SYLLABUS STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Atty. Lorelee DS. Valdez I.
GENERAL PRINICPLES A.
Definition Statutory Construction Interpretation/Construction Statute
B. The three departments of the government; the power of each department in relation to statutory construction
II. II.
C.
Ratio ationa nale le for for se sepa parratio ation n of power owers s Endencia vs. David, 93 SCRA 696, August 31, 1953
D.
Stat Statut utes es that that can can be the the sub subjec jectt o off stat statuto utory ry co const nstru ruct ctio ion n
JUDICIA ICIAL L AU AUTHORITY ITY AN AND DU DUTY A.
Cour Courtts' prim rimary ary dut duty y to appl apply y the the law law Silva vs. Cabrera, 88 Phil 38, March 19, 1951 People vs. Mapa, G.R. No. 220301, August 30, 1967 Lapid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142261, June 28, 2000 Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520 (1997) Cebu Po Portl rtlan and d Ceme Cement nt,, Co. Co. vs. vs. Muni Municip cipal ality ity of Naga Naga,, G.R. G.R. No. No. Cebu 24116, August 22, 1968 Quijano vs. DBP, G.R. No. 26419, October 19, 1970 Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 28463, May 31, 1971
B.
Cour Courts ts have have no pow power er to to cha chang nge, e, alte alterr or or repe repeal al the the law law Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, June 5, 1990 (determine the law applied in this case and compare it with the present law applicable) Floresca ca vs. Philex Philex Mining Mining Corpor Corporatio ation, n, 136 SCRA SCRA 141, 141, April April 30, Flores 1985
C.
Court Courts s must must no nott dist distin ingui guish sh wher where e the the law does does no nott dist disting inguis uish h Latin maxim: ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos Salenilla vs. Court of Appeals 169 SCRA 829 January 31, 1989
D.
Cour Courts ts must must no nott enl enlar arge ge no norr res restr tric ictt sta statu tute tes s Canet vs. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004 Latin maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius
III.
E.
Courts' duty to effectuate the policy or purpose of the law Vda. de Macabenta vs. Davao Stevedore Terminal Co., 32 SCRA 553 April 30, 1970 (determine the purpose of the law applied herein)
F.
Judicial interpretation, when set aside People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No. 30061, February 27, 1974 Quimpo vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 30052, August 31, 1981
AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION A.
In General Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 (1987) People vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales, Inc. 205 SCRA 184 (1992) People vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545 (1966) Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo, 33 SCRA 105 (1970)
B.
Legislative History Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Central Bank, 102 Phil. 477 (1957) Francisco vs. Bosier, 332 SCRA 792 (2000) Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993) People vs. Yadao, 94 Phil. 726 (1954)
C.
Contemporary Construction Nestle Philippines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 504 (1991) Philippine Scout Veterans Security & Investigation Agency Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 262 SCRA 112 (1996) Adasa vs. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007 Stare Decisis and Obiter Dictum Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000 Delta Motors Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)
IV. INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES A. General and particular uses of words Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 490 (1996) Tan vs. People, 290 SCRA 117 (1998) Bernardo vs. Bernardo, 96 Phil. 202 (1954) Malanyaon vs. Lising, 106 SCRA 237 (1981)
B. Associate Words 1. Noscitur a sociis Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 459 (1982) Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp. vs. Villarama, Jr., 238 SCRA 267 (1994) 2. Ejusdem generis Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc., 234 SCRA 255 (1994) Philippine Basketball Association vs. Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 358 (2000) Republic vs. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008 3. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994) Malinias vs. The Commission on Elections, 390 SCRA 480 (2002) San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 147749, June 22, 2006 4. Dissimilum dissimilis est ratio Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997) 5. Casus omissus Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu vs. Province of Cebu, 371 SCRA 196 (2001) Spouses Delfino vs. St. James Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 166735, November 23, 2007 6. Ubi lex non distinguit nec no distinguere debemos Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 (1995) Cebu Institute of Medicine vs. Cebu Institute of Medicine Employees' UnionsNational Federation of Labor, 360 SCRA 515 (2001) MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. G.R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005 Tiangco vs. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc., G.R. No. 168697, December 14, 2009 7. Reddendo singula singulis People vs. Tamani, 55 SCRA 153 (1974) Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 315 (1988) 8. Doctrine of Necessary Implication National Association of Trade Union-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter vs. Torres, 239 SCRA 546 (1994) Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96663, August 10, 1999 C. Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 (1994) Arenas vs. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. 34024, April 5, 1978
Samson vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 654 (1986) Ocampo vs. Buenaventura, 55 SCRA 267
V. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE AS A WHOLE JMM Promotions & Management, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 228 SCRA 129 (1993) Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 79 (1996) VII. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE AS IN RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi Akbayan-Youth vs. Commission on Elections, 355 SCRA 318 (2001) Banares II vs. Balising, 328 SCRA 36 (2000) Vda. De Urbano vs. GSIS, 367 SCRA 672 (2001) Calingin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154616, July 12, 2004 VIII. STRICT AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION Peña vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 270 SCRA 340 (1997) Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc., 303 SCRA 546 (1999) Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 306 SCRA 126 (1999) Planters Association of Southern Negros, Inc. vs. Ponferrada, 317 SCRA 463 (1999) Elvira Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, 403 SCRA 300 (2003) IX. MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY STATUTES Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. National Telecommunications Commission, 131 SCRA 200 (1984) Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 (1997) Philippine Registered Electrical Practitioners, Inc. vs. Francia, Jr. 322 SCRA 587 (2000) X. PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE STATUTES Subido, Jr. vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 379 (1997) Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery 354 SCRA 100 (2001) Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 399 SCRA 277 (2003) XI. AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500 (1992) Berces vs. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539 (1995) Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 256 SCRA 629 (1996) City Government of San Pablo, Laguna vs. Reyes, 305 SCRA 353 (1999) Juan vs. People of the Philippines, 322 SCRA 125 (2000)
