Statutory Construction

PRESUMPTION IN AID OF
CONSTRUCTION AND
INTERPRETATION
PRESUMPTIONS
defined;
When the law is ambiguous, the courts shall construe
while presuming that it was the intention of the
lawmakers to enact a VALID, SENSIBLE, and JUST law.

Construction and Interpretation of Laws shall be in

harmony with this assumption whenever possible.

FIRST UP 2
CONSULTANTS
PRESUMPTION
AGAINST
INJUSTICE FIRST UP
CONSULTANTS 3
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
INJUSTICE
• We interpret and apply the law in consonance with
justice.
• Find a balance between the good and the will, so
that justice may be done even as the law is
obeyed.
• A law should not be interpreted to cause injustice

FIRST UP 4
CONSULTANTS
SALVACION VS.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.
FACTS:
• Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four counts of rape and serious
illegal detention against Karen Salvacion. Police recovered from him several dollar checks and
a dollar account in the China Banking Corp.
• On the day of the hearing of his petition for bail, he was able to escape from jail
• Pending his arrest the criminal cases were archived. Meanwhile, in the Civil Case against
Bartelli, the Judge granted the prayer of attachment and a notice of garnishment was served on
China Bank.
• China Bank invoked R.A. No. 1405 and later on, Section 113 Central Bank Circular No. 960 to
the effect that the dollar deposits of Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any
other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative
body whatsoever.
• The court has rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Petitioners tried to execute on
Bartelli’s dollar deposit with China Bank but the bank invoked the CB Circular. Thus,
petitioners decided to seek relief from this Court.

FIRST UP 5
CONSULTANTS
SALVACION VS.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.
ISSUE:
• Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426,
as amended by PD 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act be made
applicable to a foreign transient?
HELD:
• NO. The provisions of Section 113 are hereby held to be INAPPLICABLE to this case because
of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents are hereby required to comply with the writ of
execution issued in the civil case and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in
such amount as would satisfy the judgment.
• Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable judgment and award of
damages that Salvacion and her parents fully deserve. It then proceeded to show that the
economic basis for the enactment of RA No. 6426 is not anymore present; and even if it still
exists, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being
unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the law may be good when enacted. The law
failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the
case before us.
FIRST UP 6
CONSULTANTS
PRESUMPTION
AGAINST
IMPLIED
REPEALS FIRST UP
CONSULTANTS 7
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
IMPLIED REPEALS
Repeal
- two laws must be absolutely incompatible.
Art. 7. 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.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution. (5a)
FIRST UP 8
CONSULTANTS
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
IMPLIED REPEALS

Kinds of Repeals:
• Express Repeal – repeal contained in a
special provision of a subsequent law.
• Implied Repeal – provisions of a subsequent
law are incompatible to an earlier law and
there is no express repeal.

FIRST UP 9
CONSULTANTS
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
IMPLIED REPEALS

In absence of an EXPRESS repeal, a

subsequent law cannot be construed as
repealing a prior law unless an
irreconcilable inconsistency and
repugnancy exists in the terms of the new
and old laws.

FIRST UP 10
CONSULTANTS
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
IMPLIED REPEALS
Interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus
interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so
interpreted and brought into accord with other laws
as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence

The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to

have known the existing laws on the subject and not have
enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must be
resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be
exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the
subject
FIRST UP 11
CONSULTANTS
ALONZO VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
AND PADUA (G.R. NO. L-72873. MAY 28, 1987)
FACTS:
• Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in
‘the name of their deceased parents. . One of them transferred his undivided share by way of
absolute sale.
• A year later, his sister sold her share in a “Con Pacto de Retro Sale”. By virtue of such
agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths of
the said lot, representing the portions sold to them.
• The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence. with their consent, their son
Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed area.
• One of the five coheirs sought to redeem the area sold to petitioners but was dismissed when it
appeared that he was an American citizen. Another coheir filed her own complaint invoking
the same right of redemption of her brother.
• Trial court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the right had lapsed, not having been
exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales. Although there was no written notice, it
was held that actual knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law.
Respondent court reversed the decision of the Trial Court.
FIRST UP 12
CONSULTANTS
ALONZO VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
AND PADUA (G.R. NO. L-72873. MAY 28, 1987)
ISSUE:
• Whether or not actual knowledge satisfied the requirement of Art. 1088 of the New Civil Code.
HELD:
• YES. Decision of respondent court was reversed and that of trial court reinstated.
• The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing
was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended during
the 14 years between the sales in question and the filing of the complaint for redemption in
1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption. These are the justifications for
this exception.
• While [courts] may not read into the law a purpose that is not there, [courts] nevertheless have
the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In doing so, [courts] defer not to “the
letter that killeth” but to “the spirit that vivifieth,” to give effect to the law maker’s will.

FIRST UP 13
CONSULTANTS