STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION f.

Legislative Intent

Atty. Resci Angelli R. Rizada, RN Courts will not follow the letter of the
statute when it leads away from the true
COURSE OUTLINE intent of the legislature and to conclusions
inconsistent with the general purpose of
the act (Torres v. Limjap). Hence, where
I. General Principles the statute is susceptible of more than one
construction, that construction should be
a. Philippine Legal System adopted which will most tend to give effect
to the manifest intent of the legislature
(U.S. v. Toribio).
b. Definition of Statutory Construction
AIRSPORNA v. CA
CALTEX v. PALOMAR
Legislative intent must be ascertained from
It is the art or process of discovering and a consideration of the statute as a whole.
expounding the meaning and intention of The particular words, clauses and phrases
the authors of the law, where that intention should not be studied as detached and
is rendered doubtful by reason of the isolated expressions, but the whole and
ambiguity in its language or of the fact that every part of the statute must be
the given case is not explicitly provided in considered in fixing the meaning of any of
the law (BLACK, Interpretation of Law, its parts and in order to produce
p. 1) harmonious whole. A statute must be so
construed as to harmonize and give effect
Xxx that every case must be resolved upon to all its provisions whenever possible. The
the particular phraseology of the applicable meaning of the law, it must be borne in
statutory provision. mind, is not to be extracted from any single
part, portion or section or from isolated
words and phrases, clauses or sentences
but from a general consideration or view of
c. Importance of Statutory Construction
the act as a whole. Every part of the
statute must be interpreted with reference
to the context. This means that every part
d. Are construction and interpretation of the statute must be considered together
the same? with the other parts, and kept subservient
to the general intent of the whole
Interpretation is the art of finding the true
enactment, not separately and
meaning and sense of any form of word,
independently. More importantly, the
while construction is the process of drawing
doctrine of associated words (Noscitur
warranted conclusions not always included
a Sociis) provides that where a particular
in direct expression or determining the
word or phrase in a statement is
application of words to faces in litigation.
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible
But they are used interchangeably in
of various meanings, its true meaning may
practice.
be made clear and specific by considering
the company in which it is found or with
e. Object and Purpose
which it is associated.
All rules of construction of interpretation
have for their sole object the ascertainment
of the true intent of the legislature. The g. Nature of the Rules of Statutory
object of all judicial interpretation of a Construction
statute is to determine legislative intent,
what intention is conveyed, either
expressly or impliedly, by the language The legislature is presumed to know the
used, so far as it is necessary for rules of statutory construction, it enacts a
ascertaining whether the particular case or law with the end in view that it will, in case
state of facts presented to the court comes of doubt, be construed in accordance with
within it. the settled principles of interpretation.
Where there is ambiguity in the language
of a statute, courts employ canons of do they convey as used in the
statutory construction to ascertain and give particular act. (Vol. 2A Statutory
effect to its true intent and meaning. Construction, pp. 65-66 [1972].)

