Statutory Construction it is the various methods and tests used by the courts for determining the meaning of law.

I. General Principles in defining Statutory Construction

Whether the promotional scheme is a lottery or a gift that violates the provisions of the Postal Law (Caltex v. Palomar)
n the case at bar! there is no re"uirement in the rules that any fee be paid! any merchandise be bought! any service be
rendered! or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to participate. #he scheme is merely a gratuitous
distribution of property by chance which does not violate the provisions of the Postal Law. Construction is used where
there is rendered doubtful! amongst others! by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the
law. $ence! the Court is tas%ed to loo% beyond the fair exterior! to the substance! in order to unmas% the real element
and pernicious tendencies that the law is see%ing to prevent.
What is Statutory Construction?
t is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and the intention of the authors of the law with
respect to its application to a given case! where that intention is rendered doubtful! amongst others! by reason of the fact
that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law. (Caltex v. Palomar)

When does &tatcon come in'
#he first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inade"uate without them.
Construction v. Interpretation
nterpretation is the act of finding the true sense and meaning of words( does not get outside of the context
of the statutes
Construction is the drawing of conclusions respecting sub)ects that lie beyond the direct expression of the
text( has to go outside the language of statute and see% help of extrinsic aids.
Object/purpose
#o ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent
Situs- *udiciary +,-C#./0 -1 &0P2.2#-/ -1 P-W0.&+
Requisites
1. 2ctual controversy
2. #he law is ambiguous
2 statute is A!I"#O#S if it is admissible of two or more possible meanings (2bello v. C.)
When is it construction an$ %hen is it ju$icia& &e'is&ation?
,-C#./0 -1 &0P2.2#-/ -1 P-W0.&+
Pursuant to 2rticle 3 of the Civil Code which provides that4 5/o )udge or court shall decline to
render )udgment by reason of the silence! obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.6
#o declare what the law shall be is a legislative power! but to declare what the law is or has been! is
)udicial. $owever! the court 5do and must legislate6 to fill in the gaps in the law. #he Court decided
to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of the existing law and )urisprudence. (1loresca v. Philex
7ining)
Silverio v. Republic( the lower court erred in ruling in favor of &ilverio for the change of his8her. &exual
reassignment is not a ground for change of name or correction of entry(gender from male to female) in
CL9. #his tantamount to )udicial legislation which is a clear encroachment of powers of legislature.
Rural Bank of San Miguel v. Monetary Board( the word report has a definite meaning! different from
examination. #he court cannot give meanings to words if it is clear.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
1
Reyes v. Lim .eyes contended that deposit of the amount in court is not included in the .ules of Court.
$ere! the court made a )udicial legislation for the sa%e of e"uity and fairness since .eyes sold the land to
another and at the same time still has the right to demand from Lim.
Republic v. !rbecido( -rbecido learned that his wife divorced him after the latter was naturali:ed as ;&
citi:en. #he court expanded the meaning of 2rt. <=. it does not only apply to a foreign spouse but also by
subse"uent divorce of a 1ilipino who was naturali:ed.
Stare decisis is a legal principle by which )udges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior
decisions. #he words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non
"uieta movere4 >to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.>
2rticle ? of the Civil Code is about the decisions made by the &;P.070 C-;.# in interpreting and
applying the constitution and8or statutes shall form a part of our legal system.
#ing vs. $ele%#ing C2 did not commit error in /-# 2PPL@/A 7olina case since this case was filed
several years before the 7olina doctrine! though the latter was decided first before this case.
#he application of the doctrine of stare decisis from a superior court to an inferior court is sometimes called
vertical stare decisis.
When the &;P.070 court binds itself! this application of the doctrine of precedent is sometimes called
&ori%ontal stare decisis
Constitutional Stare 'ecisis pertains to )udicial interpretation of constitution while Statutory Stare 'ecisis
involves interpretation of statutes.
'e Castro vs. (BC( this is the controversial case involving 7idnight appointment of the C*. t is held that
stare decisis will not apply (a case was decided that the appointment of )udges in .#C by the President is
void) because this is a collegial court and not a court deciding cases by only one )udge.
PGBI vs. C!M)L)C the court can abandon a ruling(precedent8stare decisis) if a case was erroneously
decided. .2 B3CD dis"ualifies those who failed to participate in the last < elections -. to garner at least <E
in the last < elections. #his is dis)unctive and not con)uctive. 7inero ruling was abandoned in this case.
D. #ung C&in *ui vs. Rodrigue% ( the counsel for the petitioner is wrong in saying that the respondent
failed to appeal within the reglementary period as provided for by the existing
)urisprudence(precedents)F simply because the precedent will cease to exist if the law on which it
settled was abolished. n this case! there was a new .ules of Court of D33B which extends the period
of filing appealF the counsel cannot apply pre(D33B rules or )urisprudence.
II STATUTES
"enera& (a% (( is one that affects the community at large. 2 law that relates to a sub)ect of a general nature!
or that affects all people of the state or all of a particular class.
Specia& (a% (( is one which is different from others of the same general %ind! designed for a particular
purpose! limited in range! or confined to a prescribed field of action on operation.
(oca& (a%s (( are those which relates or operates over a particular locality.
)ub&ic (a%s (( consist of constitutional! administrative! criminal and international law! concerned with the
organi:ation of the &tate! the relations between the people and the state! the responsibilities of public
officers to the state! and the relations of states with one another.
