STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Adamson University
College of Law
First Semester, A.Y. 2022-2023
Keij Ejercito
GRADING
Recitation & Quizzes 30%
Midterms 20%
Finals 40%
Digests / Proposed Bills 10%
NOTE: Premium will be given to those with complete attendance
POLICY ON ATTENDANCE
▪ Maximum of five (5) absences
▪ Three counts of late is equivalent to one absence
▪ If called during the recitation and you are absent, a recit grade of 50% will automatically
be given.
▪ At least eighty percent (80%) of the class should be present every meeting. If more than
20% of the class is absent, the entire class will get a 50% recit grade for that particular
day.
HOUSE RULES
▪ Reading notes / books / online sources when you are called to recite is not allowed.
▪ Plagiarism will never be tolerated.
▪ No phones / social media / games and other mobile phone apps should be open during
the entire period.
▪ During recitation, always turn on your Zoom video. Always be on mute unless you are
called to recite.
REFERENCE MATERIALS
▪ Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition (2009) by Ruben E. Agpalo
▪ 1987 Philippine Constitution
▪ Assigned cases
INTRODUCTION
1. Branches of the Government
▪ Article VI, 1987 Constitution
▪ Article VII, 1987 Constitution
▪ Article VIII, 1987 Constitution
AGPALO CHAPTER I: STATUTES
A. IN GENERAL
1. Laws, generally
▪ Hierarchy of Laws
2. Statutes, generally
3. Statutory Construction, definition
Cases:
▪ People v. Palma, G.R. No. L-44113, March 31, 1977
1
▪ Valera v. Tuason, Jr., G.R. No. L-1276, April 30, 1948
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
4. Permanent and temporary statutes
5. Other classes of statutes
6. Manner of referring to statutes
B. ENACTMENT OF STATUTES
1. Generally
2. Legislative power of Congress
▪ Senate of the Philippines
▪ House of Representatives
3. Procedural requirements in enacting a law, generally
4. Steps in the passage of bill into law
▪ Section 24-27, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
Cases:
▪ Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005.
▪ Remman Enterprises Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service and
PRC, G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014.
C. PARTS OF STATUTES
1. Statutes generally contain
▪ Article VI, Sec. 26 (1), 1987 Constitution
Cases:
▪ Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
▪ Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
▪ Municipality of Jose Panganiban v. Shell Co. of the Philippines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-18349,
▪ July 30, 1966
▪ Alalayan v. NPC, G.R. No. L-24396, July 29, 1968
▪ Cawaling, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 146319, October 26, 2001
▪ People v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. 22945, March 3, 1925
▪ Cordero v. Cabatuando, G.R. No. L-14542, October 31, 1962
▪ Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
▪ Ayson v. Provincial Board of Rizal, G.R. No. 14019, July 26, 1919
▪ People v. Valensoy, G.R. No. L-9659, May 29, 1957
▪ People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239, June 30, 1947
2. Meaning of certain bills originating from the lower House
3. Enactment of budget and appropriations law
4. Restrictions in passage of budget or revenue bills
5. Rules and records of legislative proceedings
6. Power to issue its rules of proceedings
7. Unimpeachability of legislative journals
8. Enrolled bill
Cases:
▪ Araullo v. Aquino, GR No. 209287, February 3, 2015
▪ Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
▪ Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
9. Withdrawal of authenticity, effect of
10. Summary rules
2
D. ISSUANCES, RULES AND ORDINANCES
1. Presidential issuances
▪ David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009
2. Administrative rules and regulations
Cases:
▪ People v. Lim, G.R. No. L-14432, July 26, 1960
▪ China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121158, December 5, 1996
▪ Pelaez v. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965
▪ Cemco Holdings, Inc. v. National Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc., G.R.
