BASIC FRAMEWORK AND

GUIDELINES IN CONSTRUCTION
Legislative Intent
 Object of construction is to ascertain the intention of
the legislature, to the end that the same may be
enforced
 Meaning (literal) and Intention (may be outside the
literal meaning) must be sought first in the language
of the statute itself:
 CASE: Ramirez vs CA and Garcia (Anti-wiretapping)
Verba Legis
 Plain meaning rule - Statute must be interpreted literally
though the court should be convinced that some other
meaning was really intended by the law making power and
even though the literal interpretation should defeat the very
purposes of the enactment. (with exceptions)
 CASES:
 Globe Mackay Cable et al vs. NLRC (Labor Code re security of
tenure)
 Felicito Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary, DOJ (Board of
Claims)
 Regino Sy Catiis vs. CA, et. al. G.R. No. 153979 (Syndicated
estafa)
 SWS and Pulse Asia vs. COMELEC (Fair Election Act – surveys)
Statutes as a Whole
 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 convey a meaning different
from the one intended if taken in the abstract eg. a
general provision may have limited application if read
with other provisions
 Effect and meaning must be given to every part of the
statute which is being subjected to construction (not to
be presumed that legislature used any useless word)
 Court should construe all of the constituent parts of the
statute together, and seek to ascertain the legislative
intent from the whole act, considering every provision
thereof in the light of the general purpose and object
of the act itself and endeavoring to make every part
effective, harmonious and sensible.
 Court should avoid absurd consequences and refuse to
regard any word as superfluous unless it is clearly
unavoidable.
 CASES: JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs.
NRLC and delos Santos (POEA Rules re
appeal bond)
Radiola Toshiba Phils, Inc. vs. IAC (Insolvency
Law re attachment)
Duty to Reconcile
 Each provision in a statute is inserted for a definite
reason
 The courts therefor have the duty to reconcile or
harmonize so far as practicable the various parts
and provisions thereof so as to make them
consistent, harmonious and sensible. It is only
through this that the statute will be given effect as a
whole.
Rules in construing a statute
 Special and general provisions in same statute –
special provision prevails regardless of the position
it occupies in a statute, and whether it comes earlier
or later than the general one
 Construction as not to render provision nugatory
 Construction to give life to the law
 Construction to avoid surplusage
Spirit and Purpose of the Law
 Exception to Verba Legis Rule
 When literal interpretation would lead to absurd and
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:
 A case which falls within the letter of a statute may not be
governed by the statute because it is not within the intention
of the legislature
 Statutes may be extended to cases not within the literal
import of the terms if plainly meant to be included
 NOT APPLICABLE if statute is free from AMBIGUITY
(there is no doubt on the meaning and intent)
Literal import must yield to intent
 A construction that gives to the language used in a
statute a meaning that does not accomplish the
purpose of which the statute was enacted should be
rejected
 CASE: Manuel de Guia vs. COMELEC (synchronized
election re Metro Manila districts)
 Between two statutory interpretations, that which
better serves the purpose of the law should prevail
 CASE: Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas vs.
CA, et al (Sec 119 Public Land Act)
 When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself
ceases
 CASE: B/Gen. Commendador et al vs Camera et al (CA
408 re challenges GCM, PD 39/PD 1498 MT and Proc.
No. 2045)
Other Considerations:
 Construction to avoid absurdity
 Construction to avoid injustice
 Construction of avoid danger to public interest
 Construction to favor right and justice
IMPLICATIONS
 Doctrine of Necessary Implications
 The implications and intendments arising from the
language of a statute are as much a part of it as if
they had been expressed. But it is only the
necessary implications which may thus be read into
the statute
TEST: The implication must be so strong in its probability
that the contrary thereof cannot be reasonably
supposed.
CASES:
 Lydia O. Chua vs. CSC and NIA (Early retirement re

co-terminus employee)
 City of Manila and City Treasurer vs. Judge
Amador E. Gomez et.al (Tax ordinance, SEF)
Example of Implications:
 Grant of power right or privilege deemed to include
all incidental power, right or privilege. Thus, the power
to establish an office carries with it the authority to
abolish it, unless there are constitutional provisions
expressly or impliedly providing otherwise. The power
to approve a license includes by implication the power
to revoke.
 Grant of power excludes greater power. Power of
supervision over local government does not include
power to suspend or remove local elective officials,
being acts of control which is greater than supervision.
 Implications in a grant of jurisdiction – carries
with it all necessary and incidental powers to
employ all writs, processes and other means
essential to make its jurisdiction effective. When a
court is given jurisdiction over the main cause of
action, it can grant reliefs incidental thereto, even it
they would otherwise be outside of its jurisdiction.
 Remedy implied from a Right. Where there is a
right, there is a remedy for violation thereof.
Where the constitution declares that a right exists in
certain specified circumstances, an action may be
maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the
absence of legislation on the subject; consequently,
if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce
such constitutional right, such right is enforceable
itself by its own inherent potency and puissance,
and from which all legislations must take their
bearings. For where there is a right, there is a
remedy. (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS)
 Illegality of an act implied from prohibition. When a
statute prohibits the doing of an act, the act done in
violation thereof is by implication null and void. The
prohibited act cannot serve as a foundation of a cause
of action for relief.
