Statutory Construction
body of rules which are recognized as applicable to the
Chapter I. Introduction
A. Background
1. Definition
Art VIII, Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution vests judicial
power in the Supreme Court and such other courts
established by law
Judicial Power includes – “the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any part of
any branch or instrumentality of the government”
- It is defined as “the right to determine actual
controversies arising between adverse litigants,
duly instituted in the courts of proper jurisdiction”
In Caltex (Philippines), Inc v. Palomar, the supreme court
defined construction as “the art or process of discovering
or expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of
the law with respect to the application to a given case,
where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others,
by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly
provided for in the law”
Construction - is also defined as “the act or result of
constructing, interpreting or explaining the meaning or
effect of a statute or contract” (also called Legal
Hermeneutics)
Legal Hermeneutics – which is defined as “the systematic
Readily Ascertained from the Words Used in the Law
construction and interpretation of legal writings”
2. Characteristics of Construction
a. It is an Art or Process
b. It Involves the Determination of Legislative Intent
c. It Is Necessary When the Legislative Intent Cannot
be Readily Ascertained from the Words Used in the
Law as Applied under a Set of Facts
d. It is a Judicial Function
It is an Art or Process
Construction of statutes is not an exact science. In fact, a
statute may be interpreted differently if different maxims of
construction are applied. The principles of statutory
construction should not be used if its application will run
counter to the clear legislative intent which can be
determined from the parts of the law.
Doctrine of Last Antecedent – under this doctrine,
qualifying words or phrases normally refer to the last
antecedent word or phrase, unless the context otherwise
provides. However this doctrine was not adopted in the
case of Tañada v. Tuvera.
It Involves the Determination of Legislative Intent
The primary objective of construction is to ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the legislature. The
determination of legislative intent is the primary
consideration.
It Is Necessary When the Legislative Intent Cannot be
as Applied under a Set of Facts
Construction is necessary only if the law is ambiguous.
Thus, “the rule is that only statutes with an ambiguous or
doubtful meaning may be the subject of statutory
construction”
A statue is said to be ambiguous when – it is capable of
being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in
either two or more senses.
The court further held that the test to determine whether a
statute is vague – is when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application.
- Tests in Determining whether a Statute is
Ambiguous
1. Test of Multiple Interpretations – when the statute is
capable of two or more reasonable interpretations,
such that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning as to its application.
2. Test of Impossibility – when literal application is
impossible or inadequate.
3. Test of Absurdity or Unreasonableness – When a
literal interpretation of the statute leads to an unjust,
absurd, unreasonable or mischievous result, or one at
variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole.
It is a Judicial Function
The court held that under the Philippine system of
government, the duty and ultimate power to construe the
laws is vested in the judicial department, just as the duty
and ultimate power to legislate is vested in the legislature.
Note however, that the principle of statutory construction is
inherently a judicial function does not preclude Congress
Nap O. Leon 1-Wigmore
from enacting curative legislations, as long as it does not Focuses on determining the problem that the legislature is
conflict with the provisions of the constitution. seeking to address. Thus, interpretation is made with a
view to the public policy that the statue seeks to advance.
3. Purpose

The purpose of statutory construction is to determine

legislative intent when the same cannot be readily
ascertained from the plain language of the law. Its primary
consideration is the determination of legislative intent.

4. Theories of Interpretation
a. Textualist Theory or Originalism
b. Intentionalism
c. Purposivism or the Legal Process Theory

Textualist Theory or Originalism

The words used in the statute takes precedence over any

other modes of construction. Thus, the ordinary or plain
meaning of construction should control its interpretation.
Textualists focus on the text of the legal provision, as it is
presumed that the words, grammar, and punctuation
communicate its meaning.

Intentionalism

Focuses on the legislative intent “in the belief that the

policies [and] elected, representative body choose (sic)
should govern society.” As such, “it is the duty of the court
to discern the intent of that representative body and
interpret the statutes to further that intent”

Furthermore, unlike textualism, intentionalism does not

require the establishment of ambiguity before it can resort
to extrinsic sources of construction, because it is the
original intent of the framers of the law that should have
primacy in the determination of its meaning

Purposivism or the Legal Process Theory

Nap O. Leon 1-Wigmore