No. 171815, August 7, 2007
3. Illustrative cases on validity of executive orders, rules and regulations
4. Administrative rule and interpretation distinguished
5. Supreme Court rule-making power
6. Legislative power of local government units
7. Barangay ordinance
8. Municipal ordinance
9. City ordinance
10. Provincial ordinance
Cases:
▪ Lagcao v. Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004
▪ Navarro v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180050, February 10, 2010
E. VALIDITY OF STATUTE
1. Presumption of constitutionality
Case:
▪ Peralta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-47771, March 11, 1978
2. Requisites for exercise of judicial power
3. Appropriate case
4. Standing to sue
5. When to raise constitutionality
6. Necessity of deciding constitutionality
7. Summary of essential requisites of judicial review
Case:
▪ Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R.No. 225973, November 8, 2016 (See also Justice Marvic
Leonen’s Dissenting Opinion)
▪ Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003
8. Test of constitutionality
9. Effects of unconstitutionality
10. Invalidity due to change of conditions
11. Partial invalidity
F. EFFECT AND OPERATION
1. When laws take effect
3
Case:
▪ Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986
2. When Presidential issuances, rules and regulations take effect
3. When local ordinance takes effect
4. Statutes continue in force until repealed
5. Territorial and personal effect of statutes
6. Manner of computing time
CHAPTER II: CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
A. NATURE AND PURPOSE
1. Construction defined
Case:
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
2. Construction and interpretation distinguished
3. Rules of construction, generally
4. Purpose or object of construction
Cases:
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
▪ People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-19190, November 29, 1922
5. Legislative intent, generally
6. Legislative purpose
7. Legislative meaning
8. Graphical illustration
Cases:
▪ Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41161, September 10, 1981
▪ Associacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc. v. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., G.R.
No. L-19937, February 19, 1979
9. Matters inquired into in construing a statute
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
10. Where legislative intent is ascertained
Case:
▪ Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, G.R. No. 170735, December
17, 2007
B. POWER TO CONSTRUE
1. Construction is a judicial function
2. Legislature cannot overrule judicial construction
3. When judicial interpretation may be set aside
4. When court may construe statute
5. Condition sine qua non before courts can construe statutes; ambiguity defined
6. Court may not construe where statute is clear
7. Verba legis or plain meaning rule
4
Cases:
▪ Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007
▪ National Food Authority v. Masada Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 163448, March 08,
2005
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express International, Inc., G.R.
No. 152609, June 29, 2005
▪ Secretary of DPWH v. Spouses Herecieo and Ramona Tecson, G.R. No. 179334,
April 21, 2015
8. Rulings of Supreme Court part of legal system
9. Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect
10. Only Supreme Court en banc can modify or abandon principle of law, not any division of
the Court
11. Court may issue guidelines in construing statute
C. LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO CONSTRUE
1. Courts may not enlarge nor restrict statutes
Cases:
▪ Morales v. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968
▪ People v. Garcia y Madrigal, G.R. No. L-2873, February 28, 1950
▪ People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988
2. Courts may not be influenced by questions of wisdom
Cases:
▪ Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936
▪ People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239, June 30, 1947
▪ Quintos v. Lacson, G.R. No. L-8062, July 18, 1955
CHAPTER III: AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Title
Case:
▪ City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. L-26100, February 28, 1969
3. When resort to title not authorized
4. Preamble
5. Illustration of rule
Cases:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
▪ People v. Echavez, Jr., G.R. Nos. L-47757-61, January 28, 1980
6. Context of whole text
Case:
▪ Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-14526, March 31, 1965
7. Punctuation marks
5
Case:
▪ Florentino v. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, April 28, 1956
8. Illustrative examples
9. Capitalization of letters
10. Headnotes or epigraphs
Case:
▪ People v. Yabut, G.R. No. 39085, September 27, 1933
11. Lingual text
12. Intent or spirit of law
Case:
▪ Torres v. Limjap, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931
13. Policy of law
Case:
▪ Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Incorporated v. Lingad, G.R. No. L-
26406, October 31, 1969
14. Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed
Cases:
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
▪ Escribano v. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
15. Dictionaries
16. Consequences of various constructions
17. Presumptions
B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1. Generally
2. What constitutes legislative history
Case:
▪ Tamayo v. Gsell, G.R. No. 10765, December 22, 1916
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Esso Standard Eastern Inc., G.R. No. L-28329, August 7,
1975
3. President’s message to legislature
4. Explanatory note
5. Legislative debates, views and deliberations
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
▪ League of Cities v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176951, December 21, 2009
6. Reports of commissions
7. Prior laws from which statute is based
8. Change in phraseology by amendments
9. Amendment by deletion
6
10. Exceptions to the rule
11. Adopted statutes
Case:
▪ United States v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 9144, March 27, 1915
12. Limitations of rule
Case:
▪ Republic v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 141314, April 9, 2003
13. Principles of common law
14. Conditions at time of enactment
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., G.R. No. L-13067, December
29, 1959
15. History of the times
C. CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
1. Generally
2. Executive construction, generally; kinds of
3. Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction
Case:
▪ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, November 13, 1991
4. Weight accorded to usage and practice
Case:
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusements Board, G.R. No. L-12727, February
29, 1960
5. Construction of rules and regulations
6. Reasons why contemporaneous construction is given much weight
7. When contemporaneous construction disregarded
Case:
▪ Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-47673, October 10, 1946
8. Erroneous contemporaneous construction does not preclude correction nor create
rights; exceptions
Case:
▪ Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956
9. Legislative interpretation
10. Legislative approval
11. Reenactment
12. Stare decisis
Cases:
▪ Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-47673, October 10, 1946
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No.
