Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTRUCTION DEFINED
- Interpretation is the art of finding the true meaning and sense of any form
of word, while construction is the process of drawing warranted conclusions
not always included in direct expression or determining the application of
words to faces in litigation.
- So alike in practical results that they are used interchangeably in practice.
- cardinal rule in interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to,
the intent of the law
- All rules of construction of interpretation have for their sole object the
ascertainment of the true intent of the legislature. The object of all judicial
interpretation of a statute is to determine legislative intent, what intention is
conveyed, either expressly or impliedly, by the language used, so far as it is
necessary for ascertaining whether the particular case or state of facts
presented to the court comes within it.
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE
LEGISLATIVE MEANING
GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION
The primary source of the intent is the statute itself and has to be discovered
from the four corners of the law (Manila Lodge No. 761 v. C. A).
*Take for instance in Garcia v. Social Security Commission, GR. No. 170735, December 17, 2017.
B. POWER TO CONSTRUE
A condition sine qua non, before the court may construe or interpret, is that there
be doubt or ambiguity in its language. Only statutes with an ambiguous or
doubtful meaning may be the subject of statutory construction (Daong v.
Municipal Judge). A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible of more than one
interpretation.
- In this case, the Court is then called upon to exercise one of its judicial
funcionts which is to interpret the law according to its true intent.
Construction comes only after it has been demonstrated that the application
is impossible or inadequate without it. It is the very last function which the court
should exercise, for it there is more application and less construction, there would
be more stability in the law (Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico). It has been
repeatedly declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language,
there is no room for interpretation and there is only room for application (Cebu
Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga).
For nothing is better settled than that the first and fundamental duty of
courts is to apply the law as they find it, not as they like it to be. Fidelity to such
a task precludes construction unless application is impossible or inadequate
without it (Resins, Inc. v. Auditor General).
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly
what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is
obeyed (Luzon Surety Co. v. De Garcia).
Where the law is free from ambiguity, the court may not introduce
exceptions where none is provided from considerations of convenience, public
welfare, or for any laudable purpose, nor may it engraft into the law qualifications
not contemplated (Ramos v. C.A), nor construe provisions by taking into account
questions of expediency, good faith, practical utility and other similar reasons so
as to relax non compliance therewith.
- Where the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given it
literal meaning and applied without interpretation.
- Derived from maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of
intention) rests on presumption that words employed by legislature in a
statute correctly express its intention or will and preculde the court from
construing it differently.
- The doctrine of verba legis is explained in Repulbic v. Lacap (GR No 158253,
March 2, 2017) and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express,
GR No. 152609, June 29, 2005.
- when the Supreme Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases
where the facts are substantially the same.
This assures certainty and stability in the legal system.
As part of the legal
system and until reversed by the Supreme Court itself, rulings of the highest
tribunal are binding upon inferior courts.
Lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward.
1. While statutory constructions involves choice, the court should resist the
temptation to roam at will and rely on
its predilection as to what policy
should prevail.
2. They may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute
and include therein situations not
provided nor intended by lawmakers.
3. They are not authorize to insert into the law what they
think should be in
it or to supply what they think the legislature would have supplied if its
attention had been called to the omission.
4. They should not revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the
legislature, nor rewrite the law to conform with what they think should be
the law
5. Nor may they interpret into the law a requirement which the law does not
prescribe
6. Neither should courts construe statutes which are perfectly vague, or cannot
be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.
Since the legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom,
reasonableness and expediency of any law, courts may not take any of these
matters into account in construing or interpreting the law. As long as laws do not
violate the Constitution, the courts merely interpret and apply them regardless of
whether or not they are wise or salutary.
B. Power to Construe