STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – FINALS
BALTEZA, Henry
FINALS NOTES
I. PLAIN MEANING RULE/ VERBA
LEGIS
Verba Legis
 If the language of the law is plain and
free from ambiguity, and expresses a
single definite, and sensible meaning,
this meaning is considered the intended
meaning of legislature.
II. Linguistic Canons of Interpretation
Whole Act Rule
 Legislative intent must be ascertained
from a consideration of the statute as a
whole and not merely of a particular
provision.
 A statute is to be considered as whole
for it is presumed that legislature did
not use any useless words.
 It is dangerous to base construction on
a single provision since it may be
qualified by another provision
Ejusdem Generis (of the same kind of species)
 This is where a general word follows an
enumeration of persons or things, by
words of a particular, and specific
meaning, such general words are to be
construed not in their widest extent but
are to be held as applying only to
persons or things of the same kind or
class as those specifically mentioned.
 Purpose – to give effect to both the
particular and general word, by treating
the particular words as indicating the
class and the general words as
indicating all that is embraced in said
class.
 Application – the specific terms are
followed by the general term; the
general term is to refer to the specific
terms.
 Requisites of ejusdem generis
1. A statute contains an
enumeration of particular terms
followed by a general term
2. The particular or specific terms
constitute a class or are of the
same kind
3. The enumeration of the
particular and specific words is
not exhaustive or is not merely
by examples
4. There is no indication of
legislative intent to give the
general words of phrases a
broader meaning
Noscitur a sociis
 Where a particular word or phrase is
ambiguous in itself or it equally
susceptible of various meanings, its
correct construction may be made clear
and specific by considering the
company of words in which it is found
or with which it is associated.
 Where a particular word is obscure or
of doubtful meaning in itself, the
obscurity or doubt may be removed by
reference to the meaning of the
associated words or companion words.
 CASES
Buenaseda v. Flavier
When the Constitution vested on the
Ombudsman the power “to recommend the
suspension” of a public official or employees
(Sec. 13 [3]), it referred to “suspension,” as a
punitive measure. All the words associated with
the word “suspension” in said provision
referred to penalties in administrative cases,
e.g. removal, demotion, fine, censure.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – FINALS
BALTEZA, Henry
People v. Flores
Section 31(c) of R.A. No. 7610 contains a listing
of the circumstances of relationship between
the perpetrator and the victim which will justify
the imposition of the maximum penalty, namely
when the perpetrator is an “ascendant, parent,
guardian, stepparent or collateral relative
within the second degree of consanguinity or
affinity.” It should be noted that the words with
which “guardian” is associated in provision all
denote a legal relationship. From this
description we may safely deduce that the
guardian envisioned by law is a person who has
a legal relationship with a ward. This
relationship may be established either by being
the ward’s biological parent (natural guardian)
or by adoption (legal guardian.)
GSIS v. COA
The issue in question in relation to Noscitur a
sociis is whether the GSIS RFP is a retirement
plan in the light of Sec. 41 of R.A. 8291. It is true
that under Section 41(n) of Republic Act No.
8291, GSIS is expressly granted the power to
adopt a retirement plan and/or financial
assistance for its employees, but a closer look at
the provision readily shows that this power is
not absolute. It is qualified by the words
“early,” “incentive,” and “for the purpose of
retirement.” The retirement plan must be an
early retirement incentive plan and such early
retirement incentive plan or financial assistance
must be for the purpose of retirement.
The above interpretation applies equally to the
phrase “financial assistance,” which, contrary to
the petitioners’ assertion, should not be read
independently of the purpose of an early
retirement incentive plan. Under the doctrine of
noscitur a sociis, the construction of a particular
word or phrase, which is in itself ambiguous, or
is equally susceptible of various meanings, may
be made clear and specific by considering the
company of words in which it is found or with
which it is associated. In other words, the
obscurity or doubt of the word or phrase may
be reviewed by reference to associated words.
Thus, the phrase “financial assistance,” in light
of the preceding words with which it is
associated, should also be construed as an
incentive scheme to induce employees to retire
early or as an assistance plan to be given to
employees retiring earlier than their retirement
age.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
 The express mention of one person,
thing, or consequence implies the
exclusion of all others
 Different formulations of Expressio
unius est exclusion alterius:
o What is expressed puts an end
to what is implied (expressio
facit cessare tacitum)
o A thing not being excepted
must be regarded as coming
within the purview of the
general rule (exception firmat
regulam in casibus non
exceptis)
o Expression of one more things
of a class implies the exclusion
of all not expressed, even
though all would have been
implied had none been
expressed.
 Application of expression unius…
