STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

Kristie Xyla R. Amaro-Gonzalvo, CPA, JD

I. INTRODUCTION
a. Construction and Interpretation

Construction – the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and
intention of the authors of the law, where that intention is rendered doubtful by reason of
the ambiguity in its language 1. It is also a process of drawing warranted conclusions that is
not always included in direct expressions or in the letters of the text.
Interpretation – the art of finding the true meaning and sense of any form of words 2.

*While construction and interpretation are technically different, they are used
interchangeably in practice or common usage.
Purpose or Object of Construction: to ascertain, and give effect to, the intent of the law3

Rules of Construction – are tools used to ascertain legislative intent; they are not rules of
law, rather mere axioms of experience; not binding on the courts
 Article 10, Civil Code “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.”
 Section 4, Labor Code “All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be
resolved in favor of labor.”
 Section 5, Local Government Code “In the interpretation of the provisions of this
 Code, the following rules shall apply:
a) Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally
interpreted in its favor xxx;
b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measures shall be construed
strictly against the local government unit enacting it and liberally in favor of
the taxpayer xxx;
c) The general welfare provisions in this Code shall be liberally interpreted to
give more powers to local government units xxx;
d) Rights and obligations existing on the date of the effectivity of this Code xxx
shall be governed by the original terms and conditions of said contracts xxx;
and
e) In the resolution of controversies arising under this Code where no legal
provision or jurisprudence applies, resort may be had to the customs and
traditions in the place where the controversies take place.”

Garcia v. Social Security Commission – A condition sine qua non before construction or
interpretation of law is that there be doubt or ambiguity in its language. When the law is clear, there is
no need to interpret (verba legis).

1 Caltex (Phils) Inc. v. Palomar, GR No. 19650, September 29, 1966

2 Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. 2009, page

104 3 Macondray v. Eustaquio, 64 Phil 446 (1937)

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 2

Court’s ruling: When laws are clear, it is incumbent upon the judge to apply them regardless of
personal beliefs or predilections – when the law is unambiguous and unequivocal, application NOT
interpretation is imperative.
b. Statutory Construction – employed by the courts to ascertain the true intent and meaning of
the law
Constitutional Construction – employed by the courts to ascertain the intent or the purpose of
the framers of the Constitution as expressed in the language of the fundamental law, and
thereafter assure its realization
II. RELEVANT CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES

a. Three branches of the government

The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of government 4. Powers of the State are
equally divided among three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.
Executive Branch – carrying out or execution of the laws
Legislative Branch – enactment of laws
Judicial Branch – settlement of legal controversies

Principle of Separation of Powers – a fundamental principle in the Philippine legal system

granting each branch of the government exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction
and is supreme within its own sphere5.
Principle of Checks and Balances - a principle securing coordination in the workings of the
various branches of the government6
Principle of Judicial Independence – a principle guaranteed by the Constitution giving the
Judiciary independence and administrative autonomy for the entire judicial branch 7. It
requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are fairly conducted and the rights of
the parties involved are respected8.
b. Legislative Department

LEGISLATION – an active instrument of government, which, for purposes of interpretation,

means that laws have ends to be achieved
Types of Legislation9:
Bills – these are general measures, which if passed upon, may become laws

Joint Resolutions – similar to bills, except that these are used to when dealing with a

single item or issue or for proposals of amendments to the Constitution

4 Official Gazette (https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/about/gov/)

5 Mamiscal v. Clerk of Court Macalinog, AM No. SCC‐13‐18‐J, July 1, 2015
6 Supra.
7 1987 Constitution
8
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/independencejudiciary.aspx) 9
Senate of the Philippines (http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp)
*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.
 STATUTOR Y CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3
Concurre nt Resolutio ns – used for matters af fecting the o perations o both houses
and must be passed in th e same for m by both o f them. The y do not re quire Presi
dent’s approval and do not have the forc e and effect o f law.
Simple Re solutions – deal with matters entire ly within the prerogativ e of one ho use
of Congress, such as ado pting or rec eiving its o wn rules. They do not r quire Presi
dent’s approval and do not have the forc e and effect o f law.
Legis lative Proc ess10

Priniple of Non‐Delegation of Legislative Power – legislative power is vested to the

Legislature and this power to make laws cannot be further delegated1 1, save for some excep

tions.