)rivate (a%s (( are those which defines! regulates! enforces! and administers relationships among
individuals! associations and corporations.
Re*e$ia& Statutes (( are those which refer to the method of enforcing rights or of obtaining redress of their
invasion. t can be made to applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
2
Curative Statutes (( are those which underta%e to cure errors and irregularities! thereby validating )udicial
or administrative proceedings! acts of public officers! or private deeds and contracts which otherwise would
not produce their intended conse"uences by reason of some statutory disability or failure to comply with
some technical re"uirement. #hey operate on conditions already existing! and are necessarily retroactive in
operation.
G<H
Curative statutes are >healing acts x x x curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing
existing obligations x x x (and) are intended to supply defects! abridge superfluities in existing laws! and
curb certain evils x x x 9y their very nature! curative statutes are retroactive x x x (and) reach bac% to past
events to correct errors or irregularities and to render valid and effective attempted acts which would be
otherwise ineffective for the purpose the parties intended.
GIH
>
)ena& Statutes (( are those which defines criminal offenses and specify corresponding fines and
punishments. t is enacted to preserve the public order! which defines an offense against the public and
inflicts a penalty for its violation.
)rospective (a%s (( are those which applies only to acts or omissions committed after its enactment.
Retrospective (a%s (( are those which loo% bac%wards or contemplates the past. Laws which are made
to affect acts or facts occurring! or rights occurring! before it came into force.
A++ir*ative Statutes (( are those couched in affirmative or mandatory terms. -ne which directs the
doing of an act! or declares what should be done.
an$atory Statutes (( are those which re"uire! and not merely permit! a course of action.
6.period of effectivity
a.permanent
b.temporary
7.stage of enactment
a.original
b.amendatory
c.repealng
d.re-enacted
PARTS ! STATUTE
". Title -- T#e title of t#e stat$te is t#e #eading on t#e preliminary part% f$rnis#ing t#e name by &#ic# t#e act is
individ$ally 'no&n.
(. Preamble -- T#at part of t#e stat$te e)plaining t#e reasons for its enactment and t#e ob*ects so$g#t to be
accomplis#ed.
+. Enacting Clause -- T#at part of t#e stat$te &#ic# declares its enactment and serves to identify it is an act of
legislation proceeding from t#e proper legislative a$t#ority.
,. Body -- T#e main and operative part of t#e stat$te containing its s$bstantive and even proced$ral provisions.
Provisos and e)emptions may also be fo$nd in t#e body of t#e stat$te.
-. Repealing Clause -- T#at part of t#e stat$te &#ic# anno$nces t#e prior stat$tes or specific provisions &#ic#
#ave been abrogated by reason of t#e ne& la&.
6. Saving Clause -- a restriction in a repealing act% &#ic# is intended to save rig#ts% pending proceedings%
penalties% etc.% from t#e anni#ilation &#ic# &o$ld res$lt from an $nrestricted repeal.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
3
7. Separability Clause -- T#at part of t#e stat$te &#ic# provides t#at in t#e event t#at one or more provisions
are declared void or $nconstit$tional% t#e remaining provisions s#all still be in force and effect.
.. Effectivity Clause -- T#at part of t#e Stat$te &#ic# anno$nces t#e effective date of t#e la&.
$-W &#2#;#0& 2.0 0/2C#0,''
D. P.0P2.2#-/ -1 #$0 9LL
#he 7ember or the 9ill ,rafting ,ivision of the .eference and .esearch 9ureau prepares and drafts the bill
upon the 7emberJs re"uest.
<. 1.&# .02,/A
D. #he bill is filed with the 9ills and ndex &ervice and the same is numbered and reproduced.
<. #hree days after its filing! the same is included in the -rder of 9usiness for 1irst .eading.
I. -n 1irst .eading! the &ecretary Aeneral reads the title and number of the bill. #he &pea%er refers the
bill to the appropriate Committee8s.
I. C-77##00 C-/&,0.2#-/82C#-/
D. #he Committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it to determine the necessity of conducting
public hearings.
f the Committee finds it necessary to conduct public hearings! it schedules the time thereof! issues
public notics and invites resource persons from the public and private sectors! the academe and
experts on the proposed legislation.
f the Committee finds that no public hearing is not needed! it schedules the bill for Committee
discussion8s.
<. 9ased on the result of the public hearings or Committee discussions! the Committee may introduce
amendments! consolidate bills on the same sub)ect matter! or propose a subsitute bill. t then
prepares the corresponding committee report.
I. #he Committee approves the Committee .eport and formally transmits the same to the Plenary
2ffairs 9ureau.
C. &0C-/, .02,/A
D. #he Committee .eport is registered and numbered by the 9ills and ndex &ervice. t is included in
the -rder of 9usiness and referred to the Committee on .ules.
<. #he Committee on .ules schedules the bill for consideration on &econd .eading.
I. -n &econd .eading! the &ecretary Aeneral reads the number! title and text of the bill and the
following ta%es place4
a. Period of &ponsorship and ,ebate
b. Period of 2mendments
c. Koting which may be by4
i. viva voce
ii. count by tellers
iii. division of the $ouseF or
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
4
iv. nominal voting
L. #$., .02,/A
D. #he amendments! if any! are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are reproduced for #hird
.eading.
<. #he engrossed bill is included in the Calendar of 9ills for #hird .eading and copies of the same are
distributed to all the 7embers three days before its #hird .eading.
