italy have jurisdiction pursuant to the Warsaw Convention
 The Supreme court used Santos III v Northwest Airlines in explaining that the RPh is a party to the Warsaw
Convention and was concurred by our own Senate. It states that the plaintiff may only bring action for damages
in 1) the court where carrier is domiciled; 2) court where carrier has its principal place of business; 3)
…establishment where contract was made; 4) court of place of destination
 Petitioners argue it is an obiter but SC said it is not an obiter dictum as Black’s Law defined such as “an
opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case and thus not binding and precedent”. Santos case
categorically puts at issue the applicability of the Warsaw Convention if the action was based on torts. In the
Santos case, the issue raised was clearly answered and disposed of, thereby making it ratio decidendi

o RULINGS PRO HAC VICE

- “For this particular occasion”, cannot be relied upon as precedent to govern other cases
- Made only when there are “extremely peculiar circumstances” in a case
- Made to bypass procedural lapses by litigants in order to address the merits of important case

 CHAPTER 3 (CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION)

o TEXTUALISM
- Consists narrowly of parsing the text of the document, examining words alone
- Text is the most obvious and authentic embodiment of constitutional truth, primary and ultimate authority of
interpretation
- Anything flatly contrary to it
- Not necessarily exclusive, it is authoritative but not exhaustive or self-defining:
1. Words and phrases of the Constitution are not definitive, ambiguous, self-contradictory
2. Textualism risks freezing the Constitution in an earlier century rendering it obsolete
- Constitution’s text requires close attention to linguistic context (surrounding language, how relevant words or phrases
is used elsewhere in the document, how it was used, what appeared in its stead, in prior drafts
- Reliance on text is insufficient

o STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
- Reading across words and looking at physical arrangement of the Constitution’s text
- Which show but does not directly say
- Diction, word repetitions, and documentary organizing forms (division of texts into articles)
- Comes into play when constitutional text is ambiguous or when it is silent on a particular issue
- Court relies on notions of constitutional plan – duty of the courts to connect the dots when deciding cases about
aspects of liberty that do not fit precisely on the existing “chart”

o ORIGINALISM
- Looking at the lawmaker’s intent on applying the Constitution only in the ways that framers consciously intend
- Supplements the text and structure with original meaning or “original intent” expressed by the framers
- Looks into what those provisions or that design meant at the time they were conceived
- Disadvantage: subordinates ratified and enacted constitutional text to purely subjective and un-enacted intentions of
a group of dead people, focuses on intention rather than expectations, no single purpose of framers or language,
contradictory af

o NORMATIVE AND PRAGMATIC

- Elucidation of meaning through attempts to discern which interpretation best accords with the ethos of moral and
political character and identity of nation
 - Draws upon something deep in the nation’s ethos that is reflected in, or that manifestly sheds light on the Constitution
- Difficulty: inappropriate subjectivity, by choosing any interpretative method it necessarily reflects the embrace of some
substantive values not necessarily and unambiguously enacted by constitutional text and rejection of others potentially
consistent with that text; also appeals to value and commitments that are not translatable into plausible way either into
language of constitutional provisions as such or into understandable characterizations of history

o RELIANCE ON STARE DECISIS

- Judicial elaboration of decisional doctrine to derive answers to constitutional questions
- Advantage: flexibility and stability; ability to adapt and change; corrections (to preserve the basic meaning by
improving one’s reading terms)
- Courts must be constrained by values of rules of law (should be replicable, remains fairly stable, consistently applied)
- Stability because it lays down precedents in which not every judge can overrule and will be free to interpret

o PRUDENTIAL/BALANCING APPROACH
- Verba Legis: words used in the Constitution are unclear
 Courts can rely on extraneous aids of construction and interpretation, such as proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission or Convention
 Whenever possible, words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed
- Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima
 Words of Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with intent of its framers
- Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
 Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole
- Interpretation of the Constitution “must take into account the complexities, realities and politics attendant to the
operation of the political branches of government
- Expressio Unuis Est Exclusio Alterius
 Limiting the construction of the terms that apply to certain matters to such matters alone, without extension