STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ASSIGNMENT

Joynilenge C. Lavador, JD1A

1. Discuss the definition and meaning of "ambiguity" in the context of a
statute or law.
The word "ambiguous" means capable of being understood in more senses than
one; obscure in meaning through indefiniteness of expression; having a double
meaning; doubtful and uncertain; meaning unascertainable within the four corners of
the instrument; open to construction; reasonably susceptible to different
constructions; uncertain because of susceptible of more than one meaning; and
synonyms are "doubtful", "equivocal", "indefinite", "indeterminate", "indistinct",
"uncertain", and "unsettled".
The term ambiguity has more than one interpretation: a highly general sense that
pertains to language use, and a more restricted meaning that deals with some
fundamental properties about language itself. For the general sense, let us look at
the following definitions found under the entry’s "ambiguity" and "ambiguous" within
the legal reference work, Words and Phrases. The words "ambiguous" and
"ambiguity" are often used to denote simple lack of clarity in language. "Ambiguous"
means doubtful and uncertain.
Ambiguity potentially occurs whenever a word has more than one objective or
dictionary meaning. The ambiguity is potential because it is only in certain contexts
that more than one of the meanings may be possible. For example, the word “ bank”
can refer to a financial institution or to the edge of a river or stream. The sentence
"I'll meet you at the bank at three o'clock", written or uttered in isolation, is
ambiguous between the two meanings. Yet, most of the time we are unaware of any
ambiguity, and in fact, we find none because other linguistic features from elsewhere
in the discourse, or even nonlinguistic clues, render only one of the readings as
possible. Thus, if I had said, "I'll meet you at the bank at three o'clock because I have
to go there to cash a check," the meaning to be attributed to the word bank is quite
unambiguous. Or if we had planned to go fishing, and later on you see me walking to
my car with a fishing pole over my shoulder, and I say to you, "I'll meet you at the
bank at three o'clock," you probably would infer that our rendezvous is to take place
at the river bank.
"Ambiguity" can exist in a written document only in those cases where language
is susceptible of more than one meaning. Ambiguity is also in the area of penal law
which under the doctrine of Pro Reo. Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and
one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted. This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all
doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of
innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.
2. Give at least five examples of ambiguity arising from a statute or law.

a. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 714 May 28, 1975, AMENDING

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1180 ENTITLED "AN ACT TO REGULATE THE
RETAIL BUSINESS".

WHEREAS, the statutory definition in Republic Act No. 1180, otherwise

known as the Retail Trade Nationalization Law, of the term "retail
business" is vague and ambiguous, and this ambiguity has given rise to
conflicting theories as to its precise scope;

WHEREAS, it is believed to be not within the intendment of the said

nationalization law to include within its scope sales made to industrial or
commercial users or consumers;

WHEREAS, it is likewise in the interest of the national economy to exclude

from the provisions of the said law the business of restaurants located in
hotels, irrespective of the amount of capital, as long as the restaurant is
merely incidental to the hotel business;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby order and decree:

Section 1. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1180 is hereby amended to read

as follows:

"Section 4. As used in this Act, the term 'retail business' shall mean any
act, occupation or calling of habitually selling direct to the general public
merchandise, commodities or goods for consumption, but shall not
include:

"(a) a manufacturer, processor, laborer or worker selling to the general

public the products manufactured, processed, or produced by him if his
capital does not exceed five thousand pesos.

"(b) a farmer or agriculturist selling the product of his farm.

"(c) a manufacturer or processor selling to the industrial and commercial

users or consumers who use the products bought by them to render
service to the general public and/or to produce or manufacture goods
which are in turn sold to them.
 "(d) a hotel-owner or keeper operating a restaurant irrespective of the
amount of capital, provided that the restaurant is necessarily included in,
or incidental to, the hotel business."

Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of May, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-five.

b. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1210, AMENDING CERTAIN

PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER THREE, TITLE EIGHT OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NUMBERED SIX HUNDRED AND THREE AS AMENDED
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, some of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 603 as

amended, which deal with youthful offenders are still deficient or
ambiguous.

WHEREAS, it is necessary that said provisions be clarified and

strengthened so as to promote their effectiveness in dealing with juvenile
delinquency more in particular with youthful offenders involved in offenses
triable by the Military Tribunals.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order as follows:

Section 1. ARTICLE 191 of Presidential Decree No. 603 is hereby

amended to read as follows:

"Article 101. Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. A

youthful offender held for physical and mental examination or trial or
pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be
committed to the care of the Dept. of Social Services and Development or
the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or city
which shall be responsible for his appearance in court whenever required:
Provided, that in the absence of any such center or agency within a
reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the provincial, city and
municipal jail shall provide quarters for youthful offenders separate from
other detainees. The court may, in its discretion upon recommendation of
the Department of Social Services & Development or other agency or
agencies authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on
recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other suitable person who
shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required. However, in
the case of those whose cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Military Tribunals, they may be committed at any military detention or
rehabilitation center.