I. -n #hird .eading! the &ecretary Aeneral reads only the number and title of the bill.
C. 2 roll call or nominal voting is called and a 7ember! if he desires! is given three minutes to explain
his vote. /o amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage.
a. #he bill is approved by an affirmative vote of a ma)ority of the 7embers present.
b. f the bill is disapproved! the same is transmitted to the 2rchives.
=. #.2/&7##2L -1 #$0 2PP.-K0, 9LL #- #$0 &0/2#0
#he approved bill is transmitted to the &enate for its concurrence.
B. &0/2#0 2C#-/ -/ 2PP.-K0, 9LL -1 #$0 $-;&0
#he bill undergoes the same legislative process in the &enate.
?. C-/10.0/C0 C-77##00
D. 2 Conference Committee is constituted and is composed of 7embers from each $ouse of Congress
to settle! reconcile or thresh out differences or disagreements on any provision of the bill.
<. #he conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may introduce new
provisions germane to the sub)ect matter or may report out an entirely new bill on the sub)ect.
I. #he Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the Chairman.
C. #he Conference Committee .eport is submitted for consideration8approval of both $ouses. /o
amendment is allowed.
3. #.2/&7##2L -1 #$0 9LL #- #$0 P.0&,0/#
Copies of the bill! signed by the &enate President and the &pea%er of the $ouse of .epresentatives and
certified by both the &ecretary of the &enate and the &ecretary Aeneral of the $ouse! are transmitted to the
President.
DM. P.0&,0/#2L 2C#-/ -/ #$0 9LL
D. f the bill is approved the President! the same is assigned an .2 number and transmitted to the
$ouse where it originated.
<. f the bill is vetoed! the same! together with a message citing the reason for the veto! is transmitted to
the $ouse where the bill originated.
DD. 2C#-/ -/ 2PP.-K0, 9LL
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
5
#he bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the -fficial Aasette -ffice for publication and distribution to
the implementing agencies. t is then included in the annual compilation of 2cts and .esolutions.
D<. 2C#-/ -/ K0#-0, 9LL
#he message is included in the -rder of 9usiness. f the Congress decides to override the veto! the $ouse
and the &enate shall proceed separately to reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. f the bill or its
vetoed items is passed by a vote of two(thirds of the 7embers of each $ouse! such bill or items shall
become a law.
,O-./ 2 )oint resolution having the force and effect of a law goes through the same process.
NN#he plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language
of the statute! unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. n other words! the law is to be read
word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning. $owever! literal interpretations of statutes can
lead to logically deduce absurdities! and the ,octrine of 2bsurdity is that commonsense interpretations should be
used in such cases! rather than literal reading of a law or of original intent.
Mischief rule determines the >mischief and defect> that the statute in "uestion has set out to remedy! and what
ruling would effectively implement this remedy. n applying the rule! the court is essentially as%ing the "uestion4
what was the >mischief> that the previous law did not cover. 7ischief .ule is of narrower application! only when
the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the common law.
#he golden rule allows a )udge to depart from a wordJs normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.
L/A;&#C C2/-/& -1 /#0.P.0#2#-/( Linguistic! or language! canons articulate generally accepted
language rules that are based upon well(recogni:ed principles of grammar! syntax and word usage.
Presumptively! these rules do not favor or advance any particular )udicial policy or philosophical approach to
statutory construction.
)aras v. Co*e&ec
Is S+ to be considered a regular local election in a recall proceeding,
#he sub)ect provision of the Local Aovernment Code! &ec. BC Paragraph (b) provides that 5/o recall shall ta%e
place within one year from the date of the officialOs assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a
regular local election6. $ence! t is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be
interpreted with reference to the context. n the present case! the &angguniang Pabataan elections cannot be
considered a regular election! as this would render inutile the recall provision of the Local Aovernment Code. t
would be more in %eeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to construe regular local election as
one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be
contested and be filled by the electorate.
Who&e Act Ru&e- when construing a statute! the text of the entire statute as a -&ole must be considered.
.jus$e* generis(when a general word follows a list of specific words in a statute! the meaning of the
general word is to be limited to the same class or category of words as those that are specifically listed. .ule
of e)usdem generis merely a tool of statutory construction resorted to when legislative intent is uncertain.
E0pressio unius est e0c&usio a&terius( #his canon states simply that the affirmative expression of one thing
in a statute by implication also constitutes the exclusion of other things (not stated). 0xcept(When there is
manifest of in)ustice QWhen there is no reason for exception.
Casus o*issus pro omisso habendus est(2 person! ob)ect! or thing omitted from an enumeration in a statute must be
held to have been omitted intentionally.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
6
(ast antece$ent( when a statute lists a series of general words followed by words of limitation! the limiting
words are applicable only to the >last antecedent> word on the list.
Re$$en$o sin'u&a sin'u&is (.efers only to the last) (When a list of words has a modifiying phrase at the
end! the phrase refers only to the last.
Sha&&1 *ust1 ou'ht- t is basic legal construction that where words of command such as 5shall!6 5must!6 or
5ought6 are employed! they are generally and ordinarily regarded as mandatory. #he word 5must6 in a
statute li%e 5shall6 is not always imperative and may be consistent with an exercise discretion.
Mirasol vs. C.( #he purpose of the mandatory notice in .ule =C! &ection I is to enable the &olicitor Aeneral
to decide whether or not his intervention in the action assailing the validity of a law or treaty is necessary.