Exce ptions:
1. Sec. 23 (2) Article VI, 1987 Constituti n – emerge ncy powers t o the President in case o f war
or national e ergency
2. Sec. 28 (2) A rticle VI, 19 87 Constitution – authorization to th e President to fix tariff rates,
i mport duties and export quotas, tonnage and w harfage dues , and other duties or im posts
w ithin the framework of n ational dev lopment pr ogram of the governmen t
3. Section 5 Article X, 1987 Constitutio n – delegati on to local government units to crea te its
own sources of revenue a nd to levy ta xes, fees and charges
4. Delegation of rule making power to ad ministrative bodies

5. Sec. 2 Article XVII, Sec. 32 Article VI – delegation t the people (initiative a d referendu m)
10Agpalo, Rube n. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. 2009, pa ges 6‐10
11US v. Ang Ta ng Ho, 43 Phil 1

* Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this mater ial is strictly p rohibited.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4
c. Executive Department

Power of control over executive

branch Ordinance Power
o Executive Order – act of the President providing for rules of a general or
permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or
statutory powers.
o Administrative Order – act of the President which relate to a
particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties
as administrative head.
o Proclamation – Act of the President fixing a date or declaring a status
or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which
the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend.
o Memorandum Order – act of the President on matters of administrative
detail or of subordinate or temporary interest which only concern a
particular officer or office of the government.
o Memorandum Circular – act of the President on matters relating to
internal administration, which the President desires to bring to the
attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus, or offices
of the government, for information and compliance.
Power over aliens
Powers of eminent domain, escheat, land reservation and recovery of ill-gotten
wealth
Power of appointment
Power of general supervision over local governments
Other powers in the Constitution and those granted by law

d. Judicial Department

Judicial Power – includes the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.
Requisites:
1. The existence of an appropriate case;
2. An interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional
question;
3. The plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and
4. The necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to
decide the case.
*The duty and power to interpret or construe a statute or the Constitution belong to the
judiciary.12
Article 8, Civil Code – “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or Constitution shall

form part of the legal system of the Philippines.”

Endencia v. David – legislature cannot override the Supreme Court’s interpretation

12Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. 2009, page 120

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
5

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles – statutes or provisions declared

unconstitutional are not laws
Limitations on the judicial power to construe or interpret laws

Morales v. Subido – when the meaning of the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation
People v. Garcia – statute and its amendments must be read together as a whole. When an
amendment leaves portions of the original act unchanged, they continue to be in
force. Inchong v. Hernandez ‐ legislative discretion is not subject to judicial review
People v. Nazario ‐ a statute or act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application; courts will
only interpret if statutes/provisions are utterly vague that they cannot be clarified by either a saving
clause or construction.
Stare Decisis - doctrine that requires courts to follow principles, rules or standards of its prior
decisions for cases with similar facts. It means to follow past precedents and refrain from disturbing
what has been previously settled.
In Re Valenzuela and Vallarta – the Court gave credence to a previous ruling in Aytona v.
Castillo where the court resolved the appointments of the outgoing president Garcia as abuse of
presidential prerogatives.
De Castro v. JBC – the doctrine of stare decisis is not violated when the Court, acting on its innate
authority, modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle previously laid down. While judicial decisions
assume the same authority as a statute, itself, the Supreme Court is not entirely controlled by such
precedents. The Court is not obliged to blindly follow a particular decision when it determines the need
for rectification.
Belgica v. Ochoa – doctrine of stare decisis cannot find application when the previous case, like
the PHILCONSA ruling, is riddled with inherent constitutional inconsistencies.

III. LAWS
a. Law – a rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by legitimate power of the

state.13

b. Classifications:

GENERAL LAW – one that applies to the whole state and operates throughout the state alike upon all
the people or all of a class.14
SPECIAL LAW – one which relates to particular persons or things of a class or to a particular
community, individual or thing.15
SUBSTANTIVE LAW – one that creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights
and duties which give rise to a cause of action.16
PROCEDURAL/REMEDIAL LAW – one that prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain
redress for invasions of substantive rights.17
PUBLIC LAW – one which affects the public at large or the whole community.18
PRIVATE LAW – one which applies only to a specific person or subject.19
13Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. 2009, page 1
14People v. Palma, GR No. 44113, March 31, 1977
15Valera v. Tuason, 80 Phil. 823 (1948)
16Bustos v. Lucero, 46 Off. Gaz. January Supp., pp. 445, 448
17Bustos v. Lucero, ibid.
18Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. 2009, page 2

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 6

MANDATORY LAW – a law that is imperative and imposes a duty to those who are covered by it.

PROHIBITORY LAW – a kind of mandatory law that imposes duty to refrain from doing a forbidden act.
DIRECTORY LAW – a law that is permissive in operation as it does not have mandatory effect.