7
197192, June 4, 2014
▪ Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000
CHAPTER IV: ADHERENCE TO, OR DEPARTURE FROM, LANGUAGE OF
STATUTE
A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION
1. Literal meaning or plain-meaning rule
Case:
▪ Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996
2. Dura lex sed lex
Cases:
▪ People v. Amigo, G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996
▪ Aguila v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, G.R. No. L-48335, April 15, 1988
B. DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION
1. Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise inoperative
Cases:
▪ Regalado v. Yulo, G.R. No. 42935, February 15, 1935
▪ Santiago v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
2. What is within the spirit is within the law
3. Literal import must yield to intent
Case:
▪ Ty Sue v. Hord, G.R. No. 4495, January 14, 1909
4. Intent of a statute is the law
5. Limitation of rule
6. Construction to accomplish purpose
7. Illustration of rule
Cases:
▪ Bustamante v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996
▪ United States v. Toribio, G.R. No. 5060, January 26, 1910
▪ Planters Association of Southern Negros, Inc. v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 114087, October
26, 1999
8. When reason of law ceases, law itself ceases
9. Supplying legislative omission
10. Correcting clerical errors
11. Illustration of rule
12. Qualification of rule
Cases:
▪ Lamp v. Phipps, G.R. No. 7806, July 12, 1912
▪ Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
13. Construction to avoid absurdity
8
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992
▪ Paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
14. Construction to avoid injustice
Case:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
15. Construction to avoid danger to public interest
Case:
▪ Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5, September 17, 1945
16. Construction in favor of right and justice
Case:
▪ Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997
17. Surplusage and superfluity disregarded
18. Redundant words may be rejected
19. Obscure or missing word or false description may not preclude construction
20. Exemption from rigid application of law
Case:
▪ People v. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. L-32282-83, November 26, 1970
21. Law does not require the impossible
22. Number and gender of words
C. IMPLICATIONS
1. Doctrine of necessary implication Cases:
▪ Chua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992
▪ Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386,
November 29, 2001
2. Remedy implied from a right
3. Grant of jurisdiction
4. What may be implied form grant of jurisdiction
5. Grant of power includes incidental power
Cases:
▪ Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936
▪ University of Santo Tomas v. Board of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-5701, June 23, 1953
6. What is implied should not be against the law
7. Authority to charge against public funds may not be implied
8. Illegality of act implied from prohibition
9. Exceptions to the rule
10. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
Case:
▪ People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-19190, November 29, 1922
11. There should be no penalty for compliance with law
9
CHAPTER V: INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Statutory definition
3. Qualification of rule
4. Words construed in their ordinary sense
5. General words construed generally
Case:
▪ Lo Cham v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-831, November 21, 1946
▪ Getz Corp., Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-59823, August 21, 1982
6. Application of rule
7. Generic term includes things that arise thereafter
Case:
▪ Geotina v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-33500, August 30, 1971
8. Words with commercial or trade meaning
9. Words with technical or legal meaning
10. How identical terms in same statute construed
11. Meaning of word qualified by purpose of statute
12. Word or phrase construed in relation to other provisions
Case:
▪ Claudio v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 140560, May 04, 2000
13. Meaning of term dictated by context
Case:
▪ United States v. Estapia, G.R. No. 12891, October 19, 1917
14. Where the law does not distinguish
Case:
▪ Guerrero v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000
15. Illustration of rule
Cases:
▪ Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Coll. of Int. Rev., G.R. No. L-9415, April 22, 1957
▪ Tiu San v. Republic, G.R. No. L-7301, April 20, 1955
▪ Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 95832, August 10, 1992
▪ Sanciangco v. Roño, G.R. No. L-68709, July 19, 1985
