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,

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.
Also, in the case of Legaspi v. Creative Play,

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,

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.