PROSPECTIVE LAW – a law that takes effect after having been enacted and published.
RETROACTIVE LAW – a law that takes effect from a date in the past or finds application to cases
before the enactment and publication of such law.
c. Subjects of Construction and Interpretation – Constitution, statute/law, ordinance

d. CONSTITUTION

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY – if a law or contract violates any norm of the

Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch
or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and
effect. Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.20
CONSTITUTION – the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.21
STATUTES – acts of legislature as an organized body, expressed in the form, and passed according to
the procedure, required to constitute it as part of the law of the land. 22
Tawang Multipurpose Cooperative v. La Trinidad Water District – citing the Doctrine of
Constitutional Supremacy, the Court declared unconstitutional Sec. 47 (grant of exclusive franchise) of
PD 198 (decree creating La Trinidad Water District) for being repugnant to Sec. 11 Article XII of the
1987 Constitution.

e. STATUTES
NOMENCLATURE OF STATUTES IN THE PHILIPPINES
NOMENCLATURE ABBREVIATION ENACTING BODY
Public Act Act Philippine Commission,
Philippine Legislature
Commonwealth Act CA Philippine Commonwealth
Republic Act RA Philippine Congress
Presidential Decrees – period of Martial Law under 1973 Constitution
Executive Orders – revolutionary period under Freedom Constitution
Batas Pambansa – 1978‐1985

PARTS OF STATUTE
1. Preamble – a prefatory statement or explanation or a finding of facts, reciting the purpose,

reason, or occasion for making the law to which it prefixed. 23

19Ibid.
20Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997
21Cruz, Isagani. Philippine Political Law, 1991 Ed., page 11
22Supra.
23Continental Oil Co. v. Santa Fe, 3 ALR 394 (1918)

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 7
2. Title – every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed

in the title thereof (One Title, One Subject Rule).

3. Enacting Clause – written immediately after the title which states the authority by which the
act is enacted.
4. Body – tells what the law is all about. The body of a statute should embrace only one subject
matter.
5. Separability Clause – states that if any provision of the act is declared invalid, the remainder
shall not be affected thereby.
6. Repealing Clause – states repeal, withdrawal, or abrogation of a law or parts of it.
7. Effectivity Clause – provision when the law takes effect

Banat v. COMELEC – every statute is presumed to be constitutional. Those who assail the
constitutionality of a law must show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not merely a doubtful, speculative, or argumentative one. Here, the petitioners
failed to justify why RA 9369 (Automated Election) shall be declared unconstitutional.
Abakada Party List v. Purisima – the general rule is that where part of a statute is void as
repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the
invalid, may stand and be enforced. The presence of a separability clause upholds the
constitutionality of the remaining provisions.
f. ORDINANCE – legislation enacted by the local government units by virtue of their

delegated legislative power.

Test of a Valid Ordinance

1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute.
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive.
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory.
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy.
6. Must not be unreasonable.

Strict Scrutiny Test – refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of
governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms.
Rational Basis Test – ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental
interest
Barangay Ordinance – passed by the sangguniang barangay by a majority vote of members; affects a
particular barangay only; sangguniang bayan or sangguniang panglungsod approves or disapproves.
Municipal Ordinance – passed by the sangguniang bayan by a majority vote of members; submitted to
the municipal mayor for approval.
City Ordinance - passed by the sangguniang panglungsod by a majority vote of members; submitted to
the city mayor for approval.
Provincial Ordinance – passed by the sangguniang panlalawigan by a majority vote of members;
submitted to the governor for approval.
Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College – any ordinance must pass the test of validity to have the
full effect and force of law. The ordinance’s provisions being questioned in this case failed to pass this test
for being oppressive. Hence, the court ruled to strike down these provisions and commanded the LGU to
permanently desist from enforcing such provisions.
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila ‐ However well‐intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in
effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons.
The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 8

the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and
renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions.
DOCTRINE OF VAGUENESS/ VOID‐FOR‐VAGUENESS DOCTRINE - holds that a law is facially invalid
if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
DOCTRINE OF OVERBREADTH – a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network v. Anti‐Terrorism Council – void‐for‐vagueness
and overbreadth doctrines apply only on free speech cases, and not on penal statutes like the Human
Security Act.

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

IV. LEGISLATIVE INTENT

LEGISLATIVE INTENT – refers to the essence of the law1; the intent of the legislature is the law and
the key to and the controlling factor in its construction or interpretation 2
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE – the reason why a particular statute was enacted by the
legislature LEGISLATIVE MEANING – it is what the law, by its language, means
LEGISLATION – an active instrument of government which, for purposes of interpretation, means that
laws have ends to be achieved3.
MATTERS INQUIRED INTO IN CONSTRUING A STATUTE:
J. Ascertain the intention or meaning of the statute (internal element)
K. Determine whether the intention has been expressed is such a way to give it legal effect and
validity (external element)
Ortega v. People – the Court is bound to enforce legislative intent. The intent of the statute is the
law. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to
ascertain and give effect to the intent.
Macondray v. Eustoquio – the fundamental rule which should govern the interpretation of laws
is to ascertain the intention and meaning of the Legislature and to give effect thereto.
People v. Concepcion – in the interpretation and construction of statutes, the primary rule is to
ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.

