STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

From the book STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: Concepts and Cases by Ricardo M. Pilares III

*** These cases show that the mere fact that the words of the statute
are organized in a manner contemplated by a rule of construction
does not automatically mean that such rule should be applied.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION The canons of construction should be considered as auxiliary
rules of construction which are neither universal nor conclusive
in application.
A. BACKGROUND
Thus, as held in Primero v. Court of Appeals, “it should be
applied only as means of discovering legislative intent which is
1. DEFINITION not otherwise manifest and should not be permitted to defeat the
plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.”
ARTICLE VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution vests judicial power
in the Supreme Court and such other courts established by law. In Philippine American Drug Co. decision, a canon of
construction is not conclusive simply because the words used in
Judicial Power the statute, or the syntax of the provision calls for the application
 includes “the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual of the same. Using different canons of construction can result in
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and different interpretations.
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of b. It Involves The Determination Of Legislative Intent
jurisdiction on any part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government” In Senarillos v. Hermosisima, the Court held that the judicial
 “the right to determine actual controversies arising between interpretation of statutes constitutes part of the law as of the date
adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction” the law was passed, since said construction merely establishes
 Often times requires the construction of statutes as applied in the the legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect.
case before them. Thus, when the courts construe a law, they are merely affirming
what was originally intended by the legislature in enacting the
Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Palomar defined construction as “the art or same.
process of discovering or expounding the meaning and intention of the
authors of the law with respect to the application to a given case, where In Torres v. Limjap, it held that the intent of the law-maker
that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact should always be ascertained and given effect, and courts will
that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law” not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true
intent and purpose of the Legislature and to conclusions
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines construction as “the act or inconsistent with the spirit of the act.
result of construing, interpreting or explaining [the] meaning or effect [of a
statute or contract] It further held that the intent is the vital part, the essence of the
law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give
This subject is also called LEGAL HERMENEUTICS, which is defined as effect to that intent. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a
“the systematic body of rules which are recognized as applicable to the legislative enactment.
construction and interpretation of legal writings”
In Araeta v. Dinglasan, the Court held that a rule must be tested
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSTRUCTION according to its results, that is, the intention of the law in question
must be sought for in its nature, the object to be accomplished,
Based on the definition provided in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Palomar, the purpose to be subserved and its relation to the Constitution.
statutory construction may be broken down into the following
characteristics: c. It Is Necessary When The Legislative Intent Cannot Be Readily
Ascertained From The Words Used In The Law As Applied Under
a. It Is An Art Or Process A Set Of Facts

Construction is not an exact science. It does not depend on a set In Bolos v. Bolos, the Court explained that the cardinal rule in
of formulas that can be readily applied in every case. In fact, a statutory construction is that when the law is clean and free from
statute may be interpreted differently if different maxims of any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for application. As the
construction are applied. The different principles of statutory stature is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given
construction should not be used if its application will run counter its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
to the clear legislative intent which can be determined from the This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis.
other parts of the law. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or ‘speech is
the index of intention’. Furthermore, there is the maxim verbal
NATURE OF CONTRUCTION egis non est recedendum, or ‘from the words of a statute
In Cagayan Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals the there should be no departure.
Supreme Court discussed that the very nature of construction is
to determine the intention of the legislature, lends itself to In People v. Mapa, the Supreme Court held that its first and
subjectivity and uncertainty. fundamental duty is to apply the law. The court further held that
“construction and interpretation come only after it has been
EXAMPLES: demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate
without them.
The doctrine of last antecedent which is defined as “qualifying
words and phrases normally refer to the last antecedent word or In Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte
phrase, unless the context otherwise provides” was not adopted the court held that construction is only necessary only if the law
in the case of Tañada v. Tuvera which involves the interpretation is ambiguous. Thus “the rule is that only statutes with an
of Article 2 of the Civil Code, where the Court held that the phrase ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be subject of statutory
“unless otherwise provided” does not qualify its immediate construction.”
antecedent, which is the requirement of publication, but rather
the period of publication which is stated at the beginning of the In Del Mar v. PAGCOR, the Supreme Court defined a statute to
provision. be ambiguous when “it is capable of being understood by
reasonably well-informed persons in wither two or more senses.”
In the case of Philippine American Drug, Co. v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis is In People v. Nazario, the Court held that the test to determine
but a rule of construction adopted as an aid to ascertain and give whether a statute is vague is when it lacks comprehensible
effect to legislative intent but that the same “should not be given standards that “men of common intelligence must necessarily
such wide application that would operate to defeat the purpose guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”
of the law.”
It cannot be presumed that laws intend an absurdity, and the
courts should construe laws as to avoid it.