The legislature sometimes adopts rules of It is an elementary rule in statutory

statutory construction as part of the construction that the word "may" in a
provisions of a statute. The legislature also statute is permissive while the word "shall"
defines, in certain complicated statutes, is mandatory. The rule, however, is not
the word and phrases used therein. Except absolute. Thus Professor Luis J. Gonzaga
as they may have been embodied as part states:
of a statute, rules of construction have no
binding effect on the courts. Nor are they According to Black, 'Where the
controlling in the interpretation of laws, statute provides for the doing of
they may only be used to clarify, not to some act which is required by
defeat, legislative intent. Even those rules justice or public duty, or where it
of construction which are in the form of invests a public body, municipality
statutory provisions may be ignored if their or officer with power and authority
employment may defeat, rather than to take some action which concerns
effectuate, legislative intent. the public interest or rights of
individuals, the permissive
PCFI v. NTC language win be construed as
Justice Abad – Dissenting Opinion mandatory and the execution of the
power may be insisted upon as a
Any lawyer of modest sophistication knows duty. Thus, where the statute
that canons of statutory construction provided that 'the commissioners
march in pairs of opposite. Thus with the may take into consideration the
canons above mentioned we have the enhanced value to the remaining
following opposite: verba intention, non e land of an owner whose land was
contra, debent incservice (words ought to taken for highway purposes it was
be more subservient to the intent and not held that the word may should be
the intent to the words). Sutherland given a mandatory meaning and is
explains the limits of literalism thus: the same as the word 'shall', since
it directs the doing of a thing for the
The literal interpretation of the sake of justice or the public good.
words of an act should not prevail Similarly, a statute by which
if it creates a result contrary to municipal corporations are
the apparent intention of the 'authorized and empowered to
legislature and if the words are provide for the support of indigent
sufficiently flexible to admit of a persons within their limits or to
construction which will effectuate make public improvements as to
the legislative intention The open and repair streets, remove
intention prevails over the letter, obstructions from highways,
and the letter must if possible be construct sewers and the like, are to
read so as to conform to the spirit be construed as mandatory
of the act. 'While the intention of the although they only purport to grant
legislature must be ascertained permission or authority since the
from the words used to express it, public has an interest in such
the manifest reason and obvious matters and the grant of authority
purpose of the law should not be is therefore equivalent to the
sacrificed to a literal interpretation imposition of duty." (Statutes and
of such words. Thus words or their Construction, pp. 98-99
clauses may be enlarged or [1969].)
restricted to harmonize with other
provisions of an act. The particular h. Propriety of Construction
inquiry is not what is the abstract
force of the words or what they may
comprehend, but in what sense It is the very last function which the court
were they intended to be should exercise, for it there is more
understood or what understanding application and less construction, there
would be more stability in the law object to be achieved and the evil or
(Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico). It has mischief to be suppressed, and they should
been repeatedly declared that where the be given such construction as will advance
law speaks in clear and categorical the object, suppress the mischief, and
language, there is no room for secure the benefits intended.
interpretation and there is only room for
application (Cebu Portland Cement Co. v.
Municipality of Naga). PEOPLE v. MAPULONG

For nothing is better settled than that the Our task is equally clear. The first and
first and fundamental duty of courts is to fundamental duty of courts is to apply the
apply the law as they find it, not as they law. "Construction and interpretation come
like it to be. Fidelity to such a task only after it has been demonstrated that
precludes construction unless application is application is impossible or inadequate
impossible or inadequate without it without them."
(Resins, Inc. v. Auditor General).
LEVERIZA v. IAC
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it
must be taken to mean exactly what it says In this regard, this Court, ruled that
and the court has no choice but to see to it another basic principle of statutory
that its mandate is obeyed (Luzon Surety construction mandates that general
Co. v. De Garcia). Where the law is free legislation must give way to special
from ambiguity, the court may not legislation on the same subject, and
introduce exceptions where none is generally be so interpreted as to embrace
provided from considerations of only cases in which the special provisions
convenience, public welfare, or for any are not applicable (Sto. Domingo v. De los
laudable purpose, nor may it engraft into Angeles, 96 SCRA 139), that specific
the law qualifications not contemplated statute prevails over a general statute (De
(Ramos v. C.A), nor construe provisions by Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) and that
taking into account questions of where two statutes are of equal theoretical
expediency, good faith, practical utility and application to a particular case, the one
other similar reasons so as to relax non- designed therefor specially should prevail
compliance therewith. Administrative (Wil Wilhensen, Inc. v. Baluyot, 83 SCRA
agencies tasked to implement a stature 38).
may not construe it by expanding its
meaning where provisions are clear and DAOANG v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE
unambiguous.
Well known is the rule of statutory
NFI v. EISMA construction to the effect that a statute
clear and unambiguous on its face need not
be interpreted; stated otherwise, the rule
Any deviation cannot therefore be is that only statutes with an ambiguous or
tolerated. So it has been the constant doubtful meaning may be the subject of
ruling of this Court even prior to Lizarraga statutory construction.
Hermanos v. Yap Tico, a 1913 decision. The
ringing of the words of Justice Moreland PARAS v. COMELEC
still call for obedience. Thus, “The first and
fundamental duty of courts, in our It is a rule in statutory construction that
judgment is to apply the law. Construction every part of the statute must be
and interpretation comes only after it has interpreted with reference to the context,
been demonstrated that the application is i.e., that every part of the statute must be
impossible or inadequate without them. considered together with the other parts,
and kept subservient to the general intent
PAAT v. CA of the whole enactment

