STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ASSIGNMENT

Joynilenge C. Lavador, JD1A

1. Discuss and give an example for each of the 15 Presumptions in Aids of
Construction.

a. Presumption of Validity

Presumption of validity means a statutory presumption of validity as

against the holder of a patent. Hence, a patent shall be presumed valid.
Likewise, each claim of a patent shall be presumed valid independently of
the validity of other claims. In addition, dependent or multiple dependent
claims shall also be presumed valid even though dependent upon an
invalid claim. The presumption of validity can be rebutted only by clear
and convincing proof.
From the preceding paragraph, the statute presumed to be valid in the
courts once the statute passed in the legislative body and acted by the
executive department. Otherwise, the statute or law will be invalid when
the courts provide the strong point of its invalidity because the legislature
refined it thoroughly during the deliberation process in the lower courts
before it becomes a law. In construing a doubtful or ambiguous statute, the
Courts will presume that it was the intention of the legislature to enact a
valid, sensible and just law, and one which should change the prior law no
further than may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the act
in question. (U.S. v. Ten Yu, US v. Jason)

b. Presumption of Constitutionality
This aid of construction, as stated in the book, every statute passed by
the legislature is presumed to be constitutional. The presumption is always
in favor of constitutionality. To doubt is to sustain. This means that the
legislative body ensured the parameters of the provisions stipulated should
not lapse the jurisdiction of other departments where check and balance is
properly observed. (Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385). The
presumption of constitutionality is rooted in the respect that the judiciary
must accord to the legislature. In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: This strong
predilection for constitutionality takes its bearings on the idea that it is
forbidden for one branch of the government to encroach upon the duties
and powers of another. Thus, it has been said that the presumption is
based on the deference the judicial branch accords to its coordinate
branch - the legislature.
If there is any reasonable basis upon which the legislation may firmly
rest, the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the
borders and edges of its plenary powers, and has passed the law with full
knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and
 advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in determining whether the
acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, courts should
proceed with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance.

c. Presumption of Good Faith

The book says, when interpretation of a statute, it is presumed that the
legislature had good motives in having considered and adopted a
particular law. This means, that the law, as to the interpretation of all
courts in the Judiciary should stand the principle that the law is presumed
to be of good faith because the law was thoroughly discussed, deliberated,
and meditated during the construction in the legislative department.
Wherefore, when it is acted by the Executive Department, the department
has its presumption that the law is good motive, faith, and its intention is
for the benefits of the people.
For Example, Good faith is always presumed under the Rules of
Evidence, especially in respect of the actions of public officials, who are
entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duty.
In the case of Heirs of Severa Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.
R. No. 117609, December 19, 1998, the Supreme Court held that “it is
axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence
to the contrary is adduced”; that “it is incumbent upon the party alleging
bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation”; that “absent enough proof
thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails”; that “without a clear and
persuasive substantiation of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in
favor of respondents stands”.

d. Presumption Against Injustice

The book states that In case of doubt in the interpretation or

application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right
and justice to prevail. When the courts apply the law to the case at bar,
presumption of justice to prevail must be observed. Because the
legislature intention is to address the case or crime which had not been
seen or given attention previously. The law should never be interpreted in
such a way as to cause injustice as this never within the legislative intent.
We interpret and apply the law in consonance with justice. Judges do not
and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded, yielding like robots
to the literal command without regard to its cause and consequence.
Article 10, New Civil Code of the Philippines provides: “In case of doubt in
the interpretation, or application of Laws, it is presumed that the law
making body intended right and justice to prevail.” Therefore, even though
 the foregoing is also an unquestioned rule, yet, it is necessary to embody it
in the code, so that it may tip the scales in favor of right and justice when
the law is doubtful or obscure. The court may consider the spirit and
reason of the statute, where as a literal meaning would lead to absurdity,
contradiction, injustice or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.