#o deny the &olicitor Aeneral such notice would be tantamount to depriving him of his day in court.
ay- in the statute generally connotes a permissible thing! and operates to confer discretion.
Or(is a dis)unctive particle used to express as alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more
things. t is also used to clarify what has already been said! and in such cases! means 5in other words!6 5to
wit!6 or 5that is to say.6
An$( means con)unction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added or
ta%en along with the first.
An$/or- reference can be use interchangeably.
2&&-C2#0, W-.,& (,OSCI-#R ASOCIIS)(Where a particular word is e"ually 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.
)R.S#)-IO,S
n construing a doubtful or ambiguous statute! the Courts will presume that it was the intention of the
legislature to enact a valid! sensible and )ust law! and one which should change the prior law no further than
may be necessary to effectuate the specific purpose of the act in "uestion.
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# ;/C-/&##;#-/2L#@
Laws are presumed constitutional. #o )ustify nullification of law! there must be a clear and une"uivocal
breach of the constitution.
#he theory is that! as the )oint act of the legislative and executive authorities! a law is supposed to have been
carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted.
2ll laws are presumed valid and constitutional until or unless otherwise ruled by the Court.
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# /*;&#C0
#he law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause in)ustice as this never within the legislative
intent.
We interpret and apply the law in consonance with )ustice.
*udges do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it is worded! yielding li%e robots to the literal
command without regard to its cause and conse"uence.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
7
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# 7PL0, .0P02L&
#he two laws must be absolutely incompatible! and clear finding thereof must surface! before the inference
of implied repeal may be drawn.
n the absence of an express repeal! a subse"uent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless an
irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in terms of the new and old laws.
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# /0110C#K0/0&&
n the interpretation of a statute! the Court should start with the assumption that the legislature intended to
enact an effective statute.
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# 29&;.,#@
&tatutes must receive a sensible construction such as will give effect to the legislative intention so as to
avoid an un)ust and absurd conclusion.
Presumption against undesirable conse"uences were never intended by a legislative measure.
P.0&;7P#-/ 2A2/&# K-L2#-/ -1 /#0./2#-/2L L2W
Philippines as democratic and republican state adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace! e"uality! )ustice! freedom! cooperation! and
amity with all nations. (2rt. ! &ec. <! Phil. Constitution).
#he term 5intrinsic6 means internal or within. Intrinsic ai$s! therefore! are those aids within the statute.
Nntrinsic aids are resorted to only if there is ambiguity. n resorting to intrinsic aids! one must go bac% to
the parts of the statute4 the title! the preamble! context or body! chapter and section headings! punctuation!
and interpretation.
#he intent of the law as culled from its prea*b&e and from the situation! circumstances and conditions it
sought to remedy! must be enforced.
)rea*b&e used as a guide in determining the intent of the lawma%er.
existing aids are from outside sources! meaning outside of the four corners of the statute. f there is any
doubt as to the meaning of the statute! the interpreter must first find that out within the statute.
N0xtrinsic aids therefore are resorted to after exhausting all the available intrinsic aids and still there remain
some ambiguity in the statute.
0xtrinsic aids resorted to by the courts are history of the enactment of the statuteF opinions and rulings of
officials of the government called upon to execute or implement administrative lawsF contemporaneous
construction by executive officersF actual proceedings of the legislative bodyF individual statements by
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
8
members of congressF and the author of the law.
-ther sources of extrinsic aids can be the reports and recommendations of legislative committeesF public
policyF )udicial constructionF and construction by the bar.
t is a well(accepted principle that where a statute is ambiguous! courts may examine both the printed pages
of the published 2ct as well as those extrinsic matters that may aid in construing the meaning of the statute!
such as the history of its enactment! the reasons of the passage of the bill and purposes to be accomplished
by the measure.
Nndividual statements by members of Congress on the floor do not necessarily reflect legislative intent.
Re*e$ia& (a%s8.ule of court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their ob)ective of securing a
)ust! speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding
)ena& &a%s are to be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the accused. $ence! in the
interpretation of a penal statute! the tendency is to sub)ect it to careful scrutiny and to construe it with such
strictness as to safeguard the right of the accused.
f the statute is ambiguous and admits of two reasonable but contradictory constructions! that which operates
in favor of a party accused under its provisions is to be preferred.
-a0 statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer! for
taxes! being burdens! are not to be presumed beyond what the applicable statute expressly and clearly
declares.
2ny claim for exemption from a tax statute is strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of
the state.
Serefino v. C. (#he Court assailed decision of the appellate court declares that the prescribed procedure in
auction sales of property for tax delin"uency being in derogation of property rights should be followed
punctiliously. &trict adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperative not only for the protection of
the tax payers! but also to allay any possible suspicion of collusion between the buyer and the public
officials called upon to enforce such laws. /otice of sale to the delin"uent land owners and to the public in
general is an essential and indispensable re"uirement of law! the non(fulfillment of which vitiates the sale.
#he inability of the .egister of ,eeds to notify the actual owner or Lope: &ugar Central of the scheduled
public auction sale was partly due to the failure of Lope: &ugar Central to declare the land in its name for a
number of years and to pay the complete taxes thereon.
Contracts o+ Insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
#hus! ambiguity in the words of an insurance contract should be interpreted in favor of its beneficiary.
