Week 2: Legislative Process and Statutory Interpretation

I. Introduction

The legislative process refers to the series of steps involved in enacting a law in the
Philippines. Understanding this process is crucial for anyone interested in how laws are
created, how to influence legislation, and how to track the progress of proposed laws.

Scenario 1: Bypassing the Usual Route

Imagine the President proposes a bill directly to Congress, instead of following the usual
route of having the executive branch agencies draft and submit the legislation.

• Is this a valid approach under the Philippine Constitution? No. The Philippine
Constitution outlines the legislative process, and typically bills originate in either
the House of Representatives or the Senate. While the President can propose
legislation, it must be submitted to Congress for deliberation.
• Why or not? Bypassing the usual route concentrates power in the executive branch
and reduces the opportunity for congressional debate and amendment of the
proposed law.
• What potential challenges might this approach pose? Challenges include:
o Lack of Congressional Input: Legislators might not have sufficient
opportunity to review and refine the bill.
o Constitutional Challenges: The legality of the approach could be challenged
in the Supreme Court.
o Public Scrutiny: Bypassing the usual process might raise concerns about
transparency and accountability.

II. Actors in the Legislative Process

• Philippine Congress: The bicameral legislature composed of:

o Senate: Represents the entire country, with 24 senators elected
nationwide.
o House of Representatives: Represents individual congressional districts,
with a maximum of 300 members.
• President: Holds veto power over bills passed by Congress.
• Executive Branch Agencies: May provide technical expertise and draft proposed
legislation. (Example: The Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) might draft a bill proposing stricter regulations on waste management.)
• Lobbying Groups: Advocate for or against specific bills on behalf of their
constituents. (Example: A consumer rights group might lobby against a bill
weakening consumer protection laws.)
• Citizens: Can participate in the process by contacting their representatives,
submitting petitions, and testifying at hearings. (Example: Residents of a
community affected by pollution might submit a petition urging Congress to pass a
law strengthening air quality standards.)

Page 1 of 13
III. Stages of the Legislative Process

A. Bill Introduction

1. Concept Development: An idea for a new law is developed. (Example: A senator

concerned about the rise of online sexual abuse of children might propose a bill
strengthening existing laws on cybercrime.)
2. Drafting: The proposed law is drafted into a formal bill, outlining its purpose,
provisions, and potential impact. (Example: Legal experts and representatives
from law enforcement agencies might collaborate in drafting the specific language
of the bill.)

Scenario 2: Fast-Tracking Legislation

A natural disaster strikes the Philippines, causing widespread damage and displacement.
Congress considers a bill allocating emergency funds for relief and rehabilitation efforts.

• What measures might be taken to expedite the passage of this bill through the
legislative process?
o Calender Priority: The bill can be placed at the top of the legislative calendar
for immediate consideration.
o Limiting Debate: Time limits can be imposed on debates to expedite floor
action.
o Unanimous Consent: If there is no opposition, a unanimous consent
agreement can be reached to waive certain procedural requirements.
• What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of fast-tracking legislation?

Advantages:

• Timely Response: Allows for a quicker response to urgent situations.

• Maintaining Momentum: Helps to keep public and legislative focus on the issue.

Disadvantages:

• Lack of Scrutiny: Rushed legislation might contain errors or unintended

consequences.
• Limited Debate: Important concerns or alternative solutions might not be
adequately considered.
• Public Perception: Fast-tracking can raise concerns about backroom deals or
bypassing proper procedures.

B. Committee Consideration

1. Committee Referral: The bill is assigned to a relevant committee in either the

Senate or the House. You can find a detailed description of the Senate committee
structure and their jurisdictions on the Philippine Senate
website: http://www.senate.gov.ph/ (Tip: Look for the Committee that best aligns
with the subject matter of the bill.)

Page 2 of 13
 2. Public Hearings: The committee may hold public hearings to gather public input on
the bill. (Example: The committee considering the cybercrime bill might invite
representatives from technology companies, child protection organizations, and
legal experts to present their views.)
3. Committee Report: The committee reviews the bill, proposes amendments, and
issues a report with its recommendations for approval, rejection, or modification.
(Example: The committee report might recommend amendments to clarify the
bill's language or address concerns raised during public hearings.)

