I.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
A. In General
1. Definition
 Construction 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 for the law
 Drawing of warranted conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the
direct expression of the text

2. Importance
 Because of infirmities of language and the limited scope in legislative drafting,
there is a need for construction by the judiciary

B. Construction vs. Interpretation

 They are so alike in practical results and so are used interchangeably;
synonymous
Construction Interpretation
Art of finding the true meaning and sense Process of drawing warranted conclusions
of any form of words not always included in direct expressions,
or determining the application of words to
facts

C. When Construction is Necessary

1. Purpose: to determine spirit of the law/legislative intent in case of ambiguity of the
statute
 Where legislative intent is ascertained:
1) From the statue as a whole and not from isolated or parts of provision
2) From the language employed, when there is no ambiguity
3) From legislative history, when words used are ambiguous
4) From the purpose or reason or the cause which induced the enactment
of the law
2. Effect when the text of the statute utterly fails to express the legislative intent

D. Power to Construe: Judicial Function

 The duty and the power to interpret or construe a statute of the Constitution
belong to the judiciary.
 Court has the final word as to what the law means
 Court refrains to construe when case has become moot and academic and
instead dismiss the case
o Moot/academic: when purpose has become stale or where no practical
relief can be granted or which can have no practical effect

1. Separation of Powers
 Under the doctrine of separation of powers:
a. Legislature – make the law
b. Executive – execute the law
c. Judiciary – construe the law
 Legislative has no power to overrule the interpretation or construction of statute
of the Constitution by the SC.
Ratio: if the legislature declares what a law means—it will cause
confusion and will be violative of the separation of powers

2. Interrelationship/Overlap of Powers
a. Executive and Legislative Powers
 Executive-rule making power (delegated legislative power)
 Administration supervision of its own departments by each House of Congress
 Quasi-legislative power - it is the authority delegated by the law-making body
to the administrative body to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out
the provisions of a law and implement legislative policy.

b. Executive and Judicial Powers

  Executive agencies with Quasi-Judicial Functions
 Quasi-judicial power - it is the power of administrative authorities to make
determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to
apply the law as they construe it to the facts so found. The exercise of this
power is only incidental to the main function of administrative authorities,
which is the enforcement of the law.
 Executive Contemporaneous Construction of Statutes
o principle used in interpretation of statutes
o says that an ambiguous statute made by an administrative agency
or lower court is entitled to great deference if the interpretation has
been used over a long period.
o Under the contemporaneous construction doctrine, a court or
agency decision or practice interpreting an ambiguous statute may
be considered a contemporaneous construction even though the
interpreting act occurs months or even one year or more after the
statute was enacted
 SC admin supervision of all courts and personnel

c. Judicial and Legislative Powers

 Judicial Legislation (Art. 9, NCC)
o Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (6)
o Limitation on Judicial Power to Construe
 Courts may not enlarge the scope of a statute and include
therein situations not provided nor intended by lawmakers
 Courts are not authorized to insert into the law what they
think should be in it or to supply what they think the
legislature would have supplied.
 Should not revise nor rewrite the law
CASE: Floresca v. Philex Mining 136 SCRA 506
 Legislative interpretation thru interpretative clause prescribing rules of
Construction
o SC may issue guidelines in applying the statute, not to enlarge or
restrict, but to clearly delineate what the law requires

3. Power of Judicial Review: Requisites

 Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light
of their conformity with the Constitution
 Not an assertion of superiority of courts over other but an expression of the
supremacy of the Constitution
 This power is inherent in the Judicial Department by virtue of separation of
powers
 Requisites: (ALEL)
1) Actual Case or Controversy; Ripeness of Controversy
o Actual case: a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of judicial determination
o no commitment to adversarial system; the court has no
authority to pass upon issues of constitutionality through
advisory opinions; there should be an actual case or
controversy

2) Legal Standing (Locus Standi)

o complainant/challenger should have personal or substantial
interest in the case
 real-party-in-interest
o party who stands to be benefited/injured by judgment
in the suit; the party entitled to the avails of the suit
 legal standing (public / constitutional law cases)
o personal and substantial interest; if the person is the
party who suffers or will suffer the injury pursuant to
the application of governmental act

3) Constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible

opportunity
 o General Rule: The question must be raised in the pleadings.
o Exceptions:
 In criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at
the discretion of the court;
 In civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of
the proceedings if necessary, for the determination of the
case itself; &
 In every case, except where there is estoppel, it can be
raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.
o 2 kinds of estoppel:
 A person is barred from questioning a
particular act after where he has benefited
from the same act.
 Where a person is prevented from
exercising a right, after a certain period he
has slept that right.