(A!OR A,2 SOCIA( (."IS(A-IO,S(,oubts in the interpretation of Wor%menOs Compensation and
Labor Code should be resolved in favor of the wor%er. t should be liberally construed to attain their
laudable ob)ective! i.e.! to give relief to the wor%man and8or his dependents in the event that the former
should die or sustain in an in)ury.
#he sympathy of the law on social security is towards its beneficiaries and the law by its own terms!
re"uires a construction of utmost liberality in their favor.
$illavert v. )CC (1rom the foregoing facts of record! it is clear that 7arcelino /. Killavert died of acute
hemorrhagic pancreatitis which was directly caused or at least aggravated by the duties he performed as
code verifier! computer operator and cler% typist of the Philippine Constabulary. 1urther! 2rticle C of the
Labor Code of the Philippines! as amended! provides that 5all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of this Code! including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of
labor.6
Retire*ent &a%s are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because the intention is to provide for the
retireeOs sustenance and comfort! when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
9
,A-#RA(I3A-IO, (AWS
Co v. Republic (Whether petitioner failed to comply with the re"uirements prescribed by law in order to
"ualify him to become a 1ilipino citi:en. Philippine law re"uires that an alien to conduct himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. n the present case! in so
stating that he believes merely in our laws! he did not necessarily refer to those principles embodied in our
constitution which are referred to in the lawF the belief in democracy or in a democratic form of government
is not sufficient to comply with the re"uirement of the law that one must believe in the principles underlying
our constitution. 1urther! petitioner failed to show that he has complied with his obligation to register his
wife and child with the 9ureau of mmigration as re"uired by the 2lien .egistration 2ctF and further failed
to file his income tax return.
.(.C-IO, R#(.S(&tatute providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the
will of the people in the choice of public officer may not be defeated by mere technical ob)ections.
.ule of court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their ob)ective of securing a )ust! speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
1. Archbishop o+ ani&a v. SSC
)/trinsic .ids
n this appeal from an order of the &ocial &ecurity Commission! we uphold the CommissionJs -rder
dismissing the petition before it! on the ground that in the absence of an express provision in the &ocial
&ecurity 2ctD vesting in the Commission the power to condone penalties! it has no legal authority to
condone! waive or relin"uish the penalty for late premium remittances mandatorily imposed under the
&ocial &ecurity 2ct.
When (itera& Construction is not 4avore$
0. Paras v. Comelec
Petitioner ,anilo 0. Paras is the incumbent Punong 9arangay of Pula! Cabanatuan City who won during the
last regular barangay election in D33C. 2 petition for his recall as Punong 9arangay was filed by the
registered voters of the barangay. 2cting on the petition for recall! public respondent Commission on
0lections (C-70L0C) resolved to approve the petition! scheduled the petition signing on -ctober DC!
D33L! and set the recall election on /ovember DI! D33L. PetitionerJs argument is simple and to the point.
Citing &ection BC (b) of .epublic 2ct /o. BD=M! otherwise %nown as the Local Aovernment Code! which
states that >no recall shall ta%e place within one (D) year from the date of the officialJs assumption to office
or one (D) year immediately preceding a regular local election>. t is li%ewise a basic precept in statutory
construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. #hus! the interpretation of
&ection BC of the Local Aovernment Code! specifically paragraph (b) thereof! should not be in conflict with
the Constitutional mandate of &ection I of 2rticle R of the Constitution to >enact a local government code
which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a
system of decentrali:ation with effective mechanism of recall! initiative! and referendum
What is the ru&e on e0ecutive construction?
0. P.1L2 v. Bureau of Labor Relations
#he court still and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by the executive
officers whose duty is to enforce it! and unless such interpretation is clearly erroneous will ordinarily be
controlled thereby.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
10
When is .0ecutive construction not 'iven %ei'ht?
0. P&il. .pparel 3orkers4 2nion v. 5LRC
#here was no grant of said increases yet! despite the contrary opinion expressed in the letter of the
;ndersecretary of Labor. t must be noted that the letter was based on a wrong premise or representation on
the part of the company. #he construction or explanation of Labor ;ndersecretary is not only wrong as it
was purely based on a misapprehension of facts! but also unlawful because it goes beyond the scope of the
law. #he &upreme Court set aside the decision of the commission! and ordered the company to pay! in
addition to the increased allowance provided for in P, DD<I.
2. I!AA .*p&oyees #nion v. Incion'
Whether the 7inistry of Labor is correct in determining that monthly paid employees are excluded from the
benefits of holiday pay. 1rom 2rticle 3< of the Labor Code! as amended by Presidential ,ecree ?LM! and
2rticle ?< of the same Code! it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of
holiday pay. &o long! as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law! they
are valid. Where an administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the 2ct!
the mandate of the 2ct must prevail and must be followed.
5. Chartere$ !an6 .*p&oyees7 #nion v. Op&e
Whether the 7inistry of Labor is correct in maintaining that monthly paid employees are not entitled to the
holiday pay nor all employees who rendered wor% during said legal holidays are entitled to the premium or
overtime pay differentials. When the language of the law is clear and une"uivocal the law must be ta%en to
mean exactly what it says. 2n administrative interpretation! which diminishes the benefits of labor more
than what the statute delimits or withholds! is obviously ultra vires. n the present case! the provisions of the
Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit! it provides for both the
coverage of and exclusion from the benefit.
2i++erence o+ a ru&e an$ an opinion?
1. 8ictorias i&&in' v. SSC
When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations! it Sma%esF a new law with the force and
effect of a valid law! while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy! it merely interprets
pre(existing law.