C. Floor Action

1. Calendar Placement: The bill is placed on the calendar for debate and voting by the
entire chamber (Senate or House).
2. Debate and Amendments: Members of the chamber debate the bill and may
propose amendments to change its content. (Example: During the floor debate on
the cybercrime bill, some legislators might propose amendments to ensure it
protects freedom of expression while effectively combating online child sexual
abuse.)
3. Voting: The chamber votes on the bill, either with or without amendments. A
majority vote is required for passage. (Example: If the majority of senators vote in
favor of the cybercrime bill, it moves on to the next stage.)

D. Bicameral Conference (if necessary)

1. Disagreements: If the Senate and House versions of the bill differ, a bicameral
conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences and produce a final
version. (Example: If the House version of the cybercrime bill includes stricter
penalties than the Senate version, the conference committee would need to find a
compromise.)
2. Ratification of Conference Committee Report: Both chambers must ratify the
report from the conference committee to move forward.

An enrolled bill is the final, official version of a bill that has been passed by both houses
of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) in identical form. Here's a
breakdown of the key points:

• Final and Official: The enrolled bill represents the final legislative product after it
has gone through all the stages of the legislative process and secured approval
from both chambers.
• Identical Form: To be considered enrolled, the bill must be exactly the same
wording in both the Senate and House versions. Any discrepancies require
reconciliation through a bicameral conference committee.
• Preparation: The enrolled bill is typically printed on parchment paper and formally
signed by the presiding officers of both chambers (the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House).

Enrolled bills play a crucial role because they:

Page 3 of 13
 • Signal the End of Legislative Action: Once a bill is enrolled, it signifies the
completion of the legislative process within Congress.
• Prepare for Presidential Action: The enrolled bill is then sent to the President for
review and decision (signing into law, vetoing, or pocket veto).
• Serve as the Official Copy: The enrolled bill becomes the official record of the law
and is used as the basis for publication in the Official Gazette, the government's
official publication.

In essence, the enrolled bill is the culmination of the legislative branch's role in lawmaking.
It paves the way for the executive branch's (President's) involvement and ultimately, the
creation of a new law.

E. Presidential Action

1. Enrollment: The final version of the bill is engrossed on parchment paper and
signed by the presiding officers of both chambers.
2. Transmission to the President: The enrolled bill is sent to the President for review
and action.
3. Presidential Options: The President has three options:
o Sign the bill: The bill becomes law upon signature, usually after a 15-day
waiting period.
o Veto the bill: The President returns the bill to Congress with an explanation
for the veto. Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both
chambers.
o Lapse into Law: The President does not act on the bill within the 30-day
deadline after receiving it. The bill lapses into law.

F. Publication

Once a bill has been successfully navigated through all the previous stages and receives
the President's signature (or overcomes a veto), it is published in the Official Gazette, a
government publication. This publication serves as official notification to the public about
the new law.

II. Introduction to Statutory Interpretation

Once a bill successfully navigates the legislative process and becomes law, it's crucial to
understand how to interpret its meaning and application. This lecture focuses on the
different parts of a statute and their role in statutory interpretation.

Scenario 1: Unclear Preamble (Answer)

The preamble to a new law regulating social media use states the government's
commitment to "fostering a responsible and respectful online environment." However,
the body of the law primarily focuses on restrictions on content deemed offensive or
harmful.

Page 4 of 13
 • Can the preamble be used to interpret the specific restrictions outlined in the body
of the law?
• Why or why not?

Answer: Courts generally give less weight to the preamble when interpreting a statute's
provisions. While it can provide some context and insight into the legislature's overall
purpose, the preamble cannot override the clear language used in the body of the law. In
this case, the specific restrictions in the body would likely take precedence, even if they
seem to contradict the broad goal of a "responsible and respectful online environment"
mentioned in the preamble.

III. Parts of a Statute

A Philippine statute typically consists of the following parts:

A. Preamble (not always present)

• A brief introductory statement explaining the purpose, reason, or intent behind

enacting the law.
• Courts generally do not give much weight to the preamble when interpreting the
statute's provisions. However, it can be helpful in resolving ambiguity in the main
text.
• Example: The preamble to the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No.
206) states its purpose "to provide a framework for the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and to regulate family relations."