Litex Employees v. Eduvala – legislation is more than composition; it is an active instrument of

government which, for purposes of interpretation, means that laws have ends to be achieved. What is
intended by the framers of the statute should not be frustrated.
Republic Flour Mills v. Commissioner of Customs – it is fundamental postulate in statutory
construction requiring fidelity to the legislative purpose. What Congress intended is not to be frustrated
and its objectives must be carried out. Even if there be doubt as to the meaning of the language
employed, the interpretation should not be at war with the end sought to be attained.

SOURCES OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT:

b. Primary Source: Statute itself
Legislative intent must be discovered from the four corners of the law.
Where the words of the statute are not ambiguous, its meaning and intention of the
legislature must be determined from the language employed.
c. Other Sources:
Purpose of the statute
The cause which induced the enactment of the statute
The mischief to be suppressed
The policy which dictated its passage
d. Judicial Legislation – the Court may look into the effect of the law

Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141 (1931)

2 Tamayo v. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953 (1916)
3 Litex Employees v. Eduvala, GR L‐411106, September 22, 1977

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 2

RULES IN DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT

1 LITERAL RULE – to interpret the statutory provision literally and grammatically giving the

words their ordinary and natural meaning

PLAIN MEANING RULE / VERBA LEGIS – if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation
PNB v. Tejano – when the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without any interpretation or even construction. There is a presumption
that words employed in a statute correctly express its intent and preclude even the courts from
giving it a different construction.
Bolos v. Bolos – a cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free
from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only
room for application.
1 PURPOSE RULE – to interpret the statute by giving legal effect to the intention of its framers

Go v. Distinction Properties – a statute derives its vitality from the purpose for which it is
enacted, and to construe it in a manner that disregards or defeats such purpose is to nullify or
destroy the law.
Mun. of Nueva Era v. Mun. of Marcos – statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes
to be achieved and the evils sought to be remedied. The reason for its enactment must be kept in
mind and the statute should be construed with reference to the intended scope and purpose.
Court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute where a literal meaning would lead to
absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.
Gelano v. Court of Appeals – mere technicality in the use of the word “purpose” in a statute
should not be used to defeat its spirit.
1 MISCHIEF RULE – to determine the mischief or defect to be suppressed; words are interpreted

to fill in the gaps in a statute

1 GOLDEN RULE – used when the literal rule would result in absurdity or obnoxious result

Brent School v. Zamora – it is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that the spirit of the law
must prevail over the letters thereof since adherence to the letter would result in absurdity,
injustice, and contradictions, and would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute.

c. AIDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF LAWS

a. INTRINSIC AIDS – those found in the printed page of the statute itself

JJ. Title – where the meaning of the statute is obscure, courts may resort to its title to clear the
obscurity4; title may be resorted to in order to remove, but not to create, doubt or uncertainty 5
“Every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”6

c. Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. (2009), page 157

5 People v. Rivera, 59 Phil. 232 (1933)
6 Article VI, Sec. 26(1), 1987 Constitution

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3

Central Capiz v. Ramirez – in the interpretation and construction of statutes, the court should
give them the meaning and effect which the legislature intended, unless it is in conflict with the
organic law of the land. The subject of the law is expressed in its title.
Preamble – that part of the statute written immediately after its title, which states the purpose,
reason or justification for the enactment of the law7; it is usually expressed in the form of
“Whereas” clauses8
US v. Go Chico – whenever there is ambiguity, or whenever words of the law have more than one
meaning and there is doubt as to the subject matter to which they are applied, the preamble may
be used.
Body – the best source to ascertain the legislative intent is the statute itself taken as a whole

and in relation to one another

Leynes v. COA – it is elementary principle in statutory construction that an administrative

circular cannot supersede, abrogate, modify or nullify a statute. A statute is superior to an
administrative circular, thus the latter cannot repeal or amend it.
Punctuation Mark

In Re Estate of Johnson – punctuation and capitalization are aids of low degree in interpreting
the language of the statute and can never control against the intelligible meaning of the written
words.
Capitalization