Chapter 8/ Subjects o+ Construction
*o- s&ould t&e Constitution be construed,
1. Sar*iento v. ison
#he fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the
organic law and of the people adopting it. #he intention to which force is to be given is that which is
embodied and expressed in the constitutional provisions themselves.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
11
2. )er+ecto v. eer
Whether the imposition of an income tax upon the salary of a member of the *udiciary amount to a
diminution thereof.! and thus violate the Constitution. #he D3IL Constitution provides in its 2rticle K!
&ection 3! that the members of the &upreme Court and all )udges of inferior courts 5shall receive such
compensation as may be fixed by law! which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office6.
5. .n$encia v. 2avi$
Whether the Legislature may lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a public official!
specially a )udicial officer! not a decrease of his salary! after the &upreme Court has found and decided
otherwise. #herefore! the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. 7eer to the effect that the collection
of income tax on the salary of a )udicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution! is
reiterated.
9. ,ita+an v. CIR
Whether the intention of the framers of the D3?B Constitution is to exempt )ustices and )udges from taxes as
it was in the D3IL Constitution. n the present case! &ection DM! 2rticle K is plain that the Constitution
authori:es Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of compensation of *ustices and *udges but such rate
must be higher than that which they are receiving at the time of enactment! or if lower! it would be
applicable only to those appointed after its approval. #he constitutional provision in "uestion until it was
finally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the D3?B Constitution! in
adopting it! was to ma%e the salaries of members of the *udiciary taxable.
May t&e preamble be referred to in t&e construction of Constitutional Provisions,
1. A'&ipay v. Rui:
.eligious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not
a denial of its influence in human affairs. When the 1ilipino people! in the preamble of their Constitution!
implored 5the aid of ,ivine Providence! in order to establish a government that shall embody their ideals!
conserve and develop the patrimony of the nation! promote the general welfare! and secure to themselves
and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of )ustice! liberty and democracy!6 they
thereby manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon $im who guides the
destinies of men and nations. #he elevating influence of religion in human society is recogni:ed here as
elsewhere. n the present case! the purpose of the issuing of the stamps was to ta%e advantage of an event
considered of international importance to give publicity to the Philippines and its people and attract more
tourists to the country.
.re t&e provisions of t&e Constitution selfe/ecuting,
1. ani&a )rince ;ote& v. "SIS
2 constitutional provision is self(executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability
imposed are fixed by the constitution itself! so that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms! and there is no language indicating that the sub)ect is referred to the legislature for
action. n self(executing constitutional provisions! the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
12
exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution! further the operation of such a provision! prescribe a
practice to be used for its enforcement! provide a convenient remedy for the protection of the rights secured
or the determination thereof! or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. $ence! unless
it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate! the
presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self(executing.
1. )ri*icias v. #r$aneta
#he general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier law. #he ordinanceOs validity should be
determined vis(a(vis .2 CDI=! the 5mother statute6 (not 2ct I33<)! which was in force at the time the
criminal case was brought against Primicias.
;o% are ta0 re+un$s construe$?
0. La Carlota Sugar Central v. (imene%
When the issue is whether or not the exemption from a tax imposed by law is applicable! the rule is that the
exempting provision is to be construed liberally in favor of the taxing authority and strictly against
exemption from tax liability! the result being that statutory provisions for the refund of taxes are strictly
construed in favor of the &tate and against the taxpayer. 0xempting from the DBE tax all fertili:ers imported
by planters or farmers through any agent other than their cooperatives! this would be rendering useless the
only exception expressly established in the case of fertili:ers imported by planters or farmers through their
cooperatives.
Who has the bur$en o+ proo+?
0. CIR v. C. 6 .teneo case
#he Commissioner erred in applying the principles of tax exemption without first applying the well(settled
doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes. he Court ruled that the private respondent is not a
contractor selling its services for a fee but an academic institution conducting these researches pursuant to
its commitments to education and! ultimately! to public service. 1or the institute to have tenaciously
continued operating for so long despite its accumulation of significant losses! we can only agree with both
the Court of #ax 2ppeals and the Court of 2ppeals that 5education and not profit is motive for underta%ing
the research pro)ects.
7. Mactan Cebu v. Marcos
7actan Cebu nternational 2irport 2uthority (7C22) is a 5taxable person6 under its Charter (.2 =3L?)!
and was only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. #he grant of the privilege only in respect of
this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to ma%e it a taxable person sub)ect to all taxes! except
real property tax. #herefore! 7C22 has to pay the assessed realty tax of its properties effective after
*anuary D! D33< until the present.
Ru&e on the construction o+ &abor &a%s
0. Mana&an v. )CC
#his Court applied the provisions of the Wor%menOs Compensation 2ct! as amended! on passing upon
petitionerOs claim. #he illness that claimed the life of the deceased may have its onset before DM ,ecember
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
13
D3BC! thus! his action accrued before DM ,ecember D3BC. &till! in any case! and in case of doubt! the same
should be resolved in favor of the wor%er! and that social legislations T li%e the Wor%menOs Compensation
2ct and the Labor Code T should be liberally construed to attain their laudable ob)ective! i.e.! to give relief
to the wor%man and8or his dependents in the event that the former should die or sustain an in)ury. Pursuant
to such doctrine and applying now the provisions of the Wor%menOs Compensation 2ct in this case! the
presumption of compensability subsists in favor of the claimant.