e. Presumption Against Inconsistency

The book states that The mind of the lawmaking body is presumed to
be consistent. In case of doubt therefore, such a construction should be
adopted as will make all the provision of the statute consistent with one
another and with the entire act. This means that the law is clear to its
intent and consistent to its provisions or there is harmony in all provisions
of the entire statute. So, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction
that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored.20 The presumption
is against inconsistency and repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to
know the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent
or conflicting statutes. There should be the same meaning throughout the
statute, unless a different intention appears. (Krivenko v. Register of
Deeds, 79 Phil. 461). Presumption against inconsistency covers “Ubi lex
non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos” or when the law does
not distinguish, we should not distinguish. This doctrine is applied to the
case of (Libudan v. Gil, G.R. No. L-21163, May 17, 1972)

f. Presumption Against Absurdity

The Book states, It is presumed that the legislature does not intend that
absurdity will flow from its enactment. The courts therefore have the duty
to interpret the law in such a way as to avoid absurd results. This means
the statute, in the application of the courts, should avoid the absurdity or
illogicality. When the law speaks in equivocal and clear language, then it is
the duty of the court to interpret it in order that there will be no judgement
which fall into doubtful on the both parties. It is in the jurisprudence,
People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. L-16478, Aug. 31, 1961. In this case, the
Supreme Court ruled that, considering that it is the court of first instance
that would undoubtedly have jurisdiction if the only offense that resulted
from appellant's imprudence were the damage to property in the amount of
P2,636.00, it would be absurd to hold that for the graver offense of serious
and less serious physical injuries combined with damage to property
through reckless imprudence, jurisdiction would lie in the justice of the
peace court. The presumption is against absurdity, and it is the duty of the
courts to interpret the law in such a way as to avoid absurd results.
Moreover, we cannot discard the possibility that the prosecution may not
be able to prove all the supposed offenses constituting the complex crime
charged. Where we to hold that it is the justice of the peace court that has
 jurisdiction in this case, if later the prosecution should fail to prove the
physical injuries aspect of the case and establish only the damage to
property in the amount of P2,636.00, the inferior court would find itself
without jurisdiction to impose the fine for the damage to property
committed, since such fine cannot be less than the amount of the damage.
Again, it is to avoid this further absurdity that we must hold that the
jurisdiction lies in the court of first instance in this case.

g. Presumption Against Ineffectiveness

This means that the lawmaking body does not intend to adopt laws,
which are unnecessary and ineffective. It is presumed that it intends to
impart to its enactments such as meaning as will render them operative
and effective. In this point, there are two important rules of statutory
construction, thus, 1. Where the law is susceptible of two constructions,
one of which will render it unconstitutional and the other upholds its
validity, the latter must be adopted. (US. v. Ten Yu, 24 Phil. J.). The
question of the validity of every statute is first determined by the legislative
department of the Government itself, and the courts should resolve every
presumption in favor of its validity. Courts are not justified in adjudging a
statute invalid in the face of the conclusions of the legislature when the
question of its validity is at all doubtful. The courts must assume that the
validity of a statute was fully considered by the legislature when adopted.
Statutes should not be presumed to be invalid unless it clearly appears
that they fall within some of the inhibitions of the fundamental laws of the
State. 2. Where the language of the statute is susceptible of two of more
constructions, one which will render the statute ineffective or inefficient
and another which will tend to give effect to the evident intent of the
legislature, that construction which tends to give effect to the object for
which the law was adopted shall prevail. (Benguet Exploration, Inc. v.
DENR, G.R. No. L-29534, February 23, 1977). This point, talks about the
law or statute are susceptible of two or more constructions which lead to
ineffective or inefficient to the purpose of the law. So, the legislature
should construct the law in accordance to the effect or purpose of the law.
In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption
that the legislature intended to enact an effective statute.