Scenario 2: Missing Definition (Answer)

A law prohibits the use of "electronic devices" in schools without authorization. The law
does not define "electronic devices." A student is caught using a simple calculator during
class.

• Does the calculator qualify as an "electronic device" under this law?

• How would a court likely interpret this in the absence of a definition?

Answer: In the absence of a specific definition within the statute, a court would likely
consider the ordinary meaning of "electronic devices" in the context of the law's purpose.
Courts often rely on dictionaries and common usage to determine the meaning of
undefined terms.

If the law's intent is to prevent distractions or potential cheating through sophisticated

devices like smartphones or tablets, a simple calculator might not be considered a
violation. However, the specific circumstances and the court's interpretation would
ultimately determine the outcome.

B. Title

• A short descriptive name identifying the subject matter of the law.

Page 5 of 13
 • While not necessarily conclusive, the title can provide some guidance on the
statute's scope and application.
• Example: The Anti-Money Laundering Act (Republic Act No. 10365) has a clear title
that reflects the content of the law.

Scenario 3: Conflicting Titles (Answer)

A law is titled the "Consumer Protection Act." However, upon closer examination, the
body of the law primarily focuses on regulations for businesses rather than consumer
rights.

• Does the title accurately reflect the content of the law?

• How might this discrepancy impact the interpretation of the law?

Answer: The title can be a helpful guide, but it cannot override the clear language used in
the body of the statute. In this case, the conflicting title might raise questions about the
law's true purpose and scope. Courts would likely prioritize the specific provisions within
the body when interpreting the law, even if they differ from the title's suggestion of
consumer protection.

C. Enacting Clause (Answer)

• The formal words that establish the law's legal authority.

• It typically uses a phrase like "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled..."
• This clause has no real impact on interpreting the statute's content.

D. Body (Main Provisions)

• This is the heart of the statute and contains the substantive legal rules and
regulations.
• It is divided into sections, subsections, and sometimes even further subdivisions.
• Each section deals with a specific aspect of the law.
• The interpretation of the body focuses on understanding the meaning and intent
behind the specific language used.

Scenario 4: Ambiguous Wording (Answer)

A law restricts the ownership of "dangerous animals" within city limits. The law does not
provide a clear definition of "dangerous animals."

• How can ambiguity in the wording of the law be addressed?

• What factors might a court consider when interpreting this provision?

Answer: When the wording of a statute is ambiguous, courts will employ various tools to
determine the legislature's intent. Here are some factors they might consider:

Page 6 of 13
 • Legislative history: Examining committee reports, debates, and other documents
from the law's drafting process can provide insight into the legislators' intended
meaning.
• Context: Considering the surrounding sections of the law and the overall purpose
of the statute can help clarify the meaning of specific terms.
• Public policy: Courts may consider the broader societal implications of interpreting
the law in one way or another.

In this case, the court might consider the purpose of the law - to protect public safety. They
would likely look for guidance in legislative history or similar laws to define "dangerous
animals" within the context of keeping them within city limits.

E. Definitions Section (may not be present in all statutes)

• Provides specific definitions for terms used throughout the statute.

• These definitions are crucial for ensuring a consistent and clear understanding of
the law's terminology.
• When interpreting the statute, courts will first look to the definitions section for
guidance.
• Example: The Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) includes a
definitions section that clarifies terms like "computer system," "electronic
document," and "cybercrime."

Scenario 5: Overly Broad Definition (Answer)

A law defines "public nuisance" as "any act or omission that interferes with the safety,
health, or comfort of the public."

• Could this definition be considered overly broad?

• How might such a broad definition impact the application of the law?

Answer: Yes, this definition is very broad and could potentially encompass a wide range of
behaviors. An overly broad definition can create uncertainty and make it difficult to
determine which actions actually violate the law. This could lead to inconsistent
enforcement or infringe on individual freedoms. Courts might attempt to interpret the
definition with some limitations to ensure it is applied reasonably and proportionally.

F. Repealing Clause (may not be present in all statutes)

• Identifies any existing laws or parts of laws that are being repealed or superseded
by the new statute.
• This helps to avoid confusion and ensures clarity regarding which laws are currently
in effect.

