CARDINAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
is against you, who are you? You are powerless
Legislative intent, how ascertained
- A concept of context
- In discovering the intent of congress in enacting a law, we
shouldn’t limit ourselves in one provision or one article
- It should be contextualized in its entirety
- You can’t isolate one provision from the rest of it
otherwise your understanding of the law might not be the
same
- It needs to be interpreted or construed as a whole
Liberal or strict construction, factors to consider and when applied
1. Former law on the matter
• There are laws that have been probably
amended or revised but there are prior laws that
are actually related to the present law and so for
you to understand whether or not to liberally or
strictly construe the law, you might want to refer
to the former laws on the matter
2. Persons or rights which it deals
• Who the persons or what are the rights being
dealt with can tell us whether or not to liberally
or strictly construe the law
3. Letter or language of the law
• The express language of the law will tell us really
that we are going to construe it liberally or
strictly.
Normally, when we talk about labor laws, in
case of doubt, resolve liberally in favour or the
labor
4. Purposes and objects of the statute
• If the express language of the law is insufficient
and might defeat the purpose of the law, we’ll
go the intent of the law or its framers whether or
not to construe the law liberally or strictly
Statutes in derogation of common rights, how construed
- Statutes in derogation of common right normally talks
about the enormous power of the State: power of
taxation, eminent domain, police power.
- If it derogates your common right as a private individual,
the doubt will be resolve in favour of the private individual
- The accused has a lot of rights, enjoys the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
- For example: People of the Philippines v. Balandra
 Accused is up against the enormous power of
the state. The office of the President is against
you, the NBI, DOJ, DILG, Courts practically each
and every law enforcing agency of the
government will be there to prosecute you for
the crime you committed
 Because if the enormous power of the state that
is against you, here’s a law that tries to take care
of your rights for example, the right to be
presumed innocent until proven otherwise
 Because if the enormous power of the state that
and defenseless, you are only one against the
entire resources of the government
 That’s the reason why an accused enjoys lots of
right.
Statutes prescribing formalities of wills, how construed
- In the Filipino Culture, we don’t normally rely on last will
and testament because that’s not in accordance with our
culture
- What we do is we die without a last will and testament
- If that happens, there’s no problem because there’s a law
that will take care of that.
- By operation of law, the wealth will be distributed that
might commensurate what could have been the last will
and testament that wasn’t expressly written.
- That is what we call Legitimes and the property will be
distributed accordingly.
- However, if a person dies with a last will and testament,
there’s a problem
- There are lots of written formalities that must be complied
and these are very strict because the person who died
with a last will and testament are already dead and can’t
defend the position
- In case of ambiguity in the last will and testament, we
can’t refer to a dead person for a dead man tell no tales
- The last will and testament is the mouthpiece of the dead
- Exactly why the law says it must conform strictly according
to the written formalities of the last will and testament
- For example:
 Normally for a document to be notarized, it
needs two witnesses but for a last will and
testament, it needs no less than three witnesses
and they must always sign each and every page
in the left margin and in the last part where their
names appear
 What if the will is ten pages and there’s a one
page that wasn’t signed by the witnesses?
 The last will and testament will be nullified by
the court because it didn’t comply with the
written formalities
- If it were statute prescribing the formalities of the will, we
strictly construe that against validity
- Because there’s a premise that the dead person can’t
verbalize what was the intention
 What happens if the court nullifies the last will
and testament?
 No problem because if it is nullified, there’s a
law that will operate in favour of the
beneficiaries
Naturalization Laws, how construed
- It must be strictly construed against the applicant and in
favour of the government
- The reason is because there are already lots of delinquent
Filipinos and here comes a foreigner who wants to be a
 Filipino, what if that foreigner is a persona non grata or
undesirable alien? The consequence is that the number of
delinquent people in the country will increase if we will
relax the strict construction against the applicants for
naturalization.
- When someone applies for naturalization, In case of
doubt, it must be resolved against the application and in
favour of the government.