h. Presumption Against Irrepealable Laws

It is presumed that the law-making body does not intend its laws shall
be irrepealable because Congress cannot enact irrepealable laws nor limit
its future legislative act. The need of today and the situation obtaining now
will not most likely be the same in the years to come. Laws should adapt to
changing times. The legislature cannot enact irrepealable laws or limit its
 future legislative acts. (Duarte v. David, 32, Phil. 36). This is because, the
need for today and the situation obtaining now will not most likely be the
same in the years to come. In this point, there is no fix law under the light
of the sun due to the fact that the laws are in rhyme or in tune with the
situation in the society. The congress has the inherent power to amend,
modify and repeal its own laws for there are no irrepealable laws. (De Guia
v. Guingona, et.al, G.R. No. 119525, April 18, 1995)

i. Presumption Against Implied Repeals

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in constitutional theory
which states that where an ‘Act of Parliament’ or an ‘An act of Congress’
conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the
conflicting parts of the earlier Act are repealed (i.e., no longer law). This
doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase “leges posteriores priores
contrarias abrogant” (more recent law overwrites earlier law that say
differently). There is a presumption against a repeal by implication, and the
reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while
enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same
subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide repealing
provision, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation.
When the new act contains a repealing section mentioning the acts which
it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws
is further strengthened on the principle ‘expressio unius est exclusio
alterius’ (the express mention of one thing excludes all other). Repeal by
implication is not favored. There are two requirements before a statute can
be considered to have repealed a prior statute by implication, namely: (a.)
That the statute touch on the same subject matter; and (b.) That the latter
statute is repugnant to the earlier one. Rules to remember on the matters
of repeal: (1.) Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, custom or
practice to the contrary. (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippine) (2.) When a
law which expressly repeals a prior one, the first law shall not be thereby
revived, unless expressly provided. However, when a law repeals a prior
law, not expressly but by implication only, its repeal revives the prior law,
unless, the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. (3.) A
general law does not repeal special law unless it is so expressly provided,
or they are incompatible, in which case, the special law prevails over the
general law.

j. Presumption Against Violation of Public Policy

It is presumed that the legislature designed to favor and foster rather
than to contravene the public policy which is based upon the principles of
natural justice, good morals, and the settled wisdom of the law as applied
to the ordinary affairs of life. The statute upon construction should always
 be anchored on the 1987 Philippine Constitution which the fundamental
and supreme law of the land. All of the statutes and special laws
constructed based on the spirit manifested by the constitution.

k. Presumption of Knowledge of Existing Laws

In enacting a law, the lawmaking body is presumed to have the full
knowledge of existing laws on the subject. Hence, if there are two laws on
the same subject enacted in different dates, the latter law cannot be held
to have abrogated the former law unless repugnancy is clear, convincing
and irreconcilable. (Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, et. al). The
held that
The grant made by Act No. 1360 of the reclaimed land to the City of
Manila is a grant of a "public" nature, the same having been made to a
local political subdivision.
We hold that it is of public dominion, intended for public use.
Firstly, if the reclaimed area was granted to the City of Manila as its
patrimonial property, the City could, by virtue of its ownership, dispose of
the whole reclaimed area without need of authorization to do so from the
lawmaking body.
Act No. 1360, as amended, however, provides by necessary
implication, that the City of Manila could not dispose of the reclaimed area
without being authorized by the lawmaking body.
Act No. 1360 furthermore qualifies the verb "authorize" with the adverb
"hereby," which means "by means of this statute or... section." Hence
without the authorization expressly given by Act No. 1360, the City of
Manila could not lease or sell even the northern portion; much less could it
dispose of the whole reclaimed area. Consequently, the reclaimed area
was granted to the City of Manila, not as its... patrimonial property. At
most, only the northern portion reserved as a hotel site could be said to be
patrimonial property, for, by express statutory provision it could be
disposed of, and the title thereto would revert to the City should the
grantee fail to comply with the... terms provided by the statute.
Secondly, the reclaimed area is an "extension to the Luneta in the City
of Manila."
It is not disputed that the old Luneta is a public park or plaza and it is
so considered by Section 859 of the Revised Ordinances of... the City of
Manila.[42] Hence the "extension to the Luneta" must be also a public park
or plaza and for public use.
Thirdly, the reclaimed area was formerly a part of the Manila Bay. A
bay is nothing more than an inlet of the sea. Pursuant to Article 1 of the
Law of Waters of 1866, bays, roadsteads, coast sea, inlets and shores are
parts of the national domain open to public use.
These are also property of public ownership devoted to public use,
according to Article 339 of the Civil Code of Spain.
l. Presumption of Acquiescence to Judicial Construction
When the court has construed a statute in a particular manner and the
lawmaking body had no move to alter or amend the said statute, it is
presumed that the legislature has acquiesced to that interpretation. The
law-making body, as the law contemplated based on the existing scenario
which the public incurred and be anchored on the fundamental law of the
land to maintain the harmonious implementation of the laws. Therefore, it
is the jurisdiction of the Judiciary to avoid conflicting laws of the land,
except international special laws as agreed by the nations.