Section 2. ARTICLE 192 of Presidential Decree No. 603 as amended is

further amended to read as follows:

"Art. 192. Suspension of sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender.

If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should
find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him,
the court, shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court upon application of the youthful offender and if it finds
that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be
served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings and commit such
minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social Services and
Development or to any training institution operated by the government or
any other responsible person until he shall have reached twenty one years
of age, or for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after
considering the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social
Services and Development or the government training institution or
responsible person under whose care he has been committed.

Upon receipt of the application of the youthful offender for suspension of

his sentence, the court may require the Department of Social Services and
Development to prepare and submit to the court a social case study report
over the offender and his family.

The Youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a

representative of the Department of Social Services & Development or
government training institution as the court may designate subject to such
conditions as it may prescribe.

The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender who has
once enjoyed suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who is
convicted of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment or to one
who is convicted for an offense by the Military Tribunals.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of October in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.
c. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1179, AMENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER THREE, TITLE EIGHT OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NUMBERED SIX HUNDRED AND THREE OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, some of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 603, which

deal with youthful offenders are deficient or ambiguous;

WHEREAS, it is necessary that said provisions be clarified and

strengthened so as to promote their effectiveness in dealing with juvenile
delinquency;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do
hereby decree and order as follows:

Section 1. Articles 189 and 190 of Presidential Decree No. 603 are hereby
amended to read as follows:

"Art. 189. Youthful Offender, Defined. A youthful offender is a child, minor

or youth, including one who is emancipated in accordance with law who is
over nine years but under eighteen years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense.

A Child nine years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall be committed to
the care of his or her father or mother, or nearest relative or family friend in
the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. The same shall be
done for a child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with discernment, in
which case he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Article 192.

The provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code are hereby

repealed by the provisions of this Chapter.

"Art. 190. Physical and Mental Examination. It shall be the duty of the law-
enforcement agency concerned to take the youthful offender, after his
apprehension, to any available government medical or health officer in the
area for a physical and mental examination. Whenever treatment for any
physical or mental defect is indicated, steps shall be immediately
undertaken to provide the same.
The examination and treatment papers shall form part of the record of the
case of the youthful offender."

Section 2. Articles 192 and 193 of the same Decree are hereby amended
as follows:

"Art. 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender.

If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should
find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him,
the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability
chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court, upon application of the youthful offender if it finds
that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be
served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings and commit such
minor to the custody of care of the Department of Social Welfare, or to any
training institution operated by the government or any other responsible
person until he shall have reached twenty-one years of age, or for a
shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports
and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare or the
government training institution or responsible person under whose care he
has been committed.

Upon receipt of the application of the youthful offender for suspension of

his sentence, the court may require the Department of Social Welfare to
prepare and submit to the court a social case study report over the
offender and his family.

The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a

representative of the Department of Social Welfare or government training
institution as the court may designate subject to such conditions as it may
prescribe.

The benefits of this article shall not apply to a youthful offender who has
once enjoyed suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who is
convicted of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment.

"Art. 193. Appeal. The order of the court denying an application for
suspension of sentence under the provisions of Article 192 above shall not
be appealable."

Section 3. Article 195 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as

follows:
"Art. 195. Report on Conduct of Child. The Department of Social Welfare
or government training institution or individual under whose care the
youthful offender has been committed shall submit to the court every four
months or oftener as may be required in special cases, a written report on
the conduct of said youthful offender as well as the intellectual, physical,
moral, social and emotional progress made by him."

Section 4. Article 197 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as

follows:

"Art. 197. Return of the Youthful Offender to Court. Whenever the youthful
offender has been found incorrigible or has willfully failed to comply with
the conditions of his rehabilitation programs, or should his continued stay
in the training institution be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the
committing court for the pronouncement of judgment.

When the youthful offender has reached the age of twenty-one while in
commitment, the court shall determine whether to dismiss the case in
accordance with the extent preceding article or to pronounce the judgment
conviction. In the latter case, the convicted offender may apply for
probation under the provisions of Presidential Decree Numbered Nine
Hundred and Sixty-Eight.

In any case covered by this article, the youthful offender shall be credited
in the service of his sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment
and detention effected under the provisions of this Chapter."

Section 5. Article 200 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as

follows:

"Art. 200. Records of proceedings. Where a youthful offender has been

charged before any city or provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge
and the charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the case
shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to any one for any purpose whatsoever.

Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him, or
dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently
releases him pursuant to this Chapter, all the records of his case shall also
be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly
to anyone except to determine if a defendant may have his sentence
suspended under Article 192 of this Decree or if he may be granted
probation under the provisions of Presidential Decree Numbered Nine
Hundred and Sixty-Eight or to enforce his civil liability, if said liability has
 been imposed in the criminal action. The youthful offender concerned shall
not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of
concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge
the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made
to him for any purpose.

"Records" within the meaning of this article shall include those which may
be in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation and with any police
department, or any other government agency which may have been
involved in the case."

Section 6. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 15th day of August, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.

d. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1661-A January 3, 1980, AMENDING

SECTION ONE OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1661, ENTITLED
"PROHIBITING GUEST CANDIDACY AND PROVIDING SANCTIONS
AND PENALTY THEREFOR"

WHEREAS, to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of Section 1 of

Presidential Decree No. 1661 there is a necessity of amending said
Section to jibe with the provisions of Sections 2 (6) and Section 10, Article
XII (C) of the Constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby amend Section one of Presidential Decree No.
1661 to read as follows:

"Sec. 1. Guest candidacy. It shall be unlawful for any registered or

accredited political party to nominate and/or support as its official
candidate any person belonging to another accredited or registered party
unless he has affiliated with the nominating party at least six months
before the election."

Section 2. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 3rd day of January, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty.
e. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1656, AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 361 RE THE ARMED FORCES OF THE RETIREMENT
AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM

WHEREAS, an Armed Forces Retirement and Separation Benefits

System, for payment of retirement and separation benefits provided law to
military members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was established
pursuant to PD 361;

WHEREAS, the circumstances impinging on the military establishment

have drastically changed since the promulgation of PD 361 and its full
implementation if effected will cause the early collapse of the System; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain provisions of PD 361 in order

to perpetuate the actuarial solvency of the System, and guarantee to every
military member of the AFP all the retirement and separation benefits due
him under existing laws and such other similar laws as may hereafter be
enacted;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:

Section 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 361 is hereby amended to

read as follows:

"Sec. 4. Officers and enlisted personnel in the active service of the AFP
shall contribute monthly to the System an amount equivalent to five
percent (5%) of their monthly base pay, which contribution shall be
deducted from their pay by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and paid
to the System: Provided, That any officer or enlisted personnel who is
separated or retired shall upon his separation or retirement be refunded in
one lump sum all his contributions to the System: Provided, further, That
such contributions shall be tax deductible for purposes of individual
income tax return."

Section 2. Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 361 is hereby amended to

read as follows:

"Sec. 5. The funds of the System shall be allowed to grow to be able to

provide perpetually the cash requirement covering the retirement and
separation benefits payments to military members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines on a self-sustaining basis: Provided, That prior to the time
when perpetual self-sufficiency of the funds of the System is attained as
 determined by actuarial evaluation, the yearly requirement for retirement
and separation benefits of military personnel as provided under RA 340,
as amended, PD 1638, as amended by PD 1650, and such other similar
laws as may hereafter be enacted, shall be included in and funded out of
the annual appropriations for the Armed Forces of the Philippines."

Section 3. This Decree shall take effect on January 1, 1980.

Done in the City of Manila, this 21st day of December, in the year of Our
Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.

3. Explain how the principle of Ubi jus ibi remedium was applied by the
Supreme Court in the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS; et.al., G.R. No.
122156, Feb. 3, 1997.

FACTS:
The respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). In
a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only two (2) bidders
participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation,
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per
share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel
operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00per share, or
P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning
bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary contracts,
petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28September 1995
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. In a
subsequent letter dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check
issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33.000.000.00) as
Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong
Berhad . . . which respondent GSIS refused to accept. Petitioner
came to the Supreme Court on prohibition and mandamus where the Court
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent from perfecting and
consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.
Petitioner Arguments:
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has become a part of the
national patrimony. Petitioner also argues that since 51%of the shares of the
MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned
by respondent GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, the
hotel business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism industry is
unquestionably a part of the national economy.
Respondent:
However, respondents argue that: First, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII,
of the 1987 Constitutionis merely a statement of principle and policy since it is
not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s).
Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, Manila Hotel
does not fall under the term national patrimony which only refers to lands of
the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora
and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and exclusive
marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 2,Art. XII,
1987 Constitution.

ISSUE: 1. Is Art. XII, Sec. 10, second par. self-executing?