Common Denominator of the Cardinal Rules of Construction
- There has to be a doubt.
- Only in case of doubt that the Court will say they rule
against the validity of the will or the applicants for
naturalization proceedings
- If there is no doubt, apply the law according to the express
language.
- Be alert, in the exam a doubt will be created and if you can
detect apply accordingly, if there’s no doubt, apply the
express language of the law.
Statutes conferring the right of eminent domain, how construed
- The eminent domain is the power of expropriation
- So here comes the government saying that “we need your
property for public use…. We’re going to take it upon
payment of just compensation...”
- There are rules that need to be complied with
- In case of doubt, resolve in favour of the private individual
and against the state
- The reason is that statute normally derogates common
right which is the right to property.
- Again, who are you against the State? You are alone,
defenseless, helpless. You are nothing against the State
- In case of doubt, rule in favour of the private indivual and
against the government
- If there’s no doubt, apply the express language of the law
Statutes granting rights to laborers, how construed
In Federation of Free Farmers v CA, it was a piece of social
legislation. In that case, there was no doubt, the express
language of the law was very clear However, the Supreme
Court said that we’re going to set aside the express
language of the law because it doesn’t serve the purpose of
the law. That being said, if we set aside the express
language of the law, we go to the intent.
- However, there might pieces of social legislation that
might be doubtful.
- Again, in case of doubt, rule in favour of the employees or
labourers against the employee.
- If there’s no doubt, apply the express language of the law
provided that it still serves the purpose of the law.
Tax Laws, how construed
In Medicard Phils Inc v CIR
If you buy an insurance, you pay an amount but normally they
would not perform the tests. You’re going to go to the doctor and
the insurance company will pay the doctor.
In this case, the problem involves whether or not the amount
being paid to the insurance company subject to value added tax.
However, it was said that the amount received by the insurance
company for example, 100,000 but that amount is divided into
two. 20% goes to the insurance company and 80% goes to the
doctor who performed the diagnosis and interpreted the
laboratory tests.
Here, the law says that the amount being paid to insurance
company is vatable because that is a service. But the Medicard
said that it couldn’t be 100% because the only get 20%. Under
the law, there was doubt if it was entirely vatable against the
insurance company.
The Supreme Court said that because our rule is in inquirant
obligation that is going to be imposed as a burden, it must have a
clear basis at all. Medicard was right because they only 20% and
that is the one that is vatable against them. The 80% should be
vatable against the doctors and not against the insurance
company because there is no express language of the law that
says that it should be 100% against the insurance company.
- 1st premise: the imposition of tax is an imposition of an
obligation or burden
- 2nd premise: it must find clear support in the language of
the law, if you can’t find clear support in the language of
the law, you will be spared from paying taxes or tax
liability
- General rule: Tax laws impose a burden and it must be
supported by the express language of law.
Exception to how tax laws are construed
In Tolentino v Secretary of Finance
In this case, there was a doubt of whether or not Philippine
Airlines should be exempted from paying taxes. Because
there was doubt, the Supreme Court resolved in favour of
the government and collection of taxes and against the
exemption.
The Philippine Airlines said that their exemption is still intact
because their company wasn’t found in the title of the law
and the Supreme Court said if it can be discerned from the
title that tax exemption is going to be revoked by virtue of
widening the tax based of VAT, then you are exempted
eceven if there was doubt.
- However, if we talk about the tax exemption and there is a
doubt, it will be resolve in favour of the government and
not to the taxpayer claiming tax exemptions.
- In case of doubt of whether you are exempted, it will be
resolve against the exemption and in favour of collection
of taxes because of lifeblood theory
 - This is because of the lifeblood theory wherein the taxes
that are paid are the lifeblood of the government.
Election Laws
In Frivaldo v. Comelec, Frivaldo was an anti- Marcos activist
and at the height of Martial law, he thought Philippines is
helpless. He went to United States, gave up his PH
Citizenship and became naturalized American.