In the construction of statutes, it must be In the interpretation of a statute, the Court

read in such a way as to give effect to the should start with the assumption that the
purpose projected in the statute. Statutes legislature intended to enact an effective
should be construed in the light of the law, and the legislature is not presumed to
 have done a vain thing in the enactment of Code, including rules and regulations,
a statute.5 An interpretation should, if shall be resolved in favor of labor.
possible, be avoided under which a statute
or provision being construed is defeated, or
as otherwise expressed, nullified, PEOPLE V. MEER
destroyed, emasculated, repealed,
explained away, or rendered insignificant, Collection of income tax from salaries of
meaningless, inoperative or nugatory. judicial officers is diminution of their
salaries in violation of the constitutional
It is likewise a basic precept in statutory provision. Reason behind the exemption is
construction that a statute should be to preserve the independence of the
interpreted in harmony with the judiciary, which is of far greater importance
Constitution. than any revenue that could come from
taxing their salaries.
Petitioner’s too literal interpretation of the
law leads to absurdity which we cannot Indeed the exemption of the judicial salary
countenance. Thus, in a case, the Court from reduction by taxation is not really a
made the following admonition: gratuity or privilege. Let the highest court
of Maryland speak:
We admonish against a too-literal reading
of the law as this is apt to constrict rather The exemption of the judicial compensation
than fulfill its purpose and defeat the from reduction is not in any true sense a
intention of its authors. That intention is gratuity, privilege or exemption. It is
usually found not in "the letter that killeth essentially and primarily compensation
but in the spirit that vivifieth". . . based upon valuable consideration. The
covenant on the part of the government is
The spirit, rather than the letter of a law a guaranty whose fulfillment is as much as
determines its construction; hence, a part of the consideration agreed as is the
statute, as in this case, must be read money salary. The undertaking has its own
according to its spirit and intent. particular value to the citizens in securing
the independence of the judiciary in crises;
and in the establishment of the
i. Power to Construe as a Judicial compensation upon a permanent
Function foundation whereby judicial preferment
may be prudently accepted by those who
are qualified by talent, knowledge, integrity
It is emphatically the province and duty of and capacity, but are not possessed of such
the judicial department to say what the law a private fortune as to make an assured
is and it has the final word as to what the salary an object of personal concern. On
law means. The court does not interpret the other hand, the members of the
the law in a vacuum. It does not give legal judiciary relinquish their position at the
opinion on hypothetical cases or in cases bar, with all its professional emoluments,
which have become moot or academic sever their connection with their clients,
and dedicate themselves exclusively to the
General rule: legislature may not discharge of the onerous duties of their
override judicial construction high office. So, it is irrefutable that they
Reason: judicial function guaranty against a reduction of salary by
Exception: legislature may adopt rules of the imposition of a tax is not an exemption
statutory construction as part of the from taxation in the sense of freedom from
provisions of the statute a burden or service to which others are
Examples: liable. The exemption for a public purpose
1. Article 10 of the Civil Code – In case or a valid consideration is merely a nominal
of doubt in the interpretation or exemption, since the valid and full
application of laws, it is presumed that the consideration or the public purpose
law-making body intended right and promoted is received in the place of the
justice to prevail. tax. Theory and Practice of Taxation
2. Section 4 of the Labor Code – All (1900), D. A. Wells, p. 541. (Gordy vs.
doubts in the implementation and Dennis (Md.) 1939, 5 Atl. Rep. 2d Series,
interpretation of the provisions of this p. 80)
 the judicial tribunals. (11 Am. Jur., 714-
715.)
ENDENCIA V. DAVID
Under the American system of
Interpretation of the Constitution and of constitutional government, among the
statutes is the exclusive jurisdiction of the most important functions in trusted to the
judiciary. In enacting a law, the legislative judiciary are the interpreting of
may not provide therein that it be Constitutions and, as a closely connected
interpreted in such a way it may not violate power, the determination of whether laws
the constitutional prohibition thereby tying and acts of the legislature are or are not
the hands of the Court in the task of contrary to the provisions of the Federal
interpreting said statute, especially when and State Constitutions. (11 Am. Jur.,
the interpretation provided in the statute 905).
runs counter to the previous interpretation
already given in a case by the Supreme
Court. NITAFAN v. CIR