G. Separability Clause (may not be present in all statutes)

• States that if any provision of the statute is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the
remaining provisions will still be enforceable.

Page 7 of 13
 • This safeguards the validity of the entire law even if a specific part is challenged.

H. Saving Clause (may not be present in all statutes)

• Protects existing rights, privileges, or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred under

previous laws.
• This ensures a smooth transition between the old and new legal frameworks.

I. Effective Clause

• Specifies the date on which the statute will come into effect.
• This clause clarifies when the law becomes enforceable and binding.

Publication and the Tañada vs. Tuvera Cases

Following the Effective Clause, it's important to consider the concept of publication in the
context of a law's enforceability. The landmark case of Tañada vs. Tuvera (1986) serves as
a crucial reminder of the role publication plays.

• In this case, petitioners challenged the legality of several presidential decrees on

the grounds that they were not properly published as required by law.
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, highlighting that publication in
the Official Gazette is essential for a law to take effect and become enforceable
against the public. Citizens cannot be expected to comply with laws they are
unaware of.

This principle established in Tañada vs. Tuvera emphasizes that the Effective Clause only
marks the beginning of the legal enforceability timeline. Publication in the Official Gazette
serves as the official notification, making the law public knowledge.

Eugenio vs. Drillon (GR No. 109404) and Statutory Interpretation: Retroactivity and the
Preamble

The case of Eugenio vs. Drillon (GR No. 109404) highlights the role of the preamble in
specific situations, particularly when a question of retroactive application arises.

Background of the Case:

• Florencio Eugenio purchased lots from a developer before the enactment of PD 957
(Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree).
• The National Housing Authority (NHA) later ordered the developer to stop
operations due to non-development of the subdivision.
• Eugenio stopped paying amortizations, claiming protection under PD 957.

The Legal Issue:

Could PD 957, a law enacted after the purchase agreements, be applied retroactively to
Eugenio's case?

Page 8 of 13
Ruling of the Court:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eugenio, allowing him to benefit from the protections
of PD 957. The Court's reasoning included:

• Preamble's Emphasis on Protecting Buyers: The Court acknowledged the broad

language used in the preamble of PD 957, which emphasized the intention to
safeguard buyers from unscrupulous developers.
• Remedial Nature of the Law: The Court considered PD 957 a remedial statute,
meaning it aimed to correct existing problems and provide relief. Remedial statutes
can sometimes be applied retroactively to achieve their purpose.
• Balancing Interests: While acknowledging the general rule against retroactive
application of laws, the Court balanced the competing interests. The potential
injustice faced by Eugenio, who entered the contract in good faith, weighed against
any unfair burden placed on the developer by the retroactive application.

In conclusion, Eugenio vs. Drillon showcases a situation where the court relied on the
preamble, along with other considerations, to justify the retroactive application of PD 957.
It serves as a reminder that while the body of the statute remains the primary focus, the
preamble can hold weight in specific circumstances.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 109404 January 22, 1996

FLORENCIO EUGENIO, doing business under the name E & S Delta Village, petitioner,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FRANKLIN M. DRILON, HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
(HLURB) AND PROSPERO PALMIANO, respondents.

RESOLUTION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Did the failure to develop a subdivision constitute legal justification for the non-payment of
amortizations by a buyer on installment under land purchase agreements entered into prior to the
enactment of P.D. 957, "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree"? This is the
major question raised in the instant Petition seeking to set aside the Decision of the respondent
Executive Secretary dated March 10, 1992 in O.P. Case No. 3761, which affirmed the order of the
respondent HLURB dated September 1, 1987.

On May 10, 1972, private respondent purchased on installment basis from petitioner and his co-
owner/developer Fermin Salazar, two lots in the E & S Delta Village in Quezon City.

Page 9 of 13
Acting on complaints for non-development docketed as NHA Cases Nos. 2619 and 2620 filed by the
Delta Village Homeowners' Association, Inc., the National Housing Authority rendered a resolution
on January 17, 1979 inter alia ordering petitioner to cease and desist from making further sales of
lots in said village or in any project owned by him.

