Statutory Construction it is the various methods and tests used by the courts for

determining the meaning of law.

General Principles in defining Statutory Construction

Whether the promotional scheme is a lottery or a gift that violates the provisions of the
Postal Law (Caltex v. Palomar)

In the case at bar, there is no requirement in the rules that any fee be paid, any
merchandise be bought, any service be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the
privilege to participate. The scheme is merely a gratuitous distribution of property by
chance which does not violate the provisions of the Postal Law. Construction is used where
there is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not
explicitly provided for in the law. Hence, the Court is tasked to look beyond the fair
exterior, to the substance, in order to unmask the real element and pernicious tendencies
that the law is seeking to prevent.

What is Statutory Construction?

It is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and the intention of the
authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is
rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly
provided for in the law. (Caltex v. Palomar)

When does statutory construction come in?

The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or
inadequate without them. (National Federation of Labor v. Eisma; Daoang v. Municipal
Judge of San Nicolas)

1. National Federation of Labor v. Eisma
Construction is required to determine jurisdiction.

The first and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or
inadequate without them. However, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial
proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority, which organizes the court; and it is
given only by law. Jurisdiction is never presumed; it must be conferred by law in words
that do not admit of doubt. Since the jurisdiction of courts and judicial tribunals is derived
exclusively from the statutes of the forum, the issue should be resolved on the basis of the
law or statute in force.

2. Daoang v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas
Adoption under para 1 of Art. 335 of the Civil Code.

The words used in paragraph (1) of Article 335 of the Civil Code, in enumerating the
persons who cannot adopt, are clear and unambiguous. When the New Civil Code was
adopted, it changed the word descendant, found in the Spanish Civil Code to which the
New Civil Code was patterned, to children. The children thus mentioned have a clearly
defined meaning in law and do not include grandchildren. In the present case, Roderick and
Rommel Daoang, the grandchildren of Antero Agonoy and Amanda Ramos-Agonoy, cannot
assail the adoption of Quirino Bonilla and Wilson Marcos by the Agonoys. Therefore, the
general rule is that only statutes with an ambiguous or doubtful meaning may be the
subjects of statutory construction.

Necessity of Statutory Construction
Rules of Statutory Construction are tools used to ascertain legislative intent. They are not
rules but mere axioms and experience. Rules of Statutory Construction help the court help
the court resolve bad cases. Thus, where there is ambiguity in the language of a statute,
courts employ canons of statutory construction to ascertain its true intent and meaning.
Fundamental Rule in Construction of Statutes
1.LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain the meaning and
intention of the legislature, to the end that the same may be enforced. Legislative intent is
determined principally from the language of the statute.

2.VERBA LEGIS
If the language of the statute is plain and free from ambiguity, and express a single, definite,
and sensible meaning, that meaning is conclusively presumed to be the meaning which the
legislature intended to convey.

3.STATUTES AS A WHOLE
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that legislative intent must be ascertained from
a consideration of the statute as a whole and not merely of a particular provision. A word
or phrase might easily convey a meaning which is different from the one actually intended.
A statute should be construed as a whole because it is not to be presumed that the
legislature has used any useless words, and because it is dangerous practice to base the
construction upon only a part of it, since one portion may be qualified by other portions.

4.SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW
When the interpretation of a statute according to the exact and literal import of its words
would lead to absurd or mischievous consequences, or would thwart or contravene the
manifest purpose of the legislature in its enactment, it should be construed according to its
spirit and reason, disregarding or modifying, so far as may be necessary, the strict letter of
the law.
When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases.
Doctrine of necessary implications. What is implied in a statute is as much a
part thereof as that which is expressed.


Nature of the rules of Statutory Construction

The situs of construction and interpretation of written laws belongs to the Judicial
department. It is the duty of the courts of Justices to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of th government.

Distinguish Construction from interpretion

CONSTRUCTION: the drawing of conclusions respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct
expression of the text; has to go outside of the language of the statute and seek the help of
extrinsic aid.

INTERPRETATION: the act of finding the true sense and meaning of words; one who
interprets does not get outside the context of the statute

Statutory Construction: Whose Job Is It?
To declare what the law shall be is a legislative power, but to declare what the law
is or has been, is judicial.

Overlap of Statutory Construction

In principle, the three branches of the government, namely, the Executive branch,
Legislative and the Judicial branch, are co-equal branches of government with separate and
distinct functions; in reality, however, these functions do not fit into separate airtight
compartments, but often overlap.

Area 1 is the overlap between the executive and the legislative functions. This
area is the Rule-making Power of the executive.
If the exercise of this rule-making power exceeds the legislative grant , judiciary
will strike it out as ultra-vires
Area 2A is the power granted to the Administrative agency to perform Quasi-
Judicial functions; Area 2B is referred to as the Executive Construction
(executive interpretation)
The third area of the overlap is the primary concern of the study of Statutory
Construction (overlap between the judicial and legislative)
Within the area between judicial and executive (3) , Art 9 of the Civil Code
referred to it as those which judges may legislate Art. 9 provides that No
judges or Court shall decline to render judgment by reason of silence, obscurity
or insufficiency of law.
Beyond Area 3, this will be amounting to Judicial Legislation and which may be
referred to as judicial tyranny.