m. Presumption of Jurisdiction
A statute will not be construed in such a manner as to oust or restrict
the jurisdiction of the superior courts or to vest a new jurisdiction in them,
unless, there are express words or a necessary implication to the effect.
The inherent power of the court to exercise its procedural jurisdiction to
avoid injustice and ensure efficiency in litigation has long been recognized
as a fundamental element of the administration of justice. Yet, the courts,
conscious of their place in the Common Law system, their duty to apply
legislation as the primary source of law and the corresponding concern
that judicial initiatives should not compromise this obligation, have placed
limits on their capacity to generate a parallel and supplemental
jurisprudence to the rules of court. The court has to observe that every
presumption should be made in favor of the jurisdiction of a civil court and
the provision of exclusion of jurisdiction, if any, shall be strictly construed.
If there is any doubt regarding ousting of jurisdiction of a civil court, the
court shall lean to an interpretation which would maintain the jurisdiction.

n. Presumption of Acting Within the Scope of Authority

It is presumed that the legislature acted within the scope of its
authority. If a statute admits more than one interpretation, one that places
the statute outside of the legislative competence and one that places the
legislative within the limits of legislative competence, the court should
adopt the latter interpretation.
The Book says, it is presumed that the legislature acted within the
scope of its authority. If a statute admits of more than one interpretation,
one that places the statute outside of legislative competence, and one that
places the statute within the limits of legislative competence, the court
should adopt the later interpretation. It means, that the law-making body
presumed to construct a statute which in conformity of its scope or the
parameters of the provisions. In this manner, the legislative is careful on
the drafting of laws to see to it that the scope is in proper place that never
touch any provisions of the fundamental law of the land, the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
o. Presumption Against Violation of International Law
It is presumed that a statute is in conformity with the rules and
principles of International Laws, or with treaties duly entered into and
accepted by our government. This is in line with Section 2, Article II of the
1987 Constitution, which provides:
“Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
a. Doctrine of Incorporation – holds that every state is, by reason of its
membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted
principles of international law.
b. Doctrine of Transformation – holds that an international agreement
would be binding only upon a state if that state enacts a law specifically
making such international agreement part and parcel of their laws.
 REFERENCES
Suarez, R.A. (18 December 2014). Statutory Construction (2014 Ed.). Manila: Rex
Book Store.

USLEGAL. (n.d.). Presumption of Validity Law and Legal Definition. US LEGAL.

Retrieved from https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/presumption-of-validity/

Leonen, J. (8 August 2017). Separate Opinion. The Lawphil Project. Retrieved from
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_225442_so_2017.html

Barrera, J. (31 August 1961). People v. Malaban. Chan Robles Virtual Law.
Retrieved From
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1961/aug1961/gr_l-
16478_1961.php

Law Teacher. (20 August 2019). Inherent Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Law
Teacher. Retrieved From https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/constitutional-law/inherent-jurisdiction-of-the-civil-court-constitutional-
law-essay.php