C.

CONTEMPORAR
Y
CONSTRUCTION
GROUP 3
3.33. CONTEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
 Known as “practical construction”
 These are constructions placed upon statutes at the time of, or after, their enactment by
the executive, legislature, or judicial authorities, as well as by those who are involve in the
process of legislation.
 Contemporanea exposition est optima et fortissimo in lege

THREE TYPES OF EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATIONS

1. Construction by an executive or administrative officer directly called to implement the
law.
2. Construction by the Secretary of Justice
3. Interpretation handed down in and adversary proceeding in the form of a ruling
3.35. WEIGHT ACCORDED TO
CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
• Where there is doubt as to the proper interpretation of a statute, the uniform
construction placed upon it by the executive or administrative officer charged with its
enforcement will be adopted if necessary to resolve the doubt.

• True expression of the legislative purpose, especially if the construction is followed

for a considerable period of time.

• In the absence of error or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of

discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative
enactment creating or charging a governmental agency.
3.35. WEIGHT ACCORDED TO
CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
Reasons for why interpretation of an administrative agency is
generally accorded great respect
 Emergence of multifarious needs of a modernizing society.
 Also relates to experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative agency.

 They have the competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and

the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret.
3.35. WEIGHT ACCORDED TO
CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
Philippine Sugar Central v. Collector of Customs

 The question raised in this case whether the government can legally collect duties “as a charge

for wharfage” required by a statute upon all articles exported through privately-owned wharves.

 The law in question can be repealed or changed at any time by the legislature.

 The court reasoned in the affirmative by saying “the language of the Act could have been made

more specific and certain, but in view of its history, its long continuous construction, and what
has been done and accomplished by and under it, we are clearly of the opinion that the
government is entitled to have and receive the money in question, even though the sugar was
shipped from a private wharf.
3.35. WEIGHT ACCORDED TO
CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION
1973 Constitution
 Ministers or heads of executive ministries or departments

are also members of Batasang Pambansa.

 The that contemporaneous construction is entitled to great

weight and respect.

3.36. WEIGHT ACCORDED TO
USAGE AND PRACTICE
 Common usage and practice under the statute, or a course of
conduct indicating a particular undertaking of it, especially where
the usage has been acquiesced in by all the parties concerned and
has extended over a long period of time.
 Optimus interpres rerum usus– the best interpretation of the law is
usage.
 Manila Jockey Club v. Games and Amusement Board [G.R. No. L-
12727. February 29, 1960.]
3.37. CONSTRUCTION OF
RULES AND REGULATIONS
 Executive or administrations officers
3.37. CONSTRUCTION OF
RULES AND REGULATIONS
 Rule making power
 Authorities sustain the principle that the interpretations by those charged with their enforcement is
entitled to great weight by the court in the latter’s construction of such rules and regulations.
 Administrative Agency
 Power to interpret its own rule and such interpretation becomes part of the rules.
3.38. REASONS WHY
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
IS GIVEN MUCH WEIGHT
 It comes from the particular branch of government called upon to implement the law thus
construed.
 Executive officials are presumed to be familiar with all the considerations pertinent to the
meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed competent expert opinion thereon.
 The respect due to the government agency or officials charged with the implementation of the
law.
 People will go on living and transactions will be concluded under the statute.
3.39. WHEN CONTEMPORANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION IS DISREGARDED
 Statute is neither controlling or binding upon the court
 The court may disregard contemporaneous construction when;
(a) There is no ambiguity in the law,
(b) The construction is clearly erroneous,
(c) The strong reason to the contrary exists,
(d) When the court has previously given a statute a different interpretation.
 3.40. ERRONEOUS
CONTEMPORANEOUS DOES NOT
PRECLUDE CORRECTION NOR
CREATE
 Erroneous RIGHTS;
contemporaneous
exemptions.
EXEMPTIONS.
does not preclude correction nor create rights;

 If through misapprehension of the an executive or administrative officer called upon

to implement it has erroneously applied and executed it, the error may be corrected
when the true construction is ascertained. The doctrine of estoppel does not preclude
correction of the erroneous construction of the officers himself , by his successor in
office , or by the court in an appropriate case.
 As a rule , an erroneous contemporaneous construction creates no vested right on the
part of those who relied upon , and followed ,such construction. A vested right may
not arise from wrong interpretation of a law by an administrative or executives officer
whose primary duty is to enforce and not to construe, the law.
3.40. ERRONEOUS
CONTEMPORANEOUS DOES NOT
PRECLUDE CORRECTION NOR
CREATE
The rule not absolute, RIGHTS;
but admits exceptions in EXEMPTIONS.
the interest of justice and fair play. This is
particularly true in tax cases where the interpretative circular addressed to internal revenue
officers. By the commissioners of Intern Revenue is rendered necessary because the tax statute
to be enforced is not too plain and simple to understand and where in reliance on such circular.

 A taxpayer faithfully complied with the obligation of paying the tax required by it in such
case, the taxpayer may not be required to pay additional tax during the period that said circular
hard not been rescinded by a subsequent circular collecting the erroneous interpretation for the
while as a rule the government is never estopped from collecting taxes because of mistake or
error on the part of its agents, the principles of justice and good faith dictate and operate to
create exceptions.
3.41. LEGISLATIVE
INTERPRETATION
 Legislative may provide in the statute itself an interpretative or declaratory clause.
 It may define the terms used in the statute
 It may enact a declaratory act construing a previous law
 It may pass a resolution indicating its sense or intention as to a given statute.

Contemporaneous construction of the law by two departments of the government:

-Legislative branch – enactment
-Executive branch – enforcement
But, not controlling the judicial branch.
3.42. LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
 · Legislative is presumed to have full knowledge of a contemporaneous or
practical construction of a statute by an administrative or executive officer
charged with its enforcement.
 · The legislature may approve or ratify such contemporaneous construction.
 · May also be showmen by the legislature appropriating money for the officer
designated to perform a task pursuant to interpretation of a statute.
 · Legislative ratification is equivalent to a mandate.
3.43. REENACTMENT
 Most common act of approval.
 The re-enactment of a statute, previously given a contemporaneous construction is persuasive
indication of the adoption by the legislature of the prior construction.
 Re-enactment if accorded greater weight and respect than the contemporaneous construction
of the statute before its ratification.
3.44. STARE DECISIS
The legal Maxim ( Stare decisis et non quieta movere)
 Which requires that past decision of the court be followed in the adujudication of cases is known as stare decisis
et non quieta movere.

Supreme court
 Applying or interpreting statue.
 Forms parts of the statue
 Construction of a law
 Constitutional duty
 Ruling of the supreme court
 Only the supreme court itself

1. decision all
3.44. STARE DECISIS
 Court in tung chin hui v, Rodriguez, G.R No. 137571 [ September 21, 2001], further explained
when stare decisis is applicable follows:
 Petitioner insist, however, that the “application of section 18, rule 41 under the revised
rules of court must be maintained under the doctrine of stare decisis. “Thus, he urges the court
to apply precedents that held that the 48-hour period he specifically cites saulo v. Cruz, Garcia
v. Echiverrim, and Elepante v. Madayag.
 1997 Revised Rules Court