16. Disjunctive and conjunctive words
B. ASSOCIATED WORDS
1. Noscitur a sociis
Cases:
▪ Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L•5, September 17, 1945
10
▪ Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
2. Application of rule
Cases:
▪ Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
▪ Carandang v. Santiago, etc. and Valenton, G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955
3. Ejusdem generis
Case:
▪ Murphy, Morris & Co. v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 4608, October 16, 1908
4. Illustration of rule
Cases:
▪ Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970
▪ Cu Unjieng Sons, Inc. v. Board of Tax Appeals and Coll. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-
6296, September 29, 1956
▪ Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189755, July 04,
2012
▪ Pelizloy Realty Corporation v. Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, April 10, 2013
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 207843, July
15, 2015
5. Limitations of ejusdem generis
Cases:
▪ Colgate-Palmolive Phil., Inc. v. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-14787, January 28, 1961
▪ Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-33471, January 31, 1972
6. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Cases:
▪ Parayno v. Jovellanos, G.R. No. 148408, July 14, 2006
▪ San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R.
No. 147749, June 22, 2006
▪ Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005
7. Negative-opposite doctrine
8. Application of expressio unius rule
Cases:
▪ Escribano v. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
▪ Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 01, 1994
▪ Lopez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144573, September 24, 2002
▪ De La Salle-Araneta University v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017
▪ Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 221706,
March 13, 2018
9. Limitations of rule
Case:
▪ Escribano vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-30375, September 12, 1978
10. Doctrine of casus omissus
11
Case:
▪ People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962
11. Doctrine of last antecedent
Case:
▪ Florentino v. PNB, G.R. No. L-8782, April 28, 1956
12. Illustration of rule
13. Qualification of the doctrine
14. Reddendo singula singulis
Case:
a. King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962
C. PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS AND SAVING CLAUSES
1. Provisos, generally
2. Proviso may enlarge scope of law
3. Proviso as additional legislation
4. What proviso qualifies
5. Exception to the rule
6. Repugnancy between proviso and main provision
7. Exceptions, generally
8. Exception and proviso distinguished
9. Illustration of exception
Cases:
▪ Manila Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Employees’ Assn., G.R. No. L-1206, October 30,
1947
▪ Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
10. Saving clause
CHAPTER VI: STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER
STATUTES
A. STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE
1. Generally
Cases:
▪ Catiis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153979, February 09, 2006
▪ Aquino v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 137534, August 3, 2006
2. Intent ascertained from statute as whole
Case:
▪ Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986
3. Purpose or context as controlling guide
4. Giving effect to statute as a whole
5. Apparently conflicting provisions reconciled
Cases:
12
▪ Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996
▪ Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102377, July 05, 1996
6. Special and general provisions in same statute
7. Construction as not to render provision nugatory
8. Reason for the rule
9. Qualification of rule
Case:
▪ Cuyegkeng, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-16263, July 26, 1960
10. Construction as to give life to law
Case:
▪ Paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996
11. Construction to avoid surplusage
12. Application of rule
Case:
▪ Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-41001, September 30, 1976
13. Statute and its amendments construed together
B. STATUTE CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
STATUTES
1. Statute construed in harmony with the Constitution
2. Statutes in pari materia
3. How statutes in pari materia construed
Case:
▪ Corona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97356, September 30, 1992
4. Reasons why laws on same subject are reconciled
Cases:
▪ Bagatsing v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, December 17, 1976
▪ City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049, May 31, 1976