7. $illavert v. )CC
1rom the foregoing facts of record! it is clear that 7arcelino /. Killavert died of acute hemorrhagic
pancreatitis which was directly caused or at least aggravated by the duties he performed as code verifier!
computer operator and cler% typist of the Philippine Constabulary. 1urther! 2rticle C of the Labor Code of
the Philippines! as amended! provides that 5all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code!
including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.6
8. 'el Rosario 9 Sons v. 5LRC
2rticles DM= of the Labor Code provides that 5in the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay
the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code! the employer shall be )ointly and severally liable
with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the wor% performed under the
contract! in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him!6 and
2rticle DMB provides that 5the provisions of the immediately preceding 2rticle shall li%ewise apply to any
person! partnership! association or corporation which! not being an employer! contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any wor%! tas%! )ob or pro)ect.6 #he &upreme Court affirmed the )udgment
under review! without pre)udice to petitionerOs right to see% reimbursement from Calmar &ecurity 2gency
for such amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants.
Ru&e in the interpretation o+ insurance provisions
0. #y v. 1irst 5ational Surety
Whether ,iosdado #y is entitled to indemnity under the insurance policy for the disability of his left hand.
While the Court sympathi:es with the plaintiff or his employer! for whose benefit the policies were issued! it
can not go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies! all of which define partial
disability as loss of either hand by an amputation through the bones of the wrist.6 #here was no such
amputation in the case at bar.
7. 'e la Cru% v. Capital Insurance
0duardo de la Cru: was the holder of an accident insurance policy. 0duardo slipped and was hit by his
opponent on the left part of the bac% of the head! causing 0duardo to fall and death in a non(pro boxing
bout. Whether the death of the insured is covered by the policy. #he terms 5accident6 and 5accidental6 have
not ac"uired any technical meaning! and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common
acceptation. n the present case! while the participation of the insured in the boxing contest is voluntary! if
without the unintentional slipping of the deceased! perhaps he could not have received that blow in the head
and would not have died.
A*bi'uous provision interprete$ a'ainst insurer
0. :ua C&ee Gan v. La- 2nion Insurer
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
14
Whether gasoline may be construed as oil to warrant the forfeiture of claims under the insurance policy. 9y
reason of the exclusive control of the insurance company over the terms and phraseology of the contract! the
ambiguity must be held strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured! especially to avoid
forfeiture. #here is no reason why the prohibition of %eeping gasoline in the premises could not be
expressed clearly and unmista%ably! in the language and terms that the general public can readily
understand! without resort to obscure esoteric expression.
Ru&e in the interpretation corporate &a% provisions
0. *ome Insurance vs. )astern S&ipping Lines
Whether a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines initially without a license can claim
indemnity through Philippine Courts. #he ob)ective of the law was to sub)ect the foreign corporation to the
)urisdiction of our courts. #he 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. #he &upreme Court consolidated and granted the petitions!
reversed and set aside the C1 decisions. n L(ICI?< (Civil Case BD3<I)! 0astern &hipping Lines and 2ngel
*ose #ransportation nc. are ordered to pay the $ome nsurance Company.
,A-#RA(I3A-IO, (AWS
D. Co v. .epublic
Whether petitioner failed to comply with the re"uirements prescribed by law in order to "ualify him to
become a 1ilipino citi:en. Philippine law re"uires that an alien to conduct himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. n the present case! in so
stating that he believes merely in our laws! he did not necessarily refer to those principles embodied in our
constitution which are referred to in the lawF the belief in democracy or in a democratic form of government
is not sufficient to comply with the re"uirement of the law that one must believe in the principles underlying
our constitution. 1urther! petitioner failed to show that he has complied with his obligation to register his
wife and child with the 9ureau of mmigration as re"uired by the 2lien .egistration 2ctF and further failed
to file his income tax return.
<. Lee Cho v. .epublic
Whether petitioner was able to comply with the re"uirements for naturali:ation. #he provisions of the
/aturali:ation Law should be strictly construed in order that its laudable and nationalistic purpose may be
fully fulfilled. n the present case! the petitioner has not filed any declaration of intention to become a
1ilipino citi:en because! as he claims! he has resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of more
than IM years and has given primary and secondary education to all his children in private schools
recogni:ed by the government. #his circumstance betrays the sincerity of petitioner to become a 1ilipino
citi:en for if his motive were proper he should not have tolerated such deviation from the educational
re"uirement of the law. #he petitioner! thus! has failed to "ualify to become a 1ilipino citi:en.
A"RARIA, (AWS
D. Auerrero v. C2
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
15
Whether 9enite: is a tenant within the meaning of the tenancy law to warrant reinstatement to the
plantation. Longstanding possession is an essential distinction between a mere agricultural laborer and a real
tenant within the meaning of the tenancy law! a tenant being one who has the temporary use and occupation
of land or tenements belonging to another for the purpose of production. 2 hired laborer who built his own
house at his expense at the ris% of losing the same upon his dismissal or termination any time! is more
consistent with that of an agricultural tenant who en)oys security of tenure under the law. #he &upreme
Court dismissed the petition for lac% of merit! and affirmed the C2 decision.