Complied by: Dania S. Alcoran Page 1 of 4

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
From the book STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: Concepts and Cases by Ricardo M. Pilares III

interpreting statutes do not enjoy the same level of recognition

TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STATUTE IS as decisions of the Supreme Court, which form part of the legal
AMBIGUOUS: system under Article 8 of the Civil Code. A wrong construction of
the law by an administrative agency does not create vested rights
1. TEST OF MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS – when the and such wrong interpretation cannot place the government in
statute is capable of two or more reasonable interpretations, estoppel to correct or overrule the same.
such that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. 3. PURPOSE

2. TEST OF IMPOSSIBILITY – when literal application is The purpose of statutory construction is to determine legislative intent
impossible or inadequate. when the same cannot be readily ascertained from the plain language
of the law. Its primary consideration is the determination of legislative
3. TEST OF ABSURDITY OR UNREASONABLENESS – intent. – Tañ ada v. Yulo
when a literal interpretation of the statute leads to an unjust,
absurd, unreasonable or mischievous result, or one at “The purpose of all ruled or maxims as to the construction or interpretations
variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole. of statutes is to discover the true intention of the law.” – Tañ ada v. Cuenco,
et al.
d. It Is A Judicial Function
Under the principle of effectiveness, a statute must be read un such a
In In re: R. McCulloch Dick, the court held that under the way as to give effect to the purpose projected in the statute. The purpose
Philippine system of government, the duty and ultimate power to of construction is to discover the intention of the law, and not to create
construe the laws is vested in the judicial department. doubt.

In Endencia v. David, the court explained that the interpretation In City of Baguio v. Naga, the Court held that the true object of all
and application of said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial interpretation is to ascertain the meaning and will of the law-making body,
department. to the end that it may be enforced. In varying language, the purpose of all
rules or maxims in interpretation is to discover the true intention of the law.
Defining and interpreting the law is a judicial function and the The spirit or intention of a statute prevails over the letter thereof. A statute
legislative may not limit or restrict the power granted to the courts should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far
by the Constitution. as necessary, the letter of the law. By this, we do not correct the act of the
Legislature, but rather … carry ut and give due course to its true intent.
Whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law, the
courts must so adjudge and thereby give effect to the 4. THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION
Constitution. Any other course would lead to the destruction of
the Constitution. There are varying theories in statutory interpretation:

Under the American system of constitutional government, 1. Textualist theory or originalism