In Re Estate of Johnson – punctuation and capitalization are aids of low degree in interpreting
the language of the statute and can never control against the intelligible meaning of the written
words.
Head notes and epigraphs – can never control the plain terms of the enacting clauses for they

are not part of the law

In Re Estate of Johnson – epigraph or heading of a section being nothing more than a

convenient index to the contents of the provision, cannot have the effect of limiting the operative
words contained in the body of the text.
Lingual Text – where a statute is officially promulgated in English and Spanish, the English text
shall govern, but in case of ambiguity, omission or mistake, the Spanish may be consulted to
explain the English text9; where a statute is promulgated in Spanish, English or Filipino, with
translations to other languages, the language in which it is written prevails over its
transaction.10
Baking v. Director of Prisons – the law is the law. We cannot change the law under the guise of
interpretation, we cannot rewrite the law as it is the function of Congress.

4
Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. (2009), page 160
8 People v. Purisima, GR No. 42050, November 20,
1978 9 Sec. 15, Revised Administrative Code
10 People v. Abilang, 82 Phil. 172 (1948)

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4

EXTRINSIC AIDS – those extraneous facts and circumstances outside the printed page of the statute

History of the legislative enactment

Gonzales III v. Office of the President – the legislative history provides that the overall legal
structure of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, both under the
1987 Constitution and RA 6770, enjoys the grant of independence.
Tamayo v. Gsell – the history of the statute from the time it was introduced until it was finally
passed may afford aid to its construction.
Dictionary – where a statute does not define the words or phrases used therein, nor does its
purpose or the context on which the words or phrases are employed indicate their meaning,
the courts may consult dictionaries, legal, scientific or general, as aid in determining the
meaning to be assigned to such words or phrases
In Re Charges of Plagiarism against AJ Del Castillo ‐ in ruling for this administrative case, the
Court referred to and cited the dictionary definition of the word “plagiarism” for resolution.
Judicial Decisions

Caltex v. Palomar – judicial decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself, and until
authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria
which must control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also those in
duty bound to enforce obedience thereto.
Administrative regulations and decisions

Nestle Philippines v. Uniwide – under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,

courts will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Constitutional deliberations

Gamboa v. Teves – deliberations of the Constitutional Commission were cited to support the
claim that the term “capital” refers to the total outstanding shares of stock, whether voting or
non‐ voting.
Foreign jurisprudence

PDIC v. Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank ‐ resort to foreign jurisprudence is
proper only if no local law or jurisprudence exists to settle the controversy.
President’s Message to Legislature

Camacho v. Court of Industrial Relations ‐ it is a well settled rule that the history of a
legislation is also important in interpreting the intention of the legislative body, and therefore
courts may refer to messages of the executive to the legislature.

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 5
12 Explanatory Note accompanying the legislation – short exposition or explanation

accompanying a proposed legislation by its author or proponent

People v. Lidres – the court cited the explanatory note of House Bill 126, which became RA No.
10, in resolving the case.
13 Legislative debates

De Villa v. Court of Appeals – where there is doubt as to what a provision of a statute means,
the meaning put to the provision during the legislative deliberations or discussion on the bill may
be adopted.
14 Report of the Code Commission – courts may properly refer to the reports of the commission

that drafted the code in aid of clarifying ambiguities therein

Escalante v. Santos – the reports or inputs of members of the Code Commission may be referred
to in clarifying provisions or words in a statute or ascertaining the intent of the law.
15 History of the amended provision

Commissioner of Customs v. CTA – the insertion of the word “national” before the word “port”
is a clear indication of the legislative intent to change the meaning of Section 2901 from what it
originally meant. It is the duty of the court to give meaning to the amendment.
16 Foreign statute after which the statute was patterned – where local statutes are patterned
after or copied from those of another country, the decisions of the courts in such country
construing those laws are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of such local statutes 11
and will generally be followed if found reasonable and in harmony with justice, public policy
and other local statutes on the subject12
Muñoz v. Hord – it is a rule well‐established that the construction given to a statute by those
charged with the duty of executing it will be given great weight by the courts if the true
construction be doubtful.
17 Limitation to adoption of foreign law

Republic v. Meralco – foreign decisions and authorities are not per se controlling in our
jurisdiction. At best, they are persuasive for no court hold a patent on correct decisions.