5. Where harmonization is impossible
Case:
▪ City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049, May 31, 1976
6. Illustration of the rule
Cases:
▪ King v. Hernaez, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962
▪ Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103533, December 15, 1998
7. General and special statutes
8. Reason for the rule
9. Qualifications of the rule
10. Reference statutes
13
11. Supplemental statutes
12. Reenacted statutes
13. Adoption of contemporaneous construction
14. Qualification of the rule
15. Adopted statutes
CHAPTER VII: STRICT OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Strict construction, generally
3. Liberal construction, defined
4. Liberal construction applied, generally
Case:
▪ Javellana v. Mirasol and Nuñez, G.R. No. 14881, February 05, 1920
5. Construction to promote social justice
6. Construction taking into consideration general welfare or growth of civilization
B. STATUTES STRICTLY CONSTRUED
1. Penal statutes, generally
2. Penal statutes strictly construed
Case:
▪ People v. Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998
▪ People of the Philippines v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000
3. Reason why penal statutes are strictly construed
4. Acts mala in se and mala prohibita
5. Application of rule
Cases:
▪ People v. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978
▪ Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 116033, February 26, 1997
6. Limitation of rule
Cases:
▪ People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, July 31, 1962
▪ People v. Gatchalian, G.R. Nos. L-12011-14, September 30, 1958
7. Statutes in derogation of rights
8. Statutes authorizing expropriations
9. Statutes granting privileges
10. Legislative grants to local government units
11. Statutory grounds for removal of officials
12. Naturalizations laws
13. Statutes imposing taxes and customs duties
14. Statutes granting tax exemptions
Case:
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107135, February
23, 1999
14
15. Qualification of rule
16. Statutes concerning the sovereign
17. Statutes authorizing suits against the government
18. Statutes prescribing formalities of will
19. Exceptions and provisos
C. STATUTES LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
1. General social legislation
Case:
▪ Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees’ Union (IBAAEU) v. Inciong, G.R. No. L-
52415, October 23, 1984
▪ GSIS v. Vicencio, R.R. No. 176832, May 21, 2009
2. General welfare clause
3. Grant of power to local governments
4. Statutes granting tax power
5. Statutes prescribing prescriptive period to collect taxes
6. Statutes imposing penalties for nonpayment of tax
7. Election laws
Case:
▪ Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-13744, November 29, 1918
▪ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Tondeña Distillers, Ltd. G.R. No. 175188, July
15, 2015
8. Amnesty proclamations
9. Statutes prescribing prescriptions of crimes
10. Adoption statutes
Case:
▪ Duncan v. Court of First Instance, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
11. Veteran and pension laws
Case
▪ Tantuico Jr. v. Domingo, G.R. No. 96422, February 28, 1994
12. Rules of Court
13. Other statutes
Case
▪ Finman General Assurance Corp. v. CA, GR No. 100970, September 2, 1992
CHAPTER VIII: MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY STATUTES
A. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
2. Mandatory and directory statutes, generally
3. When statute is mandatory or directory
4. Test to determine nature of statute
15
5. Language used
6. Use of “shall” or “must”
Case:
▪ Enriquez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005
7. Use of “may”
Case:
▪ Grego v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997
8. When “shall” is construed as “may” and vice versa
9. Use of negative, prohibitory or exclusive terms
B. MANDATORY STATUTES
1. Statutes conferring power
2. Statutes granting benefits
3. Statutes prescribing jurisdictional requirements
4. Statutes prescribing time to take action or to appeal
Case:
▪ Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997
5. Statutes prescribing procedural requirements
Case:
▪ Vda. De Mesa v. Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966
6. Election laws on conduct of election
7. Election laws on qualification and disqualification
8. Statutes prescribing qualifications for office
9. Statutes relating to assessment of taxes
10. Statutes concerning public auction sale
C. DIRECTORY STATUTES
1. Statutes prescribing guidance for officers
2. Statutes prescribing manner of judicial action
3. Statutes requiring rendition of decision with prescribed period
Case:
▪ Querubin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2581, December 02, 1948
4. Constitutional time provision directory
Case:
▪ Marcelino v. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. L-42428, March 18, 1983
CHAPTER IX: PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE STATUTES
A. IN GENERAL
1. Prospective and retroactive statutes, defined
2. Laws operate prospectively, generally
Case:
16
▪ Co v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993
3. Presumption against retroactivity
Case:
▪ People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, December 22, 1955
4. Words or phrases indicating prospectivity
5. Retroactive statutes, generally
B. STATUTES GIVEN PROSPECTIVE EFFECT
1. Penal statutes, generally
2. Ex post facto law
Case:
▪ Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L•50581•50617, January 30, 1982
3. Bill of attainder
Case:
▪ People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972
4. When penal laws applied retroactively
Case:
▪ United States v. Macasaet, G.R. No. 4432, October 15, 1908
5. Statutes substantive in nature
6. Effects on pending actions
Case:
▪ Republic v. Samia, G.R. No. L-17569, May 31, 1963
7. Qualification of rule
8. Statutes affecting vested rights
Case:
▪ Rattan Art & Decorations, Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-17744, April
30, 1965
9. Statutes affecting obligations of contract
10. Illustration of rule
Case:
▪ People v. Zeta, G.R. No. L-7140, December 22, 1955
11. Repealing and amendatory acts
C. STATUTES GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
1. Laws not retroactive; Exception
Case:
▪ Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev’t. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 54305, February
14, 1990
17
2. Exceptions to the rule
3. Procedural laws
4. Exceptions to the rule
5. Curative statutes
Case:
▪ Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
6. Limitations of rule
7. Police power legislations
8. Statutes relating to prescription
9. Apparently conflicting decisions on prescription
10. Prescription in criminal and civil cases
11. Statutes relating to appeals
CHAPTER X: AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL
A. AMENDMENT
1. Power to amend
2. How amendment effected
3. Amendment by implication
4. When amendment takes effect
5. How amendment is construed, generally
6. Meaning of law changed by amendment
7. Amendment operates prospectively
8. Effect of amendment on vested rights
9. Effect of amendment on jurisdiction
10. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
B. REVISION AND CODIFICATION
1. Generally
2. Construction to harmonize different provisions
3. What is omitted is deemed repealed
4. Change in phraseology
5. Continuation of existing laws
C. REPEAL
1. Power to repeal
2. The Constitution prohibits passage of irrepealable laws; all laws are repealable
3. Repeal, generally
4. Repeal by implication
5. Irreconcilable inconsistency
6. Implied repeal by revision or codification
7. Repeal by reenactment
8. Other forms of implied repeal
9. “All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly,” construed
10. Repeal by implication not favored
11. As between two laws, one passed later prevails
12. General law does not repeal law, generally
13. Application of rule
14. When special or general law repeals the other
18
15. Effects of repeal, generally
16. On jurisdiction, generally
17. On jurisdiction to try criminal case
18. On actions, pending or otherwise
19. On vested rights
20. On contracts
21. Effect or repeal of tax laws
22. Repeal and reenactment, effect of
23. Effect or repeal of penal laws
24. Distinction as to effect of repeal and expiration of law
25. Effect of repeal of municipal charter
26. Repeal or nullity or repealing law, effect of
CHAPTER XI: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
1. Constitution defined
2. Origin and history of the Philippine Constitutions
3. Primary purpose of constitutional construction
4. Constitution construed as enduring for ages
5. How language of Constitution construed
6. Aids to construction, generally
7. Realities existing at time of adoption; object to be accomplished
8. Proceedings of the convention
9. Contemporaneous construction and writings
10. Previous laws and judicial rulings
11. Changes in phraseology
12. Consequences of alternative constructions
13. Constitution construed as a whole
14. Mandatory or directory
15. Prospective or retroactive
16. Applicability of rules of statutory construction
17. Generally, constitutional provisions are self-executing
18. Three maxims employed as aids to construe constitutional provisions
19. Constructions of US Constitutional provisions adopted in 1987 Constitution
20. Other illustrative cases in constitutional construction
19