o Used in the construction of
statutes granting, power,
creating rights and remedies,
restricting common rights and
imposing penalties and
forfeitures, as well as those
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – FINALS
BALTEZA, Henry
statutes which are strictly
construed.
 Limitations of expressio unius…
o To be ignored when the
circumstances indicate that the
enumeration is not meant to be
exclusive
o Does not apply when the
enumeration is by example or
to remove doubts only
o In case a statute appears upon
its face to limit the operation of
its provisions to particular
persons or things by
enumerating them, but no
reason exists why other persons
or things not so enumerated
should not have been included
and manifest injustice will
follow by including them.
o Does not apply when
adherence to expression unius
would cause inconvenience,
hardship, and injury to the
public interest.
o When it is contrary to legislative
intent
Doctrine of Casus Omisus Pro Omisso
Habendus
 A person, object, or thing omitted from
an enumeration must be held to have
been omitted intentionally
 Application
o Only when the omission has
been clearly established, and in
such a case what is omitted in
the enumeration may not be
included by construction.
 Limitation
o Does not apply when the
legislature did not intend to
exclude, the person, thing, or
object from enumeration.
Doctrine of Last Antecedent
 A qualifying word or phrase should be
understood as referring to the nearest
antecedent.
 Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio
nisi impediatur sententia
 Use of a comma
o The qualifying effect of a
modifying word or phrase will
be confined to its immediate
antecedent if the latter is
separated by a comma from the
other antecedents.
 Exception:
o Where the intention of the law
is to apply the phrase to all
antecedents embraced in the
provision, the same should be
made extensive to the whole.
o The doctrine does not apply
where the intention is not to
qualify the antecedent at all.
Reddendo Singula Singulis
 Referring each to each
 Referring each phrase or expression to
its appropriate object, or let each be
put in its proper place, that is, the
words should be taken distributively
 Antecedents and consequences should
be read distributivley to the effect that
each word is applied to the subject to
which it appears by context most
appropriately related and to which it is
most applicable.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – FINALS
BALTEZA, Henry
Use of the word “shall,” “must,” or “ought”
 These words are words of command,
these indicate legislative intent to make
the law mandatory.
 When used in a statute or regulation
expresses what is mandatory.
 Used in an imperative sense and not in
a directory sense.
 Exception
o The use of the “must” and
“shall” is not always imperative,
it may be consistent with
discretion.
o If the language of a statute
reveals that legislative intent
intends it to be directory it
should be given that meaning.
 Test to determine if “shall” is
mandatory or discretionary
o The is test is to whether non-
compliance with what is
required will result in the nullity
of the act. If it does, then it is
mandatory, otherwise
discretionary.
Use of “may”
 It denotes that it is directory nature
 Permissive only and operates to confer
discretion
 “May” construed as “shall”
o Where the statute provides for
the doing of some act which is
required by justice or public
authority, or where it vests a
public body with authority to
take such action which
concerns the public interest or
rights of individuals.
 “Shall” construed as “may”
o When required by the context
or by the intention of
legislature.
o It shall be construed merely as
permissive when no public
benefit or private right requires
that it be given an imperative
meaning.
Use of the “Or”
 It is a disjunctive term signifying
disassociation and independence of one
thing from each of the other things
enumerated.
 The use of the word between two
phrases connotes that either phrase
serves as a qualifying phrase.
 “Or” may also mean “and”
o When the spirit or context of
the law demands it
 The word “or” may also be used to say
“that is to say”
o Giving the same significance to
the word that precedes it or
comes after it
o It is not always disjunctive and
is sometimes interpretative or
expository of the preceding
word
 The word “or” may also mean
successively
o This connotes an order or
succession of the terms
enumerated
Use of the word “And”
 “And” in statutory construction implies
conjunction, joinder, or union.
 It does not mean “or”.
 It may mean “or” as an exception
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – FINALS
BALTEZA, Henry

o This is resorted only when a

literal interpretation would
pervert the plain intention of
the legislature as gleaned from
the context of the statute or
from external factors
 “And” is not only a conjunctive word,
but may also restrict the meaning of a
word
o When two words, one which is
broad in meaning, and one is
restrictive, which are separated
by “and” the restrictive word
limits the broad word.

Use of “And/Or”
 This term means that effect shall be
given to both the conjunctive ‘and,’ and
the disjunctive ‘or.’
 That one word or the other may be
taken accordingly as one or the other
will best effectuate the purpose
intended by legislature.
 This term is used to avoid a
construction which by the use of the
disjunctive ‘or’ alone will exclude the
combination of several alternative or by
the use of the conjunctive ‘and’ will
exclude the efficacy of any one of the
alternatives standing alone.