OTHER FACTORS
The spirit prevails over the letter

Manila Race Horse Trainers Assoc. v. Dela Fuente – the spirit, rather than the letter , of an
ordinance determines the construction thereof, and the court looks less to its words and more of
the context, subject matter, consequence and effect. What is within the spirit is within the
ordinance although it is not within the letter thereof, while that which is within the letter, but not
within the spirit, is not within the ordinance.

p Wise & Co. v. Meer, 78 Phil. 655 (1947)

q Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil. 473 (1951)

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 6

US v. Toribio – where the language of the statute is fairly susceptible of two or more
constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the
manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a
construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other provisions of the
statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment.
p Public policy

Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee – public policy should aid acts intended to validate marriages and
should retard acts intended to invalidate marriages. Court can properly incline the scales of their
decisions in favor of that solution which will most effectively promote the public policy.
q Objective of the statute

Home Insurance Company v. Eastern Shipping Lines – the objective of the law was to subject
the foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of our courts. The Corporation Law must be given a
reasonable, not an unduly harsh interpretation which does not hamper the development of trade
relations and which fosters friendly commercial intercourse among countries.
r Definition of words and phrases

Ramirez v. Court of Appeals – unambiguity of the express words of the provision leaves no room
for interpretation. When the law makes no distinctions, ones does not distinguish.

VI. PRESUMPTION
Presumptions – are based on logic, experience and common sense, and in the absence of compelling
reasons to the contrary, doubts as to the proper and correct construction of a statute will be resolved
in favor of that construction which is in accord with the presumption on the matter. 13
p Presumption Against Unconstitutionality

LAMP v. Secretary of Budget and Management – the presumption of constitutionality can be

overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and
only when such conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the
discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down. Every
presumption should be indulged in favor of constitutionality and the burden of proof is on the party
alleging that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.

Tano v. Socrates – laws enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. To overthrow this presumption,
there must be clear and unequivocal breach of Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative
contradiction. Conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

q Presumption Against Violation of International Law

“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.”14

p Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed. (2009), page 172

q Article II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 7

Deutsche Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue – the time‐honored international principle

of pacta sunt servanda demands the performance in good faith of treaty obligations on the part of
the states that enter into the agreement. Treaties have force and effect of law in our jurisdiction.

b Presumption Against Injustice

“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.”15

Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines – when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is one
of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience.

c Presumption Against Absurdity

Privatization and Management Office v. Strategic Development – courts cannot allow distorted
interpretation that causes inconvenience and absurdity.

d Presumption Against Ineffectiveness

e Presumption Against Undesirable Consequences

Cesario Ursua v. Court of Appeals – undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative
measure and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid
all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious consequences.

f Presumption Against Implied Repeal

“Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non‐observance shall not be
excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.”16
Express Repeal – one where it literally states that it repeals a certain provision or section of law
or the whole statute itself.
Implied Repeal – one where a subsequent law is irreconcilable with a first
law. Repeal – removal, abrogation or reversal of a law
Amendment – change in an existing law, leaving a portion of the original law standing.

Executive Secretary v. Forerunner Multi Resources – the failure to add a specific repealing clause
indicates that the intent was not to repeal previous administrative issuances.
Rosalina Penera v. COMELEC ‐ the mere fact that the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso
facto means that the act is lawful.
Lledo v. Lledo – repeals by implication are not favored. A law cannot be deemed repealed unless it is
clearly manifested that the legislature so intended it.
GSIS v. City Assessor of Iloilo City ‐ the abrogation or repeal of law cannot be assumed. The
intention to revoke must be clear and manifest. A repealing statute must not interfere with vested
rights or impair the obligation of contracts; that if any other construction is possible, the act should
not be construed so as to affect rights which have vested under the old law.

e. Article 10, Civil Code

f. Article 7, Civil Code

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 8
5. Presumption Against Retrospective Operations of Laws – the presumption is that all laws

operate prospectively unless the contrary clearly appears or is clearly, plainly, or unequivocally

expressed or necessarily implied17; in case of doubt, it must be resolved against retroactive

operation of laws

13Cebu Portland v. Commission of Internal Revenue, GR No. L‐20563, October 29, 1968

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

VII. MAXIMS, DOCTRINES, RULES AND GUIDELINES
L. Verba legis (Plain Meaning Rule) – when the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity,

it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation 1

Globe Mackay Cable v. NLRC – verba legis rests on the valid presumption that the words
employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude the court
from construing it differently; from the words of the statute, there shall be no departure.
Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary – words employed by the legislature in a statute must be
taken together and must not leave out qualifying words for construction and/or interpretation.
M. Dura lex sed lex (The law may be harsh, but it is still the law) – a statute, being the will of
the legislature, should be applied in exactly the way the legislature has expressed itself clearly
in the law2
Obiasca v. Basallote ‐ When the law is clear, there is no other recourse but to apply it regardless
of its perceived harshness. Dura lex sed lex. Nonetheless, the law should never be applied or
interpreted to oppress one in order to favor another.
Republic v. Go Bon Lee – when the clear requirement of Revised Naturalization law was
violated, the government is never estopped by mistakes or errors of its agents. In this case, despite
the initial grant of the naturalization based on substantial compliance as deemed by the lower
court, the Supreme Court is duty‐bound to apply what the statute so requires.
Duncan v. CFI of Rizal – Dura lex sed lex should be softened so as to apply the law with less
severity and with compassion and humane understanding in cases of adoption of children. The
law should not be made an instrument to impede the achievement of a salutary humane policy.
Texts and intendments should be construed so as to give all the chances for human life to exist.

N. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus (When the law does not distinguish,
neither should we distinguish)

Dabalos v. RTC – applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not
distinguish, neither should the courts, the punishable acts in RA 9262 refer to all acts of violence
against women with whom the offender has or had sexual or dating relationship.
Sps. Plopenio v. DAR – under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, appeals from SACs must
be taken to the Court of Appeals, without distinction between appeals raising questions of fact
and those dealing purely with questions of law, hence the only mode of appeal from SAC decisions
is via Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals.
Mustang Lumber v. Court of Appeals – under PD 705 , as amended, the law made no distinction
between processed and raw timber, hence the courts should neither distinguish.

O. Generalis verba sunt generaliter intelegencia (General words are understood in a

general sense)

Gutierrez v. HOR Committee on Justice – what is generally spoken shall be generally

understood; between the restricted sense and the general meaning of a word, the general must
prevail unless it was clearly intended that the restricted sense was to be used.

e. Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 130

2 Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 208

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 2

People v. Sandiganbayan – it is a well‐settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute

will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is
evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.
Number: Singular and Plural – words in plural include the singular and vice versa; a plural
word in the statute may apply to a singular person or thing just as singular word may embrace
two or more persons or things3
Gatchalian v. COMELEC – When the context so indicates, the word may be construed to mean,
and indeed it has been frequently used in its enlarged and plural sense, as meaning "all," "all or
every," "each," "each one of all," "every," without limitation; indefinite number or quantity, an
indeterminate unit or number of units out of many or all, one or more as the case may be, several,
some.
Gender: Masculine and Feminine – it is a rule that in construing a statute, the masculine, but
not the feminine, includes all genders, unless the context in which the word is used in the
statute indicates otherwise4.
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 distributively5
Amadora v. Court of Appeals – In Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the word “teachers” shall apply
to the words “pupils and students” and the word “heads of establishments of arts and trades”
shall apply to the words “apprentices”
Ejusdem Generis (The same kind or specie) – where a statute describes things of particular
class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic words will usually be
limited to things of a kindred nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be
something in the context of the statute to repel such inference.6
Pelizloy Realty Corp. v. Province of Benguet ‐ where a general word or phrase follows an
enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class or where the latter follow the
former, the general word or phrase is to be construed to include, or to be restricted to persons,
things or cases akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.
Noscitur a sociis (It is known by its companions) – where a particular word or phrase is
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may
be made clear and specific by considering the company of the words in which it is found or
with which it is associated7.
Buenaseda v. Flavier ‐ Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various meanings, its
correct construction may be made specific by considering the company of terms in which it is
found or with which it is associated

1 Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 254

4
Ibid.
5 People v. Tamani, GR No. 22160, January 21, 1974
6
Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 309 7
Caltex Phils v. Palomar, GR No. 19650, September 29, 1966
*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3

People v. Delantar ‐ the correct construction of a word or phrase 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

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp. ‐ Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or phrase should be
interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words with which it is associated.

d. Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est (A case omitted is to be held intentionally
omitted) – a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been
omitted intentionally; this rule does not apply where it is shown that the legislature did not
intend to exclude the person, thing or object from the enumeration8
People v. Manantan ‐ the maxim "casus omisus" can operate and apply only if and when the
omission has been clearly established. The application of the rule of "casus omisus" does not
proceed from the mere fact that a case is criminal in nature, but rather from a reasonable
certainty that a particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a legislative
enumeration. In the present case, and for reasons already mentioned, there has been no such
omission. There has only been a substitution of terms.

e. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all
others) – where a statute directs the performance of certain acts by a particular person or
class of persons, it implies that it shall not be done otherwise or by a different person or class
of persons; this rule is generally used in the construction of statutes granting powers, creating
rights and remedies, restricting common rights and imposing penalties and forfeitures, as well
as those statutes which are strictly construed9.
Canet v. Decena ‐ it is a basic precept of statutory construction that the express mention of one
person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others, as expressed in the oft‐repeated maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Elsewise stated, expressium facit cessare tacitum – what is
expressed puts an end to what is implied. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislative
body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute, if it had the intention not to
restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.