When Marcos Regime fell down, he returned to the
Philippines. He wanted to run for public office but he was
already an American Citizen, and one requisite for a person
to run for public office is that you must be a Filipino. He won
twice as a governor even though there were challenges to
his his status as a Filipino. In his third term, the inquiry on
his citizenship and his disqualification became serious.
On the day that he filed COC, he wasn’t a Filipino because
his application for naturalization was still pending… He went
to Bureau of Immigration and Deportation where he was
able to be Filipino again by virtue of administrative
proceedings. On the election date, he wasn’t a Filipino yet
but he won again overwhelmingly.
He was proclaimed as governor but he wasn’t still a Filipino.
However, the application for naturalization was approved
hours before he assumed office.
The Supreme Court said that “Despite the fact that the law
says you need to be Filipino, it doesn’t specify when should
you be Filipino so that you will be qualified to run for public
office As opposed to age and residence, the Local
Government Code was very specific when it said that you
must be a resident for atleast 10 years depends upon the
position or you must be this age on the day of the election.
In so far as the citizenship is concerned, the law was silent
whether or not when should someone be a Filipino will it be
at the time of filling certificate of candidacy, at the time of
election or at the time of proclamation or assumption” .
\\\\\\\\
In other words, there was a doubt because there was doubt,
The Supreme Court said that “Anyway, it is a matter of
technicality and technicalities aside, we should listen to the
will of the people.
If the people have spoken, regardless if there might be
technicality of the citizenship and in case there is a doubt in
the technicality, it must be resolved against the technicality
and in favour of the sovereignty and the clear mandate of
the people.
- However, the doctrine in Frivaldo might not be entirely
correct today but it was included as an assigned case to
read is because it is necessary to emphasize that in so far
as the technicalities are concerned, it must be set aside
and in favour of the sovereign will and that’s how election
laws should be construed
- Frivaldo doctrine can only be applied in so far as the
general rule of technicalities are concerned but not to
qualifications to public office like citizenship.
In the case of Maquiling, the Supreme Court said that you must
be a Filipino at the time you file your certificate of candidacy.
There must be no doubt in your citizenship.
-
While it’s true that citizenship is just a matter of technicality and
might
- be cured if you won overwhelmingly. That can’t hold true
anymore
- because disqualifications are not out of reason, exactly
why congress prescribed qualification is to compel the candidates
-
for public office to comply with the qualifications. If you’re not a
-
candidate to begin with, you can never be proclaimed no matter if
- won. Those votes casted on your favour are actually strange
you
because
- “salingpusa ka lang” because an alien can’t claim that
he
- understood the problem of that particular locality if he wasn’t
there as a resident to begin with. In other words, qualifications
-
can’t be treated as mere technicality.
-
- have to be a Filipino before you can serve the Filipinos. We
You
can’t
- allow an alien to rule us. Citizenship is not a mere
technicality
- anymore.
technicality, election laws should be construed in favour of
the sovereignty.
- “The people have spoken”
Prospective and retrospective interpretation, distinguished
- When you interpret the law, it must be construed
prospectively because you can’t interpret the facts
antecedent to the passage of law.
Retrospective application of law, effect of
- Retrospective application takes away or impairs vested
rights exactly why there is Doctrine of Operative Fact.
- Vested rights mean it was given already and must not be
taken away otherwise it injures the right and will violate
due process.
Prospective application of law, effect of
- Normally, there are indicators that law is going to be
applied prospectively.
- If it uses the words “heretofore, theretofore” it is
retrospective application
- But, if it uses the words “hereafter, thereafter” it is
prospective application
- If there are indicators, there is no problem
- In the absence of indicator and in case of doubt, we
resolve in favour of the prospective application of law not
retrospective
- Except when it involves remedial statutes
Remedial statutes
- It talks only about procedural matters
- Procedural matters, retrospective application is allowed
because it do not injure or impair vested rights