While NHA Cases Nos. 2619 and 2620 were still pending, private respondent filed with the Office of
Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (HSRC), a complaint (Case No. 80-589) against petitioner and spouses Rodolfo and
Adelina Relevo alleging that, in view of the above NHA resolution, he suspended payment of his
amortizations, but that petitioner resold one of the two lots to the said spouses Relevo, in whose
favor title to the said property was registered. Private respondent further alleged that he
suspended his payments because of petitioner's failure to develop the village.

Private respondent prayed for the annulment of the sale to the Relevo spouses and for
reconveyance of the lot to him.

On October 11, 1983, the OAALA rendered a decision upholding the right of petitioner to cancel the
contract with private respondent and dismissed private respondent's complaint.

On appeal, the Commission Proper of the HSRC reversed the OAALA and, applying P.D. 957,
ordered petitioner to complete the subdivision development and to reinstate private respondent's
purchase contract over one lot, and as to the other, "it appearing that Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 269546 has been issued to . . . spouses Rodolfo and Ad(e)lina Relevo . . . , the management of
E & S Delta Village is hereby ordered to immediately refund to the complainant-appellant (herein
private respondent) all payments made thereon, plus interests computed at legal rates from date
of receipt hereof until fully paid."

The respondent Executive Secretary, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the HSRC and denied the
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and for having been filed out of time.
Petitioner has now filed this Petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, "appeals from judgments or final orders of the . . .
Office of the President . . . may be taken to the Court of Appeals . . . " However, in order to hasten
the resolution of this case, which was deemed submitted for decision one and a half years ago, the
Court resolved to make an exception to the said Circular in the interest of speedy justice.

In his Petition before this Court, petitioner avers that the Executive Secretary erred in applying P.D.
957 and in concluding that the non-development of the E & S Delta Village justified private
respondent's non-payment of his amortizations. Petitioner avers that inasmuch as the land
purchase agreements were entered into in 1972, prior to the effectivity of P.D. 957 in 1976, said law
cannot govern the transaction.

We hold otherwise, and herewith rule that respondent Executive Secretary did not abuse his
discretion, and that P.D. 957 is to be given retroactive effect so as to cover even those contracts
executed prior to its enactment in 1976.

P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, but such can be plainly inferred
from the unmistakable intent of the law.

Page 10 of 13
The intent of the law, as culled from its preamble and from the situation, circumstances and
conditions it sought to remedy, must be enforced. On this point, a leading authority on statutory
construction stressed:

The intent of a 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. The intention
of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained,
although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow
the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature
and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. . . . In construing statutes
the proper course is to start out and follow the trite intent of the legislature and to adopt
that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the
apparent policy and objects of the legislature.1 (emphasis supplied.)

It goes without saying that, as an instrument of social justice, the law must favor the weak and the
disadvantaged, including, in this instance, small lot buyers and aspiring homeowners. P.D. 957 was
enacted with no other end in view than to provide a protective mantle over helpless citizens who
may fall prey to the manipulations and machinations of "unscrupulous subdivision and
condominium sellers", and such intent is nowhere expressed more clearly than in its preamble,
pertinent portions of which read as follows:

WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State to afford its inhabitants the requirements of decent
human settlement and to provide them with ample opportunities for improving their
quality of life;

WHEREAS, numerous reports reveal that many real estate subdivision owners, developers,
operators, and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide
and maintain properly subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage, water systems, lighting
systems, and other similar basic requirements, thus endangering the health and safety of
home and lot buyers;

WHEREAS, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and
operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and
encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots
to different innocent purchasers for value;2 (emphasis supplied.)

From a dedicated reading of the preamble, it is manifest and unarguable that the legislative intent
must have been to remedy the alarming situation by having P.D. 957 operate retrospectively even
upon contracts already in existence at the time of its enactment. Indeed, a strictly prospective
application of the statute will effectively emasculate it, for then the State will not be able to
exercise its regulatory functions and curb fraudulent schemes and practices perpetrated under or
in connection with those contracts and transactions which happen to have been entered into prior
to P.D. 957, despite obvious prejudice to the very subdivision lot buyers sought to be protected by
said law. It is hardly conceivable that the legislative authority intended to permit such a loophole
to remain and continue to be a source of misery for subdivision lot buyers well into the future.

