You are on page 1of 7

CHAPTER 2: CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

A. NATURE AND PURPOSE

CONSTRUCTION DEFINED


- It is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and


intention of the authors of the law, where that intention is rendered doubtful
by reason of the ambiguity in its language or of the fact that the given case
is not explicitly provided in the law
- Involves the exercise of choice by the judiciary

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION DISTINGUISHED

- 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.

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, GENERALLY


The legislature is presumed to know the rules of statutory construction, it enacts


a law with the end in view that it will, in case of doubt, be construed in
accordance with the settled principles of interpretation. Where there is ambiguity
in the language of a statute, courts employ canons of statutory construction to
ascertain and give effect to its true intent and meaning.

The legislature sometimes adopts rules of statutory construction as part of the


provisions of a statute. The legislature also defines, in certain complicated
statutes, the word and phrases used therein. Except as they may have been
embodied as part of a statute, rules of construction have no binding effect
on the courts. Nor are they controlling in the interpretation of laws, they may
only be used to clarify, not to defeat, legislative intent. Even those rules of
construction which are in the form of statutory provisions may be ignored if their
employment may defeat, rather than effectuate, legislative intent.

PURPOSE OR OBJECT OF CONSTRUCTION


- 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 INTENT, GENERALLY


- legislative intent is the vital part, essece of the law


- Courts will not follow the letter of the statute when it leads away from the
true intent of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general
purpose of the act (Torres v. Limjap). Hence, where the statute is
susceptible of more than one construction, that construction should be
adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent of the
legislature (U.S. v. Toribio).

LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE


- the reason why a particular statute was enacted by the legislature.


- A legislation is an active instrument of the government which, for purposes
of interpretation, means that law have ends to be achieved and statutes
should be so construed so as not defeat but to carry out such ends and
purposes (Litex Employees Assn v. Eduvala).

LEGISLATIVE MEANING


- It is what the law, by its language, means.

- It may be synonymous to legislative intent. If there is ambiguity in the


language, its purpose may indicate the meaning of the language and lead to what
the legislative intent is.

GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION

- a graphical illustration of “legislative intent” and its component concepts is


Republic Act 809 or Sugar Act of 1952.
- In the absence of written milling agreements the unrefined sugar produced
including its derivatives shall be divided in the proportion of 60% for the
laborer and 40% for the planter.
- The purpose of the legislator in the creation is to compel the continuous
production of sugar and to grant the planters’ laboreres and in connection
thereof the planters receive an increased participation
- The legislative intent is then express which is to make the said Act
functional regardless of the existence of an agreement.

MATTERS INQUIRED INTO IN CONSTRUING A STATUTE


- It is not enough to ascertain the intention of meaning of the statute; it is


also necessary to see whether the intention or meaning of the statute has
been expressed in such a way as to give it legal effect and validity.
- The legal act is made up of two elements – an internal and an external one;
it originates in intention and is perfected by expression. Failure of the latter
may defeat the former.

WHERE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS ASCERTAINED


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

CONSTRUCTION IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION

- It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say


what the law is and it has the final word as to what the law means.
- The court does not interpret the law in a vacuum.
- It construes or applies the law as it decides concrete and controverted cases
based on the facts and the law involved.
- It does not give legal opinion on hypothetical cases or in cases which have
become moot or academic

LEGISLATURE CANNOT OVERRULE JUDICIAL DECISIONS


- The legislature has no power to overrule the interpretation or construction of a


statute of the Constitution by the Supreme court and while it may indicate its
construction of a statute in a resolution or declaratory act, it cannot preclude the
courts from giving the statute a different interpretation.

WHEN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION MAY BE SET ASIDE


The Supreme Court may change or overrule its previous construction.


Constitutional amendments may modify or nullify a judicial interpretation of a
provision thereof. The rule that the Supreme Court has the final word in the
interpretation of a statute merely means that the legislature cannot, by law or
resolution, modify or annul the judicial construction without modifying or
repealing the very statute which has been the subject of construction, but when it
enacts a repeal, the previous judicial construction of the statute is modified or set
aside.

WHEN COURT MAY CONSTRUE STATUTE


- Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be incapable of being suded


in more than one sense.
- what the legislature had in mind is not sometimes accurately reflected in the
language of the statute.
- As a result, doubt is created as to what the statute means or as to whether
it applies to a given situation.
- Thus, construction is the means by which the court clarifies the doubt to
arrive at the true intent of the law

CONDITION SINE QUA NON BEFORE COURTS CAN CONSTRUE STATUTES;


AMBIGUITY DEFINED


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.

COURTS MAY NOT CONSTRUE WHERE STATUTE IS CLEAR

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.

Administrative agencies tasked to implement a statute may not construe it


by expanding its meaning where provisions are clear and unambiguous.
Where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure and ambiguous,
the meaning and intention of the legislature should be determined from the
language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in words, there should be
no room for consturction.

VERBA LEGIS OR PLAIN MEANING RULE

- 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.

RULINGS OF SUPREME COURT PART OF LEGAL SYSTEM


 Legis interpretato legis vim obtinet,

- the authoritative interpretation of the Supreme Court of a statute acquires the


force of law by becoming a part thereof as of the date of its enactment, since the
court’s interpretation merely establishes the contemporatneous legislative intent
that the statute thus construed intends to effectuate (Senovila v. Hermosisimo).

Stare decisis et non quieta movere,

- 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.


JUDICIAL RULINGS HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT

Lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not backward.

- Retroactivity is based on the principle that retroatie application of a law


usually divess rights that have already become vested or impairs the
obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
- The Constitution provides that “no doctrine or principle of law laid down by
the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
The interpretation of a statute by the Supreme Court remains to be part of the
legal system until the latter overrules it and the new doctrine overruling the old is
applied prospectively in favor of persons who have relied thereon in good faith.

ONLY SUPREME COURT EN BANC CAN MODIFY OR ABANDON PRINCIPLE


OF LAW, NOT ANY DIVISION OF THE COURT.

- no division of the Court has the power to modify or reverse a doctrine or


principle of law enunciated by either another division of the Court or the Court en
banc, exept by the Court sitting en banc itself.

COURTS MAY ISSUE GUIDELINE IN CONSTRUING STATUTE


In construing a statute, the enforcement of which may tread on sensitive areas of


constitutional rights, the court may issue guidelines in applying the statute, not to
enlarge or restrict it but to clearly delineate what the law requires. This is not
judicial legislation but an act to define what the law is.

C. LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO CONSTRUE

COURTS MAY NOT ENLARGE OR RESTRICT STATUTES

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. 


- Common sense and good faith should guide judicial construction.


- The search and end result must be reasonable interpretion.

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. 


COURTS NOT TO BE INFLUENCED BY QUESTIONS OF WISDOM

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.

Construction and Interpretation

A. Nature and Purpose

B. Power to Construe

C. Limitations on power to consture

You might also like