But the interpretation and application of The debates, interpellations and opinions
said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial expressed regarding the constitutional
department. And this authority to interpret provision in question until it was finally
and apply the laws extends to the approved by the Commission disclosed that
Constitution. Before the courts can the true intent of the framers of the 1987
determine whether a law is constitutional Constitution, in adopting it, was to make
or not, it will have to interpret and the salaries of members of the Judiciary
ascertain the meaning not only of said law, taxable. The ascertainment of that intent is
but also of the pertinent portion of the but in keeping with the fundamental
Constitution in order to decide whether principle of constitutional construction that
there is a conflict between the two, the intent of the framers of the organic law
because if there is, then the law will have and of the people adopting it should be
to give way and has to be declared invalid given effect. The primary task in
and unconstitutional. constitutional construction is to ascertain
and thereafter assure the realization of the
Defining and interpreting the law is a purpose of the framers and of the people in
judicial function and the legislative branch the adoption of the Constitution. It may
may not limit or restrict the power granted also be safely assumed that the people in
to the courts by the Constitution. (Bandy ratifying the Constitution were guided
vs. Mickelson et al., 44N. W., 2nd 341, mainly by the explanation offered by the
342.) framers.

When it is clear that a statute transgresses With the foregoing interpretation, and as
the authority vested in the legislature by stated heretofore, the ruling that "the
the Constitution, it is the duty of the courts imposition of income tax upon the salary of
to declare the act unconstitutional because judges is a dimunition thereof, and so
they cannot shrink from it without violating violates the Constitution" in Perfecto vs.
their oaths of office. This duty of the courts
Meer, as affirmed in Endencia vs. David
to maintain the Constitution as the
must be declared discarded.
fundamental law of the state is imperative
and unceasing; and, as Chief Justice
Marshall said, whenever a statute is in II. Statutory Construction v. Judicial
violation of the fundamental law, the courts
Legislation
must so adjudge and thereby give effect to
the Constitution. Any other course would a. Principle of Separation of Powers
lead to the destruction of the Constitution.
Since the question as to the
constitutionality of a statute is a judicial The allocation, division or distribution of
matter, the courts will not decline the the major powers of government, as
exercise of jurisdiction upon the suggestion follows: (manifestation of republicanism)
that action might be taken by political
agencies in disregard of the judgment of
 a. Legislature – enactment of laws and itself, rulings of the highest tribunal
may not enforce or apply the same; are binding upon inferior courts.
b. Executive – enforcement of laws and
may not enact of apply the same; and
c. Judiciary – application of laws and iii. Principle of Prospectivity
may not enact or enforce the same

i. Rationale JUDICIAL RULINGS HAVE NO

RETROACTIVE EFFECT. Lex
prospicit, non respicit, the law looks
This is a manifestation of
forward not backward.
republication. The purpose of which
is to prevent the concentration of
The interpretation of a statute by
powers, which is subject to abuse the Supreme Court remains to be
(as in the case of an authoritarian part of the legal system until the
government). However, this should latter overrules it and the new
not be construed as complete doctrine overruling the old is
independence but more so as applied prospectively in favor of
interdependence in the pursuit of persons who have relied thereon in
common objectives for the welfare good faith.
of the people.
d. What is Judicial Legislation?
ii. Checks and Balances
FLORESCA v. PHILEX MINING