among the most important functions intrusted to the judiciary are
the interpreting of Constitutions and, as a loosely connected  Words used in the statute takes precedence over any other
power, the determination of whether laws and acts of the modes of construction. Thus, the ordinary or plain meaning of
legislature are or are not contrary to the provisions of the Federal construction should control its interpretation.
and State Constitutions.  Textualists focus on the text of the legal provision, as it is
presumed that the words, grammar, and punctuation
The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature cannot pass communicate its meaning.
any declaratory act, or act declaratory of what the law was before  Their main objective is to find the “public meaning” of the statute
its passage, so as to give it any binding weight with the courts. A or the meaning of legal text as ordinary people understand it.
legislative definition of a word used in a s statute is not conclusive  Extrinsic sources of construction are avoided unless intrinsic
of its meaning as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature sources of meaning are found to be insufficient.
would be usurping a judicial function un defining a term.  Modern textualists also refer to extrinsic sources as a means to
confirm and verify the plain meaning to interpretation.
The legislature cannot, upon passing a law which violates a
constitutional provision, validate it so as to prevent an attack Weakness: Words often do not mean the same to everyone.
thereon in the courts, by a declaration that it shall be so There is false belief that language has intrinsic meaning.
construed as not to violate the constitutional inhibition. Language evolve, and the meaning of words evolves.
Note that the principle that statutory construction is inherently a 2. Intentionalism theory or originalism
judicial function does not preclude Congress from enacting
curative legislations.  Focuses on legislative intent “in the belief that the policies and
elected, representative body chose should govern society”
Furthermore, in Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, et al held  It is the duty of the court to discern the intent of that
that the contemporaneous construction of laws by agencies representative body and interpret statutes to further that intent.
tasked with the implementation of the same is highly persuasive.
It held that “the principle that contemporaneous construction of a Difference with textualism:
statute by the executive officers of the government whose duty it It does not require the establishment of ambiguity before it can
is to execute it, is entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily resort to extrinsic sources of construction, because the original
control and construction of states by the courts, is so firmly intent of the framers of the law that should have primacy in the
embedded in our jurisprudence that n authorities need be cited determination of its meaning. Greater emphasis is placed on the
to support it. original intent of the drafters of the law and this requires a review
of legislative history and legislative deliberations.
In Laxamana v. Baltazar, the Court further added that “where a
statute has received a contemporaneous and practical Strength: Consistency with the objective of construction, as it
interpretation and the statute as interpreted is re-enacted, the requires the court to inquire into the original intent of the
practical interpretation is accorded greater weight than it legislature who wrote the law.
ordinarily receives, and is regarded as presumptively the correct
interpretation of the law. Furthermore, “the rule x x x is based Weakness: The legislature consists of many (in the Philippines,
upon the theory that the legislature is acquainted with the hundreds) individuals coming from different backgrounds and
contemporaneous construction of a statute, especially when with different motivations. Legislative determination may not be
made by an administrative body or executive officers charged a reliable source of interpretation as it only serves as evidence
with the duty of administering or enforcing the law, and therefore of the intention of but a few members of Congress who actively
impliedly adopts the interpretation upon re-enactment. participated in the deliberation of a law, and whose views may
not be necessarily shared by the other members of congress.
In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, the Court held that administrative decisions

Complied by: Dania S. Alcoran Page 2 of 4

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
From the book STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: Concepts and Cases by Ricardo M. Pilares III

