Doctrine of Last Antecedent

The general rule is that qualifying words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they are immediately associated.

In other words, in the absence of legislative intent to the

contrary, preferential and qualifying words and phrases must be applied only to their immediate antecedent, and not to the other remote or preceding words or association of words.

 This rule of legal hermeneutics is commonly known as the Doctrine of Last Antecedent. In simple terms, the Doctrine of last Antecedent means that a qualifying words or phrase should be understood as referring to the nearest antecedent.

 The maxim expressive of this rule is ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentetic, or

relative words refer to the nearest antecedents, unless

the context otherwise requires.

 The use of comma to separate an antecedent from the rest exerts a dominant influence in the application of the doctrine of last antecedent. Thus, it has been held that the qualifying effect of a modifying words or phrase will be confined to its immediate antecedent if the latter is separated by a comma from the other antecedents.

 This rule, however, is neither controlling nor inflexible. Thus, where several words in a statute are followed by a general expression which is applicable as much to the first and other words as to the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the expression be read as applicable to all.

 In addition, Doctrine of last antecedent will not be adhered to where extension to a more remote antecedent

is clearly require by a consideration of the entire act.

 In Pangilinan v. Alvendia, where a statute defines a word tenant as a person who, himself and with the aid

available from within his immediate farm household,

cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by another, and the phrase immediate farm household as members of the family of the tenant, and such other person or persons, whether related or not, who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help operate the farm enterprise ,

 the term members of the family of the tenant includes tenants son, son-in law and grand son even they though they are not dependent upon him for support and living separately from him because the qualifying phrase who are dependent upon him for support refers only to the

last antecedent, namely such other person or persons,

whether related to the tenant or not and because the absence of a clear and categorical imperative, the court will not construe statutes in a sense consistent with the rational unity of the Filipino family.

 The doctrine of last Antecedent is subject to the exception that where the intention of the law is to apply

to the phrase all antecedents embraced in the provision,

the same should be extensive to the whole.

 The principle of last antecedent is merely an aid to the construction of statutes and will not be adhered to where the extension to a more remote antecedent is clearly required by a consideration of the entire act. Slight indication of legislative intent so to extend the relative term is sufficient

 The Doctrine of Last Antecedent only applies when: (1) there is ambiguity or doubt on the face of the statute, (2) there is difficulty interpreting the qualifying words of

a sentence, the rule is to apply the relatives which,

such, said, and other relative or limiting words and phrases to such terms or clauses as shall immediately

precede them, rather than such as are more remote

 The Doctrine does not also apply where the intention is not to qualify the antecedent at all

Reddendo Singula Singulis

 A variation of the Doctrine of Last Antecedent is the rule of reddendo singular singulis.

The maxim means referring each to each; referring each

phrase or expression to its appropriate subject, or let each be put in proper place, that is, the words should be taken distributively.

 This maxim finds justification in our use of the English language. If this, or some other principle closely allied to it, were not used, many legislative enactments would be filled with inconsistencies. By the virtue of it, if the sense of the statute so requires, and in order to further the intent of the legislature, the various words, clauses and

phrases are to be taken distributively.

 Sutherland states the rule as follows: Where a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents thy are to be applied to the subjects to which they appear by context most properly to relate and to which they are most applicable.

 Thus, where several words importing power, authority, and obligation are found at the commencement of a clause, it is not necessary that each of the words apply to the several branches of the clause. It may be construed reddendo singular singulis and the words giving power and authority limited to particular subjects and those of

obligation applied to others

 A good example is the wording of Article 31 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which read as follows: Art.31. A marriage in articulo mortis between
passengers or crew members may also be solemnized
by a ship captain or by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the

plane is in flight, but also during stopovers at ports of

call.

 The phrase may also be solemnized by the ship captain refers to the phrase while the ship is at sea. The phrase or the plane is in flight refers to the airplane pilot. The more appropriate connection, however, would be may also be solemnized: by the airplane pilot while the plane is in flight. The phrase but also during stopovers

at ports of call refers to the ship captain and airplane

pilot.

REFERENCES:
Agpalo,R.(2009). Statutory Construction. Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore Inc. Alcantara, S. (1997). Statutory Construction. Quezon City Philippines: The Philippines Labor Relations Journal, p.88 Crawford, Statutory Construction, Sec. 194, pp. 332-334

 Francisco, V. (1968). Statutory Construction, Third Edition. Manila Philippines: East Publishing, pp.87-88. Sibal, JA. (1994). Statutory Construction. Quezon City Philippines: Central Professional Books, Inc., p.97 Suarez, R. (2007). Statutory Construction. Manila Philippines: Rex Bookstore, pp. 177-178.