Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit

This means the law looks forward, not backward. A new law has a
prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty
person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.1

This can be seen in the case of:

Clemente Laceste v. Paulino Santos, Director of Prisons

G.R. No. L-36886; February 1, 1932

Issue:
Whether or not the last paragraph of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, now
in force, shall apply to petitioner.

Held:
Petition was granted. The law looks forward, never backward. Lex prospicit, non
respicit. A new law has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws
that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given
retroactive effect. These are the rule, the exception and exception to the exception
on effectivity of laws. Article 22 of the new Penal Code which provides for the
retroactive effect of penal laws is applicable to the petitioner, who comes within
one of the cases especially provided for in Article 344 of the Code: this is a point
upon which there neither is, nor can be, any discussion between the parties to this
case.

Lex de Futuro, Judex de Praeterito

This means the law provides for the future, the judge for the past. Statutes
are prospective and not retroactive in their operation, they being the
formulation of rules for the future, not the past. Hence, the legal maxim lex
de futuro, judex de praeterito — the law provides for the future, the judge
for the past, which is articulated in Article 4 of the Civil Code: "Laws shall
have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." The reason for
the rule is the tendency of retroactive legislation to be unjust and oppressive
on account of its liability to unsettle vested rights or disturb the legal effect
of prior transactions.2

This can be seen in the case of:

Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Stockholders of Intercity

Savings and Loan Bank, Inc.
G.R. No. 181556, December 14, 2009

1
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1932februarydecisions.php?id=4 (last visited November 21, 2018)
2
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/dec2009/gr_181556_2009.html (last visited November 21, 2018)

1
 Issue:
Whether or not Section 12 of RA 9302 should be applied retroactively in order to
entitle Intercity Bank creditors to surplus dividends.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that statutes are prospective and not retroactive in their
operation, they being the formulation of rules for the future, not the past. Hence,
the legal maxim lex de futuro, judex de praeterito — the law provides for the
future, the judge for the past, which is articulated in Article 4 of the Civil Code:
―Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. The
reason for the rule is the tendency of retroactive legislation to be unjust and
oppressive on account of its liability to unsettle vested rights or disturb the legal
effect of prior transactions. Further, a perusal of RA 9302 shows that nothing
indeed therein authorizes its retroactive application. In fact, its effectivity clause
indicates a clear legislative intent to the contrary, Section 28. Effectivity Clause.
“This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the completion of its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.”3

Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget

This means an absolute judgment needs no expositor. A sentence that is

plain and absolute does not need an expositor. An expositor is a person or
thing that explains a complicated idea or a theory.4 When the language of the
law is clear, no explanation is required.5

This can be seen in the case of:

Augustus Ceazar Gan v. Hon. Antonio Reyes

G.R. No.145527, May 28, 2002

Issue:
Whether the appeal of the petitioner against the immediate release of support will
be honored by the court.

Held:
No. Petitioner is reminded that to the plain words of a legal provision we should
make no further explanation. Absoluta sentencia expositore non indiget. Indeed,
the interpretation which petitioner attempts to foist upon us would only lead to
absurdity, its acceptance negating the plain meaning of the provision subject of
the petition. The money and property adjudged for support and education should
and must be given presently and without delay because if it had to wait the final
judgment, the children may in the meantime have suffered because of lack of food
or have missed and lost years in school because of lack of funds. One cannot
delay the payment of such funds for support and education for the reason that if
paid long afterwards, however much the accumulated amount, its payment cannot
cure the evil and repair the damage caused.

3
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 32 (last visited November 21, 2018)
4
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/absoluta-sententia-expositore-non-indiget (last visited November 21, 2018)
5
https://batasnatin.com/downloads/1670-statutory-construction-latin-maxims-with-digested-cases.html (last visited
November 21, 2018)

2
 The children with such belated payment for support and education cannot act as
gluttons and eat voraciously and unwisely, afterwards, to make up for the years of
hunger and starvation. Neither may they enroll in several classes and schools and
take up numerous subjects all at once to make up for the years they missed in
school, due to nonpayment of the funds when needed. (De Leon v. Soriano)

Optima Statuti Interpretatix Est Insum Statutum

This means the best interpreter of the statute is the statute itself.6 Every
section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by reference to
each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature.
The intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the whole text of the
law and every part of the act is to be taken into view.7

This can be seen in the case of:

Aboitiz Shipping v. City of Cebu

G.R. No. L-14526, March 31, 1965

Issue:
Whether or not the City of Cebu, under its charter, may provide by ordinance for
the collection of wharfage from vessels that dock at the public wharves of piers
located in said city but owned by the National Government.