It fails to reconcile between general legislative intent and

specific legislative intent. The former refers to the general However, it is equally fundamental that the legislative intent must be
intention of congress in drafting a law as a while, while the latter determined from the language of the statute itself. This principle must be
refers to the specific intention of the legislature in writing a adhered to even though the court be convinced by extraneous
specific section or provision of the statute. circumstances that the Legislature intended to enact something very
different from that which it did enact.
In its extreme, it focuses on specific legislative intent which could
be misleading in the sense that it fails to view the statute in the An obscurity cannot be created to be cleared up by construction and hidden
light of the general intention that the legislature intended in the meanings at variance with the language ised cannot be sought out. To
statute as a whole. attempt to do so is a perilous undertaking, and is quite apt to lead to an
amendment of a law by judicial construction.
3. Purposivism or Legal process theory
To depart from the meaning expressed by the words is to alter the statute,
 Focuses on determining the problem that the legislature is is to legislate not to interpret.
seeking to address.
 Interpretation is made with a view to the public policy that the LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION V. JUDICIAL LEGISLATION
statute seeks to advance. By liberal construction of statutes, courts from the language
used, the subject matter, and the purposes of those framing them
An analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court decisions shows that we do are able to find out their true meaning. There is a sharp
not adopt a single, unitary theory of construction. distinction, however, between construction of this nature and the
act of a court engrafting upon a law something that has been
While our Courts are moderate textualists in theory, in focusing on the plain omitted which someone believes ought to have been embraced.
meaning theory of construction, they are, on the other hand, intentionalists The former is liberal construction and is a legitimate exercise
and purposivists in approach. of judicial power. The latter is judicial legislation forbidden by
the tripartite division of powers among the three departments of
This is evidenced by the fact that while the Court prioritizes the plain government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
meaning rule as the objective manifestation of legislative intent, the Court
has not hesitated to state that if the language of the statute is inconsistent In Naational Marketing Corporation v. Tecson, et. al., the Court held that
with its spirit or ratio legis, then the latter should prevail. if public interest demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the Revised
Administrative Code, this may be done through legislative process, not by
The fact that our legal system does not adopt a single theory of construction judicial decree.
gives the Courts flexibility in advancing its interpretation of a statute.
Courts cannot, under the guise of interpretation, “speculate as to an intent
and supply a meaning not found in the phraseology of the law” and “the
B. RELATED LEGAL PRINCIPLES courts cannot assume some purpose in no way expressed and then
construe the statute to accomplish this supposed intention.
1. SEPARATION OF POWERS
The court stated in Corpuz v. People that the primordial duty of the Court
is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative
In Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court described the relationship
powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or
of the three branches of the government through the principles of
construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise
separation of powers and checks and balances: The separation of powers
of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law,
is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not
or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms.
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution.
The Court should shy away from encroaching upon the primary function of
The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and
a co-equal branch of the Government; otherwise, this would lead to an
balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments
inexcusable breach of the doctrine of separation of powers by means of
of the government.
judicial legislation.
In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine proper allocation of powers between
2. HEIRARCHY OF LAWS
the several departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof.
ARTICLE 7 of the Civil Code provides:
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or
itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way.
custom or practice to the contrary.
And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures
valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
and guarantees to them.
Constitution.
This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed judicial supremacy
Under the principle of hierarchy of laws, the Philippine Constitution is
which properly is the power of judicial review under the constitution. Even
supreme over all laws, and as such, acts of Congress, executive agencies
then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and
exercising quasi-judicial functions and local legislative bodies must be
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the
consistent with the Constitution.
parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very
lis mota presented.
3. STARE DECISIS
Under the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution vests in the
legislative branch of government the power to enact laws, the executive
The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere (follow past precedents
branch, the power to execute laws, and in the judicial branch, the power to
and do not disturb what has been settled) is embodied in Article 8 of the
interpret laws.
Civil Code which provides:
As held in Endencia v. David, the interpretation and application of laws is
Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
vested in the judicial department of government.
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
The principle of separation of powers likewise imposes a limitation to
judicial power. The power of the courts is limited to the interpretation of the
Once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be
laws enacted by the legislature and not to legislate, which is vested
deemed settled and closed to further argument. This principle is one policy
exclusively in the legislative branch of government.

Complied by: Dania S. Alcoran Page 3 of 4

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
From the book STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: Concepts and Cases by Ricardo M. Pilares III

grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability in judicial

decisions.

Legis interpretation legis vim obtinet or the interpretation placed upon

the written law by a competent court has the force of law. The Supreme
Court is described as having the last word on what the law is, as it is the
final arbiter of any justiciable controversy. As such, lower courts are
enjoined to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim that a principle
or rule of law which has been established by the decision of a court of
controlling jurisdiction will be followed in other cases involving a similar
situation. It is founded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability
in the law and does not require identity of or privity of parties.

From the wordings of Article 8 of the Civil Code, it is even said that such
decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself and, until
authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they are
applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of those
called upon to decide thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce
obedience thereto.

Abandonment thereof must be based only on strong and compelling

reasons, otherwise, the becoming virtue of predictability which is expected
from this Court would be immeasurably affected and the public’s
confidence in the stability of the solemn pronouncements diminished.

For the doctrine of stare decisis to apply, the principle of law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the precedent case must pertain to the main issue of
the case and not merely obiter dictum. A dictum is an opinion of a judge
which does not embody the resolution or determination of the court and
made without argument, or full consideration of the point, not the proffered
deliberate opinion of the judge himself. As such, mere dicta are not
binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Supreme Court is not precluded from changing its mind and reversing
a previous doctrine that is laid down. ARTICLE VIII, Section 4(3) of the
Philippine Constitution states that “no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in a division may be
modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc.

How would other similar pending cases be decided in light of the

doctrinal change vis-à-vis the principle of stare decisis?
In Ting v. Ting, “the interpretation or construction of a law by courts
constitutes a part of the law as of the date the statute is enacted” and that
“it is only when a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a different view
is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in
favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good
faith, in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, not
respicit.

Complied by: Dania S. Alcoran Page 4 of 4