RULING: Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is
a mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which needs
no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement.
From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put
it in operation. It is per se judicially enforceable when our Constitution
mandates that in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos, it means just that qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our
Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances
an action may be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding
the absence of any legislation on the subject; consequently, if there is no
statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right
enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and from which all
legislations must take their bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy.
Ubi jus ibi remedium

Discussion
Ubi jus ibi remedium or For every wrong, the law provides a remedy. If
any wrong is committed then the law provides a remedy for that. The maxim
can be phrased as that any person will not suffer a wrong without a remedy, it
means that once it is proved that the right was breached then equity will
provide a suitable remedy. This principle also underlines the fact that no
wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation if it can be
redressed by a court of law. The law presumes that there is no right without a
remedy; and if all remedies are gone to enforce a right, the right in point of law
ceases to exist.
This Latin Maxim applied in the case of Manila Prince Hotel Corp v.
GSIS because Article XII, Section 10 of the 1978 Philippine Constitution is
clear in the application to the bidding of shares of GSIS property. The winning
 bidder is said to be a foreign investor, Renong Berhard, because the ruling
was to pick the highest bidder. Manila Prince Hotel was a qualified bidder but
unfortunately their bid was 41.58% which a second to Renong Berhard at
44% which was declared winner bidder. However, petition filed in the court by
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation claiming as the rightful to own the share of
stocks because MPHC is a Filipino owned corporation and willing to match
the 44% bid by the Renong Berhard. With this, the Supreme Court favored the
prayer of the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation to own the share of stock of
GSIS property. With this, the Supreme Court made a Filipino First Policy.

WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE

SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON
PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE
COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from selling 51% of the
shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to
ACCEPT the matching bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL
CORPORATION to purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the
Manila Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute
the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may
be necessary for purpose. SO ORDERED.

4. The textbook in XIV of Chapter I enumerated the set of Rules that the courts
or the judiciary is governed in the exercise of Judicial Power. Discuss each
of the Rules.

1. When the law is clear, the court's duty is to apply it, not to interpret it; (Hidalgo
v. Hidalgo, L-25326, 33 SCRA 105; Quijano p. DBP, 35 SCRA 220, L-26419,
October 16, 1970)

- This provision governs the judicial arm of the government to apply the law
when it is clear. It means that there is free of ambiguity in the provisions of
the law and it speaks the meaning in accordance to the intent of the
framers of the law. So, the duty of the court is to apply the law without any
further interpretation or construction of the law.

2. It is the duty of the judge to apply the law without fear or favor. In case of
doubt in the interpretation or application of the laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail; (Article 10, New Civil
Code)

- The judges are bound to apply the law without fear or favor in any case at
bar because it is their task to give fair and just decision in every case in
the field of judiciary to show that there is justice in the country. Justice
must prevail to the cases they are handling so that people around would
 have the positive feelings and confidence that this democracy country is
implementing the rules and regulations. That is why hearing is a must in
every case to determine the right and wrong, to know the sides of the
accused and the complainant.

3. When construction or interpretation is necessary, the court should interpret

the law according to the meaning the legislature intended to give it;

- This happens when law is ambiguous or there are two or more meanings.
So, construction or interpretation will be the avenue to make it clear based
on the meaning of the legislature intended to give it. For example, for a
given case which not covered in the provisions of the law, then
construction of the law must be done. If there is ambiguity of the law, then
interpretation of the law must be done.

4. If there are two possible interpretations of a law, that which will achieve the
ends desired by Congress should be adopted;

- When the ambiguity arises, therefore, the congress interpretation must be

followed by the judges upon deciding the cases in the court to achieve the
intent of the law. This is to conform the intent of law, and to follow the
congress what is the meaning of the law. However, there will be contrary
of the decision versus the intent of the law when the judges decided to a
given case.

5. Laws of pleading, practice and procedure are liberally construed in order to

promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding;

- Laws involving pleadings, practice and procedure must be construed

liberally or in a simple manner so that laymen can understand the law.
Simplicity of the terms should be applied during the construction of the
provisions unless there is no other term except the existing. This is
advantageous to the readers or judges because it is easily be understood
and no need for them to spend much time understanding the meaning of
the law. Also, during the proceeding, majority or all representatives can
understand easily the use of the provisions in just a short period of time.

6. A judge cannot decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity

or insufficiency of the laws. (Article 9, New Civil Code) In other words, he
must decide the case assigned to him whether or not he knows what law shall
be applied. In case of silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws, a judge
may still be guided by the following:

a. Customs which are not contrary to law, public order or public policy;
b. Court decisions, foreign or local, in similar cases;
c. Legal opinions of qualified writers and professors;
d. General principles of justice and equity; and
e. Rules of statutory construction.

- In this case, even there is absence of provisions to a given case at bar, the
judges still have ways to decide based on the statement of a, b, c, d, and
e. This is to give ways for the judges to give decision inasmuch it is not
good when the court could be able to render judgement because there is
no law governing to it. The congress is prohibited to construct laws
intended for the retroactive effects. So, it is still safe on the part of the
judges to decide the case and render its judgment for the reasons
enumerated above.