Held:
No. The right to collect the wharfage belongs to the National Government. It is
unreasonable to conclude that the legislature, simply because it employed the term
"public wharves" in Section 17 (w) of the charter of the City of Cebu, thereby
authorized the latter to collect wharfage irrespective of the ownership of the
wharves involved. The National Government did not surrender such ownership to
the city; and there is no justifiable ground to read into the statute an intention to
burden ship owners, such as appellants, with the obligation of paying twice for the
same purpose.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a
whole and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone. This is a cardinal
rule of statutory construction. For taken in the abstract, a word or phrase might
easily convey a meaning quite different from the one actually intended and
evident when the word or phrase is considered with those with which it is
associated. Thus an apparently general provision may have a limited application if
viewed together with other provisions.8 Hence, Ordinance No. 207 of the City of
Cebu is declared null and void, and appellees are ordered to refund to appellants
all amounts collected thereunder and to refrain from making such collection.

6
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
7
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html (last visited November 21, 2018)
8
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/mar1965/gr_l-14526_1965.html (last visited November 21, 2018)

3
Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis

This means the reason of the law is the soul of the law.9 A rule is a means to
an end. An understanding of the end or purpose for which the rule was made
is essential to understanding of the rule itself. 10

This can be seen in the case of:

Villasi v. Garcia
G.R. No. 190106, January 15, 2014

Issue:
Whether or not Spouses Garcia the lawful owners of the property.

Held:
Yes, the Spouses Garcia are the lawful owners of the property. The explanation
proffered by the Spouses Garcia, that the City Assessor merely committed an
error when it declared the property for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI,
appears to be suspect in the absence of any prompt and serious effort on their part
to have it rectified before the onset of the instant controversy. The correction of
entry belatedly sought by the Spouses Garcia is indicative of its intention to put
the property beyond the reach of the judgment creditor. Every prevailing party to
a suit enjoys the corollary right to the fruits of the judgment and, thus, court rules
provide a procedure to ensure that every favorable judgment is fully satisfied. It is
almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Hailing it as the
"life of the law," ratio legis est anima, this Court has zealously guarded against
any attempt to thwart the rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to
savour the fruit of his victory. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing
but an empty triumph for the prevailing party.11

Dura Lex Sed Lex

This means the law may be harsh but it is the law.12 The law may be difficult
to obey but it must be therefore complied with xxx. The phrase Dura Lex
Sed Lex originated in the 11th century as a principle of Canon Law (church
law) by Bishop Buchard of Worms. It stands for the “Rule of Law”, that is
the letter of the law must be followed by everyone and no one is above the
law. A society that strongly believes in the rule of law is said to be more free
from tyranny. If a ruler is above the law, then he can rule tyrannically.13

9
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
10
An Introduction to Canon Law by James A. Coriden, page 200
11
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 46 (last visited November 21, 2018)
12
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
13
https://www.scribd.com/doc/231077512/Dura-Lex-Sed-Lex-concept-and-application by Filamie Lourly F. Cacdac

4
This can be seen in the case of:

Arnel Sagana v. Richard Francisco

G.R. No.161952, October 2, 2009

Issue:
Whether the substituted service of summons was validly made upon respondent
through his brother.

Held:
The Petition for Review on Certiorari was granted, Court of Appeals decision was
reversed and set aside, and the Trial Court decision was reinstated and affirmed.
Although, in general, the statutory requirement of substituted service must be
followed strictly, faithfully and fully and that any substituted service other than
that authorized by Rules is considered ineffective. The Supreme Court ruled that
strict application of the Rules is not warranted to this case as it would clearly
frustrate the spirit of laws as well as do injustice to the parties waiting almost 15
years for resolution of this case. The respondents actively attempt to frustrate the
proper service of summons by refusing to give their identity, rebuffing requests to
sign for or receive documents or eluding the officers of court. Respondent tried to
avoid the service of summons, prompting the court to declare that sheriff must be
resourceful, but sheriffs cannot be faulted of the respondent themselves engage in
deception to thwart the orderly administration of justice.14

Noscitur A Sociis

This means a thing is known by its associates.15 "It is known from its
associates. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the
accompanying words. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning
of questionable words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by
reference to the meaning of words or phrases associated with it.16

This can be seen in the case of:

Francisco Chavez vs. Judicial bar council (JBC)

G.R. No. 202242; April 16, 2013

Issue:
Whether or not the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the
House of Representatives to be unconstitutional as provided in Art. VIII. Sec 8 of
the constitution.