Adding force to the arguments for the retroactivity of P.D. 957 as a whole are certain of its
provisions, viz., Sections 20, 21 and 23 thereof, which by their very terms have retroactive effect
and will impact upon even those contracts and transactions entered into prior to P.D. 957's
enactment:

Page 11 of 13
 Sec. 20. Time of Completion. — Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the
facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development, including water
supply and lighting facilities, which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision
or condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of
advertisement, within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the
subdivision or condominium project or such other period of time as may be fixed by the
Authority.

Sec. 21. Sales Prior to Decree. — In cases of subdivision lots or condominium units sold or
disposed of prior to the effectivity of this Decree, it shall be incumbent upon the owner or
developer of the subdivision or condominium project to complete compliance with his or its
obligations as provided in the preceding section within two years from the date of this
Decree unless otherwise extended by the Authority or unless an adequate performance
bond is filed in accordance with Section 6 hereof.

Failure of the owner or, developer to comply with the obligations under this and the
preceding provisions shall constitute a violation punishable under Section 38 and 39 of this
Decree.

Sec. 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. — No installment payment made by a buyer in a

subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be
forfeited in favor of the owner or developer, when the buyer, after due notice to the owner
or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to
develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and
within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be
reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but excluding
delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate. (emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, as argued by the respondent Executive Secretary, the application of P.D. 957
to the contracts in question will be consistent with paragraph 4 of the contracts themselves, which
expressly provides:

(4) The party of the First Part hereby binds himself to subdivide, develop and improve the
entire area covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 168119 of which the parcels of lands
subject of this contract is a part in accordance with the provisions of Quezon City
Ordinance No. 6561, S-66 and the Party of the First Part further binds himself to comply
with and abide by all laws, rules and regulations respecting the subdivision and
development of lots for residential purposes as may be presently in force or may hereafter
be required by laws passed by the Congress of the Philippines or required by regulations of
the Bureau of Lands, the General Registration Office and other government
agencies. (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, as P.D. 957 is undeniably applicable to the contracts in question, it follows that Section
23 thereof had been properly invoked by private respondent when he desisted from making
further payment to petitioner due to petitioner's failure to develop the subdivision project
according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. (Such
incomplete development of the subdivision and non-performance of specific contractual and
statutory obligations on the part of the subdivision-owner had been established in the findings of
the HLURB which in turn were confirmed by the respondent Executive Secretary in his assailed
Decision.) Furthermore, respondent Executive Secretary also gave due weight to the following
matters: although private respondent started to default on amortization payments beginning May

Page 12 of 13
1975, so that by the end of July 1975 he had already incurred three consecutive arrearages in
payments, nevertheless, the petitioner, who had the cancellation option available to him under the
contract, did not exercise or utilize the same in timely fashion but delayed until May 1979 when he
finally made up his mind to cancel the contracts. But by that time the land purchase agreements
had already been overtaken by the provisions of P.D. 957, promulgated on July 12, 1976. (In any
event, as pointed out by respondent HLURB and seconded by the Solicitor General, the defaults in
amortization payments incurred by private respondent had been effectively condoned by the
petitioner, by reason of the latter's tolerance of the defaults for a long period of time.)

Likewise, there is no merit in petitioner's contention that respondent Secretary exceeded his
jurisdiction in ordering the refund of private respondent's payments on Lot 12 although (according
to petitioner) only Lot 13 was the subject of the complaint. Respondent Secretary duly noted that
the supporting documents submitted substantiating the claim of non-development justified such
order inasmuch as such claim was also the basis for non-payment of amortizations on said Lot 12.

Finally, since petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the (Executive Secretary's) Decision dated
March 10, 1992 was filed only on the 21st day from receipt thereof, said decision had become final
and executory, pursuant to Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 dated February 12, 1987, which
provides that "(d)ecisions/ resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as
otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from
receipt of a copy thereof . . . , unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such
period."

WHEREFORE, there being no showing of grave abuse of discretion, the petition is DENIED due
course and is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1
Vol. II, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, pp. 693-695.

2
Preamble, Presidential Decree No. 957.

Page 13 of 13