R#(.S O4 CO#R-
D. 9ello v. C2
Whether the formal impleading of the Court of 1irst nstance is indispensable and the procedural infirmity
of misdirecting the appeal to Court of 1irst nstance are fatal to the appelleesO cause. #he construction of
statutes is always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator
and it is of the essence of )udicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a deplorable result (of
in)ustice or absurdity6 and therefore a literal interpretation is to be re)ected if it would be un)ust or lead to
absurd results. #hus! in the construction of its own .ules of Court! the Court is all the more so bound to
liberally construe them to avoid in)ustice! discrimination and unfairness and to supply the void by holding
that Courts of 1irst nstance are e"ually bound as the higher courts not to dismiss misdirected appeals timely
made but to certify them to the proper appellate court.
.<)RO)RIA-IO, (AWS
D. City of 7anila v. Chinese Community of 7anila
Whether the Chinese cemetery may be validly expropriated by the City of 7anila. he exercise of the right of
eminent domain! whether directly by the &tate! or by its authori:ed agents! is necessarily in derogation of
private rights! and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. /o species of property
is held by individuals with greater tenacity! and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more
sedulously! than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the legislature interferes with that right! and!
for greater public purposes! appropriates the land of an individual without his consent! the plain meaning of
the law should not be enlarged by doubtly interpretation. #he right of expropriation is not an inherent power
in a municipal corporation! and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power
upon it.
.(.C-IO, (AWS
D. Killanueva v. C-70L0C
Whether the informal withdrawal of 7endo:a invalidates the election of Killanueva as vice mayor. &ection
<? of the D3B? 0lection Code provides for such substitute candidates in case of death! withdrawal or
dis"ualification up to mid(day of the very day of the elections. 7endo:aOs withdrawal was filed on the last
hour of the last day for regular filing of candidacies! which he had filed earlier that same day. 1urther! the
will of the electorate should be respected! it should not be defeated through the invocation of formal or
technical defects. #he will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of
candidacy had not been properly sworn to.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
16
Chapter </ Specia& over "enera&
Ru&e re'ar$in' con+&ictin' provisions o+ the sa*e statute
0. Manila Railroad Co. v. Collector of Customs
ssue and .uling4 Whether the lower court is favor of 7... Where there is in the same statute a particular
enactment and also a general one what is embraced in the former! the particular enactment must be operative
and the general enactment must be ta%en to affect only such cases within its general language as are not
within the provision of the particular enactment.
7. .lmeda v. 1lorentino
ssue and .uling4 n the Charter of Pasay! .2 /o. D?I changed the composition of the 7unicipal 9oard.
What provision of law should govern' #he court ruled that where there is specific law and a general law
dealing with the same sub)ect! the specific law should prevail over the general one.
Ru&e re'ar$in' con+&ictin' provisions o+ $i++erent statutes
0. La/amana v. Balta%ar
ssue and .uling4 #he mayor of Pampanga was suspended by virtue of .evised 2dmin Code and the
Laxamana was appointed by virtue of .evised election Code. Whether .evised 2dmin Code should prevail
over .evised 0lection Code' #he exceptional case is the suspension of mayors where the .evised 2dmin
Code prevails. n case of conflict between two provisions of law! it is well(settled principle of statutory
construction that a special provision is paramount to a general provision.
7. Butuan Sa-mill v. City of Butuan
ssue and .uling4 Whether the existing laws include the franchise business of petitioners within the
coverage of the taxing ordinance is beyond the cityOs power of taxation. #he inclusion of franchise business
of 9utuan &awmill is beyond the broad power of taxation of the city under its charter. Where there are two
statutes the earlier special and the latter general the special is considered as remaining an exception to
the general as a general law of the land! the other as the law of a particular case.
Ru&e in case o+ con+&ict bet%een a specia& provision o+ a 'enera& &a% an$ a 'enera& provision o+ a
specia& &a%
0. City of Manila v. #eotico
ssue and .uling4 #eotico a manager! sustained a laceration on his left eyelid and contusions on his left
thigh! sued 7anila city for negligence citing 2rt. <D?3 of the Civil Code. n defense! 7anila City cited .2
CM3! its Charter. Which provision of law should prevail' n terms of territorial .2 CM3 applies but with
regards to sub)ect matter for negligence in general! 2rt. <D?3 prevails ma%ing cities liable for in)uries
sustained due to 5defective streets6 in particular.
7. 'avid v. Comelec
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
17
ssue and .uling4 2lex ,avid! a 9rgy Captain in Caloocan City! "uestioned ComelecOs scheduling of
barangay elections. $ow long is the term of barangay officials. .2 ==LI provides that term of office of
barangay officials shall be for five years! however .2 BD=M when it was enacted reduced the term of 5all
local elective officials to three years.
A*en$*ent1 Revision1 Co$i+ication an$ Repea&
0. #acan v. C.
ssue and .uling4 #ac(an! a lawyer of 2copiado brothers! whose services was terminated and his payment of
services by a land title was annulled by the brothers. Whether repealing of 2dmin Code of 7indanao and
&ulu! should be given retroactivityF and whether the transfer of land to #ac(an was valid. #ac(an argued that
such provisions in 2dmin Code of 7indanao and &ulu was repealed! but since the 2dmin Code were
substantive in nature! the repealing statute cannot be given retroactive effect.
7. $illegas v. Subido
ssue and .uling4 #he &upreme Court ruled that repeals by implication are not favored and will not be so
declared unless it be manifest that the legislature so intended.
#wo re"uisites4 D) t must be shown that the statute deal with the same sub)ect matterF and! <) the latter is
inconsistent with the former! or irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted! and what is needed is a
manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal.
Comprehensive Reviewer on Statutory construction
By: Lawrence P. Holanday
18