Held:
The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the phrase “a representative of
congress” should be construed as to having only one representative that would
come from either house, not both. Moreover, under the maxim Noscitur A Sociis,
where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible

14
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 16
15
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
16
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Nosciturasociis.aspx

5
 of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by
considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is
associated.17

Ejusdem Generis

This means of the same kind or species.18 Where specific words are followed
by a general expression, the general expression is limited to the shared
characteristics of the specific words, even though the general expression
may ordinarily have a much broader meaning. To effectively use this rule of
statutory interpretation, the shared characteristics of the specific words
should be identified as precisely as possible.19

This can be seen in the case of:

Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowner’s Association, Inc.

G. R. No. 189755, July 04, 2012

Issue:
Whether or not Lot 11, Block 5 of the Happy Glen Loop is considered an “open
space” as defined in P. D. 1216.

Held:
Yes, the aforementioned parcel of land is considered an “open space.” The Court
used the basic statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis to determine
whether the area falls under “other similar facilities and amenities” since
P.D. 1216 makes no specific mention of areas reserved for water facilities.
Ejusdem generis - states that where a general word or phrase follows an
enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class, the general word
or phrase is to be construed to include or to be restricted to things akin to or
resembling, or of the same kind or class as, those specifically mentioned.
Applying that principle, the Court found out that the enumeration refers to areas
reserved for the common welfare of the community. Therefore, the phrase “other
similar facilities and amenities” should be interpreted in like manner. It is without
a doubt that the facility was used for the benefit of the community. Water is a
basic necessity, without which, survival in the community would be impossible.20

Cassus Omissus Pro Omisso Habendus Est

This means a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be

held to have been omitted intentionally.21 The principle proceeds from a

17
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 34 (last visited November 21, 2018)
18
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
19
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/EjusdemorEiusdemGeneris.aspx
20
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 17 (last visited November 21, 2018)
21
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)

6
reasonable certainty that a particular person, object, or thing has been
omitted from a legislative enumeration. In other words, the maxims operates
and applies only if and when the omission has been clearly established, and
in such a case what is omitted in the enumeration may not, by construction,
be included therein. The court cannot under its power of interpretation
supply the omission even though the omission may have resulted from
inadvertence or because the case in question was not foreseen or
contemplated.22

This can be seen in the case of:

People of the Philippines v. Guillermo Manantan

G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962

Issue:
Whether a justice of peace included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the
Revised Election Code?

Held:
Yes. The rule casus omissus pro omisso habendus est has no applicability to the
case at bar. The maxim "casus omissus" can operate and apply only if and when
the omission has been clearly established. In the case under consideration, it has
already been shown that the legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the
peace from the enumeration of officers precluded from engaging in partisan
political activities. Rather, they were merely called by another term. In the new
law, or Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, justices of the peace were just
called "judges."23

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

This means the express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others.24 An implied exclusion argument lies whenever
there is reason to believe that if the legislature had meant to include a
particular thing within the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to
that thing expressly. Because of this expectation, the legislature’s failure to
mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately
excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied.25

This can be seen in the case of:

Coconut Oil Refiners Asso., Inc. v. Hon. Ruben Torres, et. al.
G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005

Issue:
WON there is a violation of equal protection clause?

22 Statutory Construction 2003 Ed. by Ruben E. Agpalo, page 231

23
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 13 (last visited November 21, 2018)
24
batasnatin.com, Id. (last visited November 21, 2018)
25
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius.aspx

7
 Held:
No. The phrase “tax and duty - free importations of raw materials, capital and
equipment” was merely cited as an example of incentives that may be given to
entities operating within the zone. Public respondent SBMA correctly argued that
the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, on which petitioners impliedly
rely to support their restrictive interpretation, does not apply when words are
mentioned by way of example. The petition with respect to declaration of
unconstitutionality of EO 97-A cannot be, likewise, sustained. The guaranty of the
equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based which was based
on reasonable classification. A classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on
substantial distinction, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited
to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same
class. Applying the foregoing test to the present case, the Court finds no violation
of the right to equal protection of the laws. There is a substantial distinctions lying
between the establishments inside and outside the zone.26

Generale Dictum Generaliter Est Interpretandum

This means a general statement is understood in a general sense. This is a

maxim meaning that a generally worded provision of a legal instrument
should be construed to apply broadly and by default, with the understanding
that some exceptions may be justified.27

This can be seen in the case of:

Abdul v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 184496, December 2, 2013

Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in imposing suspension pendent lite on the petitioner and
his co-accused.

Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that the Petition be dismissed for being moot and academic.
For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or
controversy, otherwise there is no justiciable controversy. In the case at bar, the
acquittal of the petitioner operates as a supervening event that mooted the present
Petition. This is regardless whether or not the petitioner has indeed committed an
offense of "fraud or property." In construing the term "fraud" as used in
Section 13 of RA 3019, nevertheless, the Court held in said case that the same is
understood in its general sense that is referring to "an instance or an act of
trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation."28

26
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 19 (last visited November 21, 2018)
27
Guide to Latin in International Law by Aaron X. Fellmeth, Maurice Horwitz
28
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 22 (last visited November 21, 2018)

8
Interpretare Et Concordare Leges Legibus Est Optimus Interpretandi
Modus

This means every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other
statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. To interpret and
reconcile laws with laws is the best manner of construing them. 29

This can be seen in the case of:

Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Cleofe Janiola

GR, 185861, June 30, 2009

Issue:
WON the court a quo seriously erred in not perceiving grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the inferior court when the latter ruled to suspend proceedings in
criminal case on the basis of “prejudicial question” in the said civil case.

Held:
This petition must be granted. It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a
“change in phraseology by amendment of a provision of law indicates a
legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision from that it originally
had.” In the instant case, the phrase, “previously instituted,” was inserted to
qualify the nature of the civil action involved in a prejudicial question in relation
to the criminal action. This interpretation is further buttressed by the insertion of
“subsequent” directly before the term criminal action. There is no other logical
explanation for the amendments except to qualify the relationship of the civil and
criminal actions, that the civil action must precede the criminal action.
Additionally, it is a principle in statutory construction that “a statute should be
construed not only to be consistent with itself but also to harmonize with other
laws on the same subject matter, as to form a complete, coherent and intelligible
system.” This principle is consistent with the maxim interpretare et concordare
leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus or every statute must be so
construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence.30

Optimus Interpres Rerum Usus

This means the best interpreter of the law is usage. Custom is a law not
written, established by long usage and the consent of our ancestors. Hence, it
is said that usage is the legal evidence of custom. Moreover, where a law is
established by an implied consent, it is either a common law or custom. If
universal, it is a common law; if particular to this or that place, then it is
custom. When any practice was, in its origin, found to be convenient and
beneficial, it was usually repeated, continued from age to age, and grew into
a law, either local or national. A custom, therefore, may be defined to be a
usage which has obtained the force of law, and is, in truth the binding law

29
https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/interpretare-et-concordare-leges-legibus-est-optimus-interpretandi-modus (last
visited November 21, 2018)
30
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 29 (last visited November 21, 2018)

9
within a particular district, or at a particular place, of the persons and things
which it concerns.31

This can be seen in the case of:

JM Tuason and Co., et al. v. Hon. Herminio Mariano, et al.

G.R. No. L-33140, October 23, 1978

Issue:
WON OCT No. 735 is valid.

Held:
OCT No. 735 is valid. The validity of OCT No. 735 was already decided upon by
the SC in the cases of Benin v. Tuason, Alcantara v. Tuason and Pili v. Tuason.
The ruling in these cases was also applied in other cases involving the validity of
OCT No. 735. Considering the governing principle of stare decisis et non quieta
movere (follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled) and
optimus interpres rerum usus, the court ruled that respondents cannot maintain
their action without eroding the long settled holding of the courts that OCT No.
735 is valid and no longer open to attack.32

Ratio Legis

This means interpretation according to the spirit. It is a Latin phrase used in

the legal language to indicate the logical element of the law, or the purpose
that animated the legislator in the issuance of the law.33
This can be seen in the case of:

Manuel Uy v. Enrico Palomar (in his capacity as postmaster general)

G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969

Issue:
WON the Grand Christmas Bonus Award constitute a lottery or a gift enterprise.

Held:
No, Grand Christmas Bonus Award does not constitute a lottery or a gift
enterprise. There is no statutory definition of the terms "lottery" and "gift
enterprise". xxx The term "lottery" extends to all schemes for the distribution of
prizes by chance, such as policy playing, gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles at
fairs, etc., and various forms of gambling. The three essential elements of a lottery
are: First, consideration; second, prize; and third, chance. Thus, for lottery to
exist, three elements must concur, namely: consideration, prize, and chance. Even
in the light of the mischief or evil sought to be redressed by the Postal Law, or the
ratio legis, Uy's scheme cannot be condemned as a lottery. It is merely a scheme
set up to promote the sale of tickets for the Grand Christmas Sweepstakes Draw
held on December 15, 1963.34

31
A Selection of Legal Maxims, Classified and Illustrated by Herbert Broom, page 260
32
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 39 (last visited November 21, 2018)
33
https://educalingo.com/en/dic-it/ratio-legis (last visited November 21, 2018)
34
https://www.academia.edu/8174324/COMPILATION_OF_LEGAL_MAXIMS_STATUTORY_CONSTRUCTION,
page 45 (last visited November 21, 2018)

10