b. Overlap of Government Functions It is curious that the dissenting opinion

clings to the myth that the courts cannot
legislate.
c. Status of Supreme Court Rulings
That myth had been exploded by Article 9
of the New Civil Code, which provides that
i. Part of the law of the land
"No judge or court shall decline to render
Legis interpretato legis vim obtinet, judgment by reason of the silence,
the authoritative interpretation of obscurity or insufficiency of the laws."
the Supreme Court of a statute
acquires the force of law by Hence, even the legislator himself, through
becoming a part thereof as of the Article 9 of the New Civil Code, recognizes
date of its enactment, since the that in certain instances, the court, in the
court’s interpretation merely
language of Justice Holmes, "do and must
establishes the contemporaneous
legislate" to fill in the gaps in the law;
legislative intent that the statute
thus construed intends to effectuate because the mind of the legislator, like all
(Senovila v. Hermosisimo). human beings, is finite and therefore
cannot envisage all possible cases to which
ii. Principle Comparison: Stare the law may apply Nor has the human mind
Decisis v. Ration Decidendi the infinite capacity to anticipate all
situations.
Stare decisis et non quieta
movere, when the Supreme Court But about two centuries before Article 9 of
has once laid down a principle of law the New Civil Code, the founding fathers of
as applicable to a certain state of
the American Constitution foresaw and
facts, it will adhere to that principle
recognized the eventuality that the courts
and apply it to all future cases
may have to legislate to supply the
where the facts are substantially the
same. This assures certainty and omissions or to clarify the ambiguities in
stability in the legal system. As part the American Constitution and the
of the legal system and until statutes.
reversed by the Supreme Court
'Thus, Alexander Hamilton pragmatically found to terminate in a penumbra shading
admits that judicial legislation may be gradually from one extreme to the other. x
justified but denies that the power of the x x. When we come to the fundamental
Judiciary to nullify statutes may give rise to distinctions it is still more obvious that they
Judicial tyranny (The Federalist, Modern must be received with a certain latitude or
Library, pp. 503-511, 1937 ed.). Thomas our government could not go on.
Jefferson went farther to concede that the
court is even independent of the Nation To make a rule of conduct applicable to an
itself (A.F.L. vs. American Sash Company, individual who but for such action would be
1949 335 US 538). free from it is to legislate yet it is what the
judges do whenever they determine which
Many of the great expounders of the of two competing principles of policy shall
American Constitution likewise share the prevail.
same view. Chief Justice Marshall
pronounced: "It is emphatically the xxx xxx xxx
province and duty of the Judicial
department to say what the law is (Marbury It does not seem to need argument to show
vs. Madison I Cranch 127 1803), which was that however we may disguise it by veiling
re-stated by Chief Justice Hughes when he words we do not and cannot carry out the
said that "the Constitution is what the distinction between legislative and
judge says it is (Address on May 3, 1907, executive action with mathematical
quoted by President Franklin Delano precision and divide the branches into
Roosevelt on March 9, 1937). This was waterlight compartments, were it ever so
reiterated by Justice Cardozo who desirable to do so, which I am far from
pronounced that "No doubt the limits for believing that it is, or that the Constitution
the judge are narrower. He legislates only requires.
between gaps. He fills the open spaces in
the law. " (The Nature of the Judicial True, there are jurists and legal writers
Process, p. 113). In the language of Chief who affirm that judges should not legislate,
Justice Harlan F. Stone, "The only limit to but grudgingly concede that in certain
the judicial legislation is the restraint of the cases judges do legislate. They criticize the
judge" (U.S. vs. Butler 297 U.S. 1 assumption by the courts of such law-
Dissenting Opinion, p. 79), which view is making power as dangerous for it may
also entertained by Justice Frankfurter and degenerate into Judicial tyranny. They
Justice Robert Jackson. In the rhetoric of include Blackstone, Jeremy Bentham,
Justice Frankfurter, "the courts breathe Justice Black, Justice Harlan, Justice
life, feeble or strong, into the inert pages Roberts, Justice David Brewer, Ronald
of the Constitution and all statute books." Dworkin, Rolf Sartorious, Macklin Fleming
and Beryl Harold Levy. But said Justices,
Finally, Justice Holmes delivered the coup jurists or legal commentators, who either
de grace when he pragmatically admitted, deny the power of the courts to legislate in-
although with a cautionary undertone: between gaps of the law, or decry the
"that judges do and must legislate, but exercise of such power, have not pointed to
they can do so only interstitially they are examples of the exercise by the courts of
confined from molar to molecular motions" such law-making authority in the
(Southern Pacific Company vs. Jensen, 244 interpretation and application of the laws in
US 204 1917). And in the subsequent case specific cases that gave rise to judicial
of Springer vs. Government (277 US 188, tyranny or oppression or that such judicial
210-212, 72 L.ed. 845, 852- 853), Justice legislation has not protected public interest
Holmes pronounced: or individual welfare, particularly the lowly
workers or the underprivileged.
The great ordinances of the Constitution do
not establish and divide fields of black and
white. Even the more specific of them are
III. Legislative Process Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it
The Secretary reports the bill for first shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
reading, which consists of reading the approved by 2/3 of all the Members of that
number and title of the bill, followed by its House, it shall become a law. In all such
referral to the appropriate Committee for cases, the votes of each House shall be
study and recommendation. determined by yeas and nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against
On second reading, the bill shall be read shall be entered in its Journal. The
in full with the amendments proposed by President shall communicate his veto of
the committee, unless any bill to the House where it originated
copies therof are distributed and such within 30 days after the date of receipt
reading is dispensed with. Then, the bill thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as
will be subject to debates, pertinent if he had signed it.
motions, and amendments. After the
amendments, the bill will be voted on 3 Modes of Passing a Law:
second reading. A bill approved on the 1. Affirmative action – the President
second reading shall be included in the signs the bill within 30 days;
calendar of bills for third reading. 2. Counter-action – veto of the President
is overwritten by 2/3 vote of the
On third reading, the bill as approved on Congress;
second reading will be submitted for final 3. Inaction – the President does not act
vote. on the bill within 30 days