When is it construction and when is it judicial legislation?

To declare what the law shall be is a legislative power, but to declare what the law is or has
been, is judicial. However, the court do and must legislate to fill in the gaps in the law. The
Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of the existing law and
jurisprudence. (Floresca v. Philex Mining)

1. Floresca v. Philex Mining
Does CFI (RTC) have jurisdiction over the complaint?

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Code which provides that: No judge or court shall decline
to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. It
argues that the application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the
law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Courts application or
interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the
construed law purports to carry into effect. Yet, the Court argues that the Court can
legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code. However, even the legislator himself
recognizes that in certain instances, the court do and must legislate to fill in the gaps in
the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore
cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply.

How must legislative intent be ascertained?

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The
particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the
meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. (Aisporna v. CA)

1. Aisporna v. CA
Legislative intent of the Insurance Act: whether an insurance subagent or proxy covered in
section 189 of Insurance Act.

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The
particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated
expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the
meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. In the present case,
the first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or
broker in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without first
procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance Commissioner; while the
second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of the section; while
the third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation.

When should Statutes be Literlly Construed?

1.Kapisanan vs. MRC
Where the statutory norm speaks unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts to do
except to apply it. The law, leaving no doubt as to the scope of its operation, must be
obeyed.

When Literal Construction is not Favored?

1. Paras v. Comelec
Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who
won during the last regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as Punong
Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay. Acting on the petition for
recall, public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve the
petition, scheduled the petition signing on October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on
November 13, 1995. Petitioner's argument is simple and to the point. Citing Section 74 (b)
of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, which states
that "no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption
to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election". It is likewise a
basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony
with the Constitution. Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code,
specifically paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in conflict with the Constitutional mandate
of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution to "enact a local government code which shall
provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization with effective mechanism of recall, initiative, and
referendum . . . ."

What is the rule on executive construction?

1. PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations

The court still and should respect the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute
by the executive officers whose duty is to enforce it, and unless such interpretation is
clearly erroneous will ordinarily be controlled thereby.

When is Executive construction not given weight?

1. Phil. Apparel Workers Union v. NLRC

There was no grant of said increases yet, despite the contrary opinion expressed in the
letter of the Undersecretary of Labor. It must be noted that the letter was based on a wrong
premise or representation on the part of the company. The construction or explanation of
Labor Undersecretary is not only wrong as it was purely based on a misapprehension of
facts, but also unlawful because it goes beyond the scope of the law. The Supreme Court set
aside the decision of the commission, and ordered the company to pay, in addition to the
increased allowance provided for in PD 1123.

2. IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong

Whether the Ministry of Labor is correct in determining that monthly paid employees are
excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. From Article 92 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Presidential Decree 850, and Article 82 of the same Code, it is clear that monthly paid
employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. So long, as the regulations
relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid. Where an
administrative order betrays inconsistency or repugnancy to the provisions of the Act, the
mandate of the Act must prevail and must be followed.

3. Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Ople

Whether the Ministry of Labor is correct in maintaining that monthly paid employees are
not entitled to the holiday pay nor all employees who rendered work during said legal
holidays are entitled to the premium or overtime pay differentials. When the language of
the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. An
administrative interpretation, which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the
statute delimits or withholds, is obviously ultra vires. In the present case, the provisions of
the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit, it
provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefit.

Difference of a rule and an opinion?

1. Victorias Milling v. SSC

When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations, it makes; a new law
with the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an opinion or gives a
statement of policy, it merely interprets pre-existing law.

Subjects of Construction
How should the Constitution be construed?

1. Sarmiento v. Mison
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. The intention to which force is to
be given is that which is embodied and expressed in the constitutional provisions
themselves.

2. Perfecto v. Meer
Whether the imposition of an income tax upon the salary of a member of the Judiciary
amount to a diminution thereof., and thus violate the Constitution. The 1935 Constitution
provides in its Article VIII, Section 9, that the members of the Supreme Court and all judges
of inferior courts shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office.

3. Endencia v. David
Whether the Legislature may lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a
public official, specially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the Supreme
Court has found and decided otherwise. Therefore, the doctrine laid down in the case of
Perfecto vs. Meer to the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial
officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution, is reiterated.

4. Nitafan v. CIR
Whether the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to exempt justices and
judges from taxes as it was in the 1935 Constitution. In the present case, Section 10, Article
VIII is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of
compensation of Justices and Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they are
receiving at the time of enactment, or if lower, it would be applicable only to those
appointed after its approval. The constitutional provision in question until it was finally
approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the 1987
Constitution, in adopting it, was to make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable.


May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional Provisions?

1. Aglipay v. Ruiz
Religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs. When the Filipino people, in the
preamble of their Constitution, implored the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish
a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of the
nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their posterity the
blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty and democracy, they thereby
manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon Him who
guides the destinies of men and nations. The elevating influence of religion in human
society is recognized here as elsewhere. In the present case, the purpose of the issuing of
the stamps was to take advantage of an event considered of international importance to
give publicity to the Philippines and its people and attract more tourists to the country.