4) Constitutional question must be the very “list mota” of the case

o lis mota - essence of the subject matter of the case; existing
or anticipated litigation
o Determination of the constitutionality of the act is inevitable,
cannot be avoided
o The court should respect the act of the other 2 branches

4. Declaration of unconstitutionality of statutes

 Legislature cannot override a judicial construction and interpretation of the
Constitution. It can however change the law itself, thereby overruling the
construction of that previous law.

a. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy

 If a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law or contract
whether promulgated by the legislative, or by the executive branch or entered
into by private persons for private purpose is null and void and without any
force or effect.
 Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the
nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
(1) Constitution superior to statutes
(2) Executive issuances cannot prevail over statutory policy
CASE: Petitioner-Organizations v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147036-
37, April 10, 2012

b. Effect
1) Void: if on its face it does not enjoy any presumption of validity because it is
patently offensive to the Constitution.
o It produces no effect, creates no office, and imposes no duty.
o If the law has been declared unconstitutional, it is presumed that no
law existed at all
o Orthodox/Traditional view

2) Voidable: if on its face it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality.

o The law becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its
invalidity.
o The declaration produces no retroactive effect.
o Under this view, the court in passing upon the question of
constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if it finds it in
conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and
determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no
existence.
o Modern view

c. Partial unconstitutionality: separable provisions/with separability clause

 General rule: that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the
Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from
the invalid, may stand and be enforced
  Exception – that when parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and
connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for
each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a
whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest – such as in the case of Tatad
v Sec of Department of Energy and Antonio v. COMELEC
 Requisites for partial unconstitutionality:
1) The Legislature must be willing to retain the valid portion(s), usually
shown by the presence of a separability clause in the law; and
2) The valid portion can stand independently as law.

CASES:
Lidasan v. COMELEC, supra
Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997

d. Doctrine of Relative of Constitutionality

 The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a
mere comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the
Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one
set of facts and invalid in its application to another.
 A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because
of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes
arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former
adjudication, is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed
conditions.
CASE: Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BSP, 446 SCRA 299

5. Reversal of Judicial Construction

 No court can reverse a judicial construction except the Supreme Court.

6. Promulgation: Operative Act for the Effectivity of a Decision

CASES:
Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178831-32, July 30, 2009
See also Araneta v. Dinglasan, supra [Re: effect of the death of a justice J.
Perfecto]

7. Rulings of the SC (in construing a statute)

a. Part of Legal System (See Art. 8, NCC)
 Article 8 NCC: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
b. Judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date that law was
originally passed
 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 merely established the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the statute thus construed intends to
effectuate.
CASES:
Senarillos v. Hermosisima, G.R. No. L-10662, December 14, 1956
Phil. International Trading Corp. v. COA, G.R. No. 205837, November 21, 2017

c. Generally, no retroactive effect

 Judicial ruling of the high tribunal construing a law will not retroactively apply
for it impairs vested rights.
 Judicial ruling overruling a previous one will also not be applied retroactively
because it would nullify a right which arose under the previous ruling.
 Lex prospicit, non respicit = the law looks forward not backward
 Principle: retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have
already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract and hence, is
unconstitutional.
 Stare decisis = to stand by things decided. The interpretation of a statute
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.

CASES:
People v. Santayana, G.R. No. L-22291, November 15, 1976 (in relation to
People v. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967 and People v.
Macarandang, G.R. No. L-12088, December 23, 1959)
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996

d. SC ruling cannot be undone by Congress by re-enacting a provision previously

declared unconstitutional
 Congress can only undo a ruling if it changes the exact law or its provisions to
which the ruling was construed on
CASE: Sameer Oversees Placement v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5,
2014