 Parties to an act prohibited by statute be left where
they are, to make the statute effective and to
accomplish its object.
 Exception: When it will violate an avowed fundamental
policy or public interest. When the transaction is not
illegal in itself but only prohibited and such prohibition
is designed for the protection of one party
No implications
 What is implied should not be against the law.
Statutory grant of power does not include such
incidental power which cannot be exercised without
violating the Constitution, the statute conferring the
power, or other laws on the same subject. Thus, the
power to appoint while ordinarily implies the power
to suspend or remove, the constitutional against
suspension or removal of civil service employees
except for cause as provided in the law precludes
such implication.
 Authority to charge against public funds may not
be implied. Unless a statute expressly so
authorizes, no claim against the public fund may be
allowed. A statute may not be construed as to
authorize, by implication, a charge against public
funds.
 Example: A statute requiring employers to pay
13th month compensation, the statute may not be
construed to include the sovereign, nor the term
“employers” be construed to include the
government.
 What cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly.
 There should be no penalty for compliance with law
CASUS OMISSUS
 Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est states that a
person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration
must be held to have been omitted intentionally.
 Applies only if and when the omission has
clearly been established, and in such case what is
omitted in the enumeration may not by construction,
be included therein
 When a statute makes specific provisions in regard to
several enumerated cases or objects, but omits to make
any provision for a case or object which is analogous to
those enumerated, or which stands upon the same
reason, and is therefore within the general scope of the
statute, and it appears that such case or object was
omitted by inadvertence or because it was overlooked
or unforeseen, such omissions can be supplied by the
courts.
 CASE: People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo
Manantan (Revised Election Code re prohibition of
justice of the peace)
STARE DECISIS
 Policy of Courts to stand by precedent and not
disturb settled points. When the court has once laid
down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and
apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same, regardless of whether the
parties and property are the same.
 CASE: J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc. et al. vs. Hon.
Hermino Mariano et al. (OCT 735)
PARI MATERIA RULE
 Statutes are in pari materia if they relate to the
same subject or have the same general purpose
 Statutes in pari materia should be read and
construed together as if they constituted one law.
They shall be construed and harmonized with the
existing law
 This rule is founded on the assumptions that in
enacting a law, the legislature has in mind the
previous statutes relating to the same subject matter
 Thus, in the absence of express repeal or
amendment, the new statute is deemed enacted in
accordance with the legislative policy embodied in
the previous statutes that it enacted.
 This Rule is subject to two qualifications:
1. If two or more statutes on the same subject were
enacted at different times and under different
conditions and circumstances. THEIR INTERPRETATION
SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO
EACH.
 2. A statute will not be construed as repealing prior act
or acts on the same subject unless the new law is
evidently intended to repeal all prior laws on the
matter
In case of doubt, the doubt will be resolved against
implied amendment or repeal and in favor of
harmonization of all laws on the subject
Special vs. General Laws
 Special law prevails over a general law
Cases:
 DAR vs. PHILCOMSAT
 Fiestan vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 81552. May
28, 1990
 Act No 3135: a mortgagee creditor is allowed to take
part o the bidding and purchase under the same
conditions as any other bidder
 Civil Code par 2 Article 1491 and par 7 Article 1409:
prohibits agents from acquiring by purchase even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or through the
mediation of another, the property whose
administration or sale may have been entrusted to
them, unless the consent of the principal has been given
 Maria Virginia V. Remo v. The Honorable Secretary
of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. 169202, March 5,
2010 – in renewal of passport, asked DFA to revert
to her maiden name the replacement passport
 RA No. 8239 (Passport Law) Sec 5 (d): In case of a
woman who is married xxx in case of a divorce decree,
annulment or declaration of marriage as void, the
woman applicant may revert to the use of her maiden
name xxx
 Art. 370 of the Civil Code: May use three names
enumerated but may also use her maiden name.
 Exceptions:
1. The general law prevails over the special law when it
treats the subject in particular and the special law
refers to it in general (Bagatsing vs. Ramirez, G.R. No.
41631, December 17, 1978)
2. The general law prevails over the special law when
the legislature intended the general amendment to
cover the whole subject and to repeal all prior laws
inconsistent therewith. (Lechaco vs. Civil Aeronautics
Board, 43 SCRA 670)
Reenacted Statutes
 Reenacted statute – a statute which reenacts a
previous statute
 In interpreting reenacted statutes, the Court will
follow the construction which such statute received
when previously in force
Adopted Statutes
 Adopted statutes – those which are patterned after,
or copied from the statute of another country
 For purposes of construing an adopted statute, our
courts will necessarily be guided by the
interpretation and construction of the courts of the
country from which the statute is taken.
Other Rules
 In case of conflict between a common law principle and
a statutory provision, the latter prevails
Case: Alvendia vs. IAC, GR No. L-72138 and Bonomy vs. Justice
Paras, January 20, 1990 - equity applies only in the absence of
statutory law or judicial rules of procedure
 Implied repeals are not legally presumed in the
absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such
intentions
Case: Batangas City Inc. vs. CA, et.al., GR No. 138810,
September 29, 2004 (EO 205 NTC has sole authority to
regulate CATV vs. RA 7160 LGC SP Res granting permit to
construct install and operate CATV system)
Next Topic
Construction and Interpretation of Words and
Phrases