STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION First Semester 2017-2018 Ateneo de Naga University College of Law Atty. Vicente Dante P. Adan JDIC Introduction Philippine Legal System Statutes and their Enact ment ‘A. Howa Bill Becomes a Law B, Evidence of Due Enactment ©. 1. Enrolled Bill Theory 2. Journal Entry Rule Validity 4. Presumption of constitutionality Constitution, Art. Vill, Section 4 Alla v. Evangelista, 100 Phil 683 (1957) ‘Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424 (1968) 2. Date of effectivity 41987 Administrative Code, Book 1, Chapter 5, Section 18 1987 Administrative Code, 800k Vil, Section 2-9 Republic Act No. 7160, Section 54-59 Tefiada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986) Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs, 180 SCRA 91 (1989) Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union v. Hon. Benjamin Vega, G.R. No. 108364, ‘June 28, 2001 Republic v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No. 173918, April 8, 2008 3. Manner of computing Time ‘Att 13, Civil Code PNB v. CA, 222 SCRA 134 (1993) Virslen v. NLRC, 15 SCRA 347 (1982) Gonmissiner otal Revenue v. Ati Forging Company, GR. No, 184823, October 6 Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 71177, February 28, 1968 ‘Amendment, Revisions, and Repeals 4. Amendments Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 15045, January 21, 1961, 1 SCRA 10 (1951) Estrada v. Caseda, 84 Phil, 791 (1949) Erecta Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104215, May 8, 1996, 256 SCRA 629 (1996) Sarcos v. Castilo, G.R. No. L-29758, January 31, 1969 2. Revisions and Codifications ‘Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 500 (1992) Ortiz v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 78957, June 28, 1988 3. Repeals Berces v. Guingona, G.R. No. , 241 SCRA 539 (1995) City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes, G.R. No. 127708, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 953 (1999) Javier v. COMELEC, GR. No. 218847, January 12, 2016.mM, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Caltex v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966,18 SCRA 247 (1966) General v. Barrameda, G.R. No. L-29906, January 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 182 (1976) Molina v. Rafferty, G.R. No. L-11988, Apri 4, 1918, 38 Phil. 1676 (1918) CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION A. General Canons Plain meaning rule iblic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007 PAGCOR v. PEJI, G. R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009 ‘Amores v HRET, GR. No. 189600, June 29, 2010 Bolos vs.Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010 jo legis/Golden Rule 190 v Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-25326, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 195 (1970) CIR v. Seagate Technology (Philippines), G.R. No. 153866, February 11, 2005 League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, December 21, 2009 ‘Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72873, May 28, 1987 Cayetano v. Monsod, GR. No. 100113, September 3, 1891 jens legislatoris/Mischief Rule ‘Sawmill v. Castilo, G.R. No. L-40411, August 7, 1935 Tipecabeniav. Davao Stevedore Terminal Co, G.R No. L-27489, Ap 20, 1970 ingle v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 215995, January 19, 2016 B. Specific Rules of Interpretation prea and particular uses of words tuguena integrated Wood Products, inc. v. Court of Appeals ng Kiat Chocolate Factory v. Central Bank of the Philippines, uenzle & Streif v. Collector of Customs, “Tan, et al. v. People, 290 SCRA 117 (1998) ‘Bemardo v. Bemardo, G.R. No. 5872, November 20, 1954 ——-— Carandang v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-8238, May 25, 1955 « ‘Malanyaon v. Lising, G.R. No. L-66028, July 30, 1981 + ees cote ‘Grover suekeDona Bar Counc, G R. No. 202242, July 17,2012 * People v. Bello, G.R. No. 166948-59, August 29,2012 + OQ poste see es, Pelizloy Realty Corporation v. The Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, Apri 10, * 2013 Liwag v. Happy Gien Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., GR. No. 189755, July 4, 2012 (@ exoressio unui ost exctusionstorus anmany Malinias v. COMELEC, G.R. No. G.R. No. 146043, October 4, 2002 ‘Sterting Selections Corporation v. Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R. No. 171427, March 30, 2011dissimilis est ratio O Dissi : vida v. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997 ‘pro habendus est uses Delfino v. St. James Hospital, Inc., G.R. No. 166735, November 23, 2007 ‘distinguit noc nos distinguere debemos jate-Palmolive Phil, Inc., vs. Jimenez, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-14787, January 28, 1 SCRA 267 5 v. We Ko, G.R. No. 48817. January 22, 1943, singula singulis v. Corona, G.R. No. G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999 ‘of intemal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Company, G.R. No. 10, December 15, 2005 ¥. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. (res ‘of necessary implication Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96663, August 10, 1999 Chua v. The Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88979, February 7, 1992 Atienza v. Vilarosa, G.R. No. 161081, May 10, 2005 (2 meio ott nas Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. The Public Service Commission, GR. No. L-26762, August 29, 1975, : Florentino v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. L-8782, April 28, 1956 bal or clerical errors Rufino Lopez & Sons v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-9274, February 1, 1957 umber, Gender, and Tense ‘Santilon v. Miranda, G.R. No. 19281, June 30, 1965 Gatchalian v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 32560-61, October 22, 1970 jonjunctive/Disjunctive words ‘San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council, G.R. No. 30761, July 11, 1973 Dayac et al, v. COMELEC ef al, G.R. No. 193643, January 20, 2013 (Dra st Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952 Ca prntoe, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses ‘John Hay Peoples Altermative Coalition v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775, October 24, 2003 Borromeo v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-16808, January 3, 1921, AIDS IN INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION A. Ingeneral Ebarte v. Sucalaito,G.R. No. L-33628, December 29, 1987 People v. Purisima, G.R. No. -42050-66, November 20, 1978 ‘Commissioner of intemal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc.,G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992 People v. Subido, 66 SCRA 545 (1966) Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, 33 SCRA 105 (1970)@ intrinsic Aids nila Trading & Supply Co. v. Register of Deeds, G.R. No. 6623, January 28, 1954, 94 Phil 290 (1955) 4. Title Central Capiz v. Ramirez, 40 Phil, 883 (1920) 2. Preamble People v. Purisima,G.R. Nos. 42050-66, November 20, 1978 3. Punctuation Marks US. v. Hart, 26 Phil 149 (1913) People v. Subido, G.R. No. 21735, September 5, 1975 4. Definition Sections and interpretation Clauses People v. Buenviaje, 47 Phil, 536 (1925) 5. Capitalization of Letters Unabia v. City Mayor, 99 Phil 253 (1956) $ Aids 1. ) Legislative History ‘Song Kiat Chocolate Factory v. Central Bank, 102 Phil. 477 (1957) Francisco v. Bosier, G.R. No. 137677, May 31, 2000 Buenaseda v. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993 People v. Yadao, G.R. No. L-6835, March 30, 1954 Legislative intent ‘Naval v. COMELEC, GR. No. 207851. July 8, 2014 Aispoma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39419, Apri 12, 1982 China Bank v. Ortega, G.R. No. L-34964, January 31, 1973 ‘Summit Guaranty and insurance Company, inc. v de Guzman, G.R. Nos. L-50997, 48679, and L-48758, June 30, 1987 porary Construction ‘Nestle Philippines Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, November 13, 1991, 203 ‘SCRA 504 (1991) PAFLU v. Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. L-43760, August 21, 1976 Adasa v. Abalos, GR. No. 168617, February 19, 2007 SOMBTRUCTION OF TH BTATUTE AB A WHOLE, ITS PARTS AND WTI OTHER ‘STATUT! Philippine Intemational Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 183617, June 22, 2010 Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006 ‘Akbayan-Youth v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001 Calingin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154616, July 12, 2004 Centeno v. Villaion-Pomillos, G.R. No. 113082, September 1, 1994 STRICT AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION Pefia v.House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 123037. March 21, 1997 Commissioner of Intemal Revenue v. B.F. Goodrich PHiis., Inc., G.R. No. 104171, February 24, 1999 Philex Mining Corporation v. Commissioner of intemal Revenue, GR. No. 120324, Apri 21, 1999Flantor Association of Southem Negros Inc. v. Ponferrade, GR, No. 114087, October 26, 1 Elvira Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 12597, June 6, 2003 Centeno v. Villaion-Pomillos, supra. Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 12632, November 27, 1998 The Philippine Intemational Fair, Inc. v. Commissioner of Intemal Revenue, G.R. No. L- 12928 & L-12932, March 31, 1962 Soriano v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. Nos. 184450, 184508, 184538, 185234, January 24, 2017 lees Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 131 SCRA 200 (1984) Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276 (1997) Philippine Registered Electrical Practitioners, Inc. v. Francia, Jr, 322 SCRA §87 (2000) Engle v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 215995, January 19, 2016 PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE STATUTES ‘Subido, Jr. v. Honorable Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 379 (1997) Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, 354 SCRA 100 (2001) Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 389 SCRA 277 (2003) CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION De la Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. 42571-72, July 25, 1983 \Nitafan v. Commissioner of intemal Revenue, G.R. No. 78789, July 23, 1987 People v. Muitoz, G.R. No. 8968-70, February 9, 1989 COndilo v. Commission on Elections, G.,R. No. 83054, December 4, 1990 Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apri 23, 1992 Cordillera Broad Coaition v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 79958 882217, January 29, 1990 ‘Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 © x. Emmanuel Q. Femando, Canons of Statutory Construction: A Comparative Analysis, 75 Phil. Law Joural 203-280 Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527-85 (1947) — ‘Available at the library and at hntp:/imtweb. mtsuedu/cewilis/Hermeneutics/Frankfurter%20Reading%20Statutes.paf Frederick J. De Sloovere, Contextual Interpretation of Statutes, 5 Fordham L. Rev. 219 (1936), Available at: http: lawnet fordham edurtrivolS/iss272 Johnstone, Quintin, “An Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory interpretation” (1954). Faculty ‘Scholarship Series. Paper 1908. http:/idigitalcommons law yale edulfss_papers/1908 References Sutherland, J.G., Statutes and Statutory Construction, 1943 ‘Agpalo, Ruben, Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition, 2009