San Pablo Mfg. Corp. v. CIR ‐ Where the law enumerates the subject or condition upon which it
applies, it is to be construed as excluding from its effects all those not expressly mentioned.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Anything that is not included in the enumeration is excluded
therefrom and a meaning that does not appear nor is intended or reflected in the very language
of the statute cannot be placed therein. The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a canon
of restrictive interpretation.
f. Doctrine of Necessary Implication – what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as

that which is expressed10

KK. People v. Manantan, 115 Phil 657

d. Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009),
page 324 10 In Re Dick, 38 Phil 41
*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 4

Chua v. Civil Service Commission ‐ The doctrine of necessary implication states that what is
implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its
object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants,
including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred
from its terms.

Atienza v. Villaraza ‐ No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its
application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is
thought, at the time of enactment, to be an all‐embracing legislation may be inadequate to
provide for the unfolding of events of the future. So‐called gaps in the law develop as the law is
enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of
necessary implication.

Guidelines in the interpretation of some specific words and phrases

Gachon v. Devera ‐ The word "shall" ordinarily connotes an imperative and indicates the
mandatory character of a statute. This, however, is not an absolute rule in statutory construction.
The import of the word ultimately depends upon a consideration of the entire provision, its
nature, object and the consequences that would follow from construing it one way or the other.

Loyola Grand Villas v. Court of Appeals ‐ Ordinarily, the word "must" connotes an imperative
act or operates to impose a duty which may be enforced. It is synonymous with "ought" which
connotes compulsion or mandatoriness. However, the word "must" in a statute, like "shall", is not
always imperative. It may be consistent with an exercise of discretion. In this jurisdiction, the
tendency has been to interpret "shall" as the context or a reasonable construction of the statute
in which it is used demands or requires. This is equally true as regards the word "must." Thus, if
the languages of a statute considered as a whole and with due regard to its nature and object
reveals that the legislature intended to use the words "shall" and "must" to be directory, they
should be given that meaning.

Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council ‐ A rule in statutory construction is

that the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing
from other things enumerated unless the context requires a different interpretation. In its
elementary sense, "or", as used in a statute, is a disjunctive article indicating an alternative. It
often connects a series of words or propositions indicating a choice of either. When "or" is used,
the various members of the enumeration are to be taken separately.

Radaza v. Court of Appeals ‐ In ascertaining the last day of the period of suspension, one (1)
month is to be treated as equivalent to thirty (30) days, such that six (6) months is equal to one
hundred eighty (180) days.
Article 13, Civil Code. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be
understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days of
twenty four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which
they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included.

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohibited.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 5
4 Proviso – to limit the application of the enacting clause, section or provision of a statute, or to
except something therefrom, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some
possible ground of misinterpretation mof it, as extending to cases not intended by the
legislature to be brought within its purview11; a proviso is commonly found at the end of a
section or provision of a statute and is introduced by the word “Provided”.
Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio – a proviso qualifies only the phrase immediately
preceding it as a general rule, unless legislative intent indicates otherwise

*If there is an irreconcilable conflict or repugnancy between a proviso and the main provision of
the statute, that which is located in a later portion of the statute prevails unless legislative intent
indicates otherwise. The reason behind this is that it is the latest expression of the intent of the
legislature.
4 Exception – consists of that which would otherwise be included in the provision from which it
is excepted. It is generally expressed in words as “except”, “unless otherwise” and “shall not
apply” and such similar words as are used to take out of the enactment of something which
would otherwise be part of its subject matter12
Pendon v. Diasnes – exceptions extend only so far as their language fairly warrants and all
doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. If the
provision of the statute is comprehensive and all‐embracing, the legislature would directly and
explicitly mention its intended exceptions. Without such direct and explicit mention of exceptions,
such exceptions cannot be given effect.
4 Saving Clause – a clause in a provision of law which operates to except from the effect of the
law what the clause provides or to save something which would otherwise be lost; it should be
construed in the light of the intent or purpose which the legislature had in mind in providing it
in a statute, the principal consideration being to effectuate such intent or carry out such
purpose13
Bautista v. Fule – a saving clause in Article 1510 of the Civil Code operates to save the rights of
third persons under the provisions of Mortgage Law

Lagrimas v. Director of Prisons – the saving clause in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code excepts
felonies and demeanors committed before its enactment and effectivity from the penalties prescribed
therein and makes applicable those provisions existing at the time of their commission.

5 Arenas v. City of San Carlos, GR No. 34024, April 5, 1978

5 Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 346
5 Ruben. Statutory Construction 6th Ed.(2009), page 350

*Unauthorized copying, sharing and/or distribution of this material is strictly prohi