STEP BY STEP PROCESS

Bills that should originate from the
1. First Reading – reads title and number
HR (ART-B3)
2. Referral to Appropriate Committee –
studies the bill and proposes Article 6, Section 24
recommendations All appropriation, revenue or tariff,
3 Ways to Kill a Bill bills authorizing increase in public
a. No study – nothing happens debt, bills of local application and
after referral to committee private bills must originate
b. Negative recommendation exclusively from the House of
c. No recommendation – nothing Representatives, but the Senate
happens after the study may propose or concur with
3. Second Reading – reads bill in full or amendments.
distributes printed copies to Members of
the House for consideration; voting on the 1. Appropriation – allocation of funds for
approval of the amended bill (technically a particular purpose
the final version) 2. Revenue – any legislation that tries to
4. Third Reading – approval by a majority raise funds for the government
vote (yeas or nays) 3. Tariff – duties paid for the importation
5. Bill is transmitted to the other House of goods
for consideration (same procedure) 4. Bills authorizing increase in public
debt – to address a deficit (target
Article 6, Section 27 collection not met); normally, the
government avoids borrowing from private
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, institutions so that is does not compete
before it becomes a law, be presented to with the private sector for funds which can
the President. If he approves the same, he drive the interest rate up (even higher
shall sign in; otherwise, he shall veto it and than inflation)
return the same together with his
objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter such objections in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If,
after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all the