Executive Construction and Subjects of Construction

Chapter IV: Executive Construction

What is the rule on executive construction?

1. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations

The court still and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by
the executive officers whose duty is to enforce it, and unless such interpretation is clearly
erroneous will ordinarily be controlled thereby.

When is Executive construction not given weight?

1. Phil. Apparel Workers’ Union v. NLRC

There was no grant of said increases yet, despite the contrary opinion expressed in the letter of
the Undersecretary of Labor. It must be noted that the letter was based on a wrong premise or
representation on the part of the company. The construction or explanation of Labor
Undersecretary is not only wrong as it was purely based on a misapprehension of facts, but also
unlawful because it goes beyond the scope of the law. The Supreme Court set aside the
decision of the commission, and ordered the company to pay, in addition to the increased
allowance provided for in PD 1123.

2. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong

Whether the Ministry of Labor is correct in determining that monthly paid employees are
excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. From Article 92 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decree 850, and Article 82 of the same Code, it is clear that monthly paid
employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. So long, as the regulations relate
solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid. Where an administrative
order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, the mandate of the Act
must prevail and must be followed.

3. Chartered Bank Employees’ Union v. Ople

Whether the Ministry of Labor is correct in maintaining that monthly paid employees are not
entitled to the holiday pay nor all employees who rendered work during said legal holidays are
entitled to the premium or overtime pay differentials. When the language of the law is clear
and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. An administrative
interpretation, which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or
withholds, is obviously ultra vires. In the present case, the provisions of the Labor Code on the
entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit, it provides for both the
coverage of and exclusion from the benefit.

Difference of a rule and an opinion?

1. Victorias Milling v. SSC

When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it ‘makes; a new law with
the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of
policy, it merely interprets pre-existing law.

Chapter V: Subjects of Construction

How should the Constitution be construed?

1. Sarmiento v. Mison
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. The intention to which force is to be
given is that which is embodied and expressed in the constitutional provisions themselves.

2. Perfecto v. Meer
Whether the imposition of an income tax upon the salary of a member of the Judiciary amount
to a diminution thereof., and thus violate the Constitution. The 1935 Constitution provides in its
Article VIII, Section 9, that the members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts
“shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office”.

3. Endencia v. David
Whether the Legislature may lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a
public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the Supreme Court
has found and decided otherwise. Therefore, the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs.
Meer to the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a
diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution, is reiterated.
4. Nitafan v. CIR

Whether the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to exempt justices and judges
from taxes as it was in the 1935 Constitution. In the present case, Section 10, Article VIII is plain
that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of
Justices and Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are receiving at the time
of enactment, or if lower, it would be applicable only to those appointed after its approval. The
constitutional provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed
that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting it, was to make the
salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable.

May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional Provisions?

1. Aglipay v. Ruiz
Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. When the Filipino people, in the
preamble of their Constitution, implored “the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a
government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation,
promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of
independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy,” they thereby manifested their
intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of
men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized here as
elsewhere. In the present case, the purpose of the issuing of the stamps was to take advantage
of an event considered of international importance to give publicity to the Philippines and its
people and attract more tourists to the country.

Are the provisions of the Constitution self-executing?

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and
the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an
examination and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject
is referred to the legislature for action. In self-executing constitutional provisions, the
legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by the
constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its
enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured or the
determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. Hence,
unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing.

Requirements for the publication of laws?

1. Tanada v. Tuvera, 1985

Publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does
not provide for its effectivity date — for then the date of publication is material for determining
its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication — but not when the
law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. The clear object Art. 2 is to give the
general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and
conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat.”

2. Tanada v. Tuvera, 1986

The clause “unless it is otherwise provided,” in Article 2 of the Civil Code, refers to the date of
effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be
omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective
immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. The
legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or
extended.

Rule on construction of ordinances vis-à-vis Statute

1. Primicias v. Urdaneta

The general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier law. The ordinance’s validity should
be determined vis-a-vis RA 4136, the “mother statute” (not Act 3992), which was in force at the
time the criminal case was brought against Primicias.