Statutory Construction Course Outline 1st Semester AY 2013-2014 PUP College of Law

Statutory Construction 1st Semester, AY 2013-2014 Atty. Alvin T. Claridades COURSE OUTLINE Part I – Introduction to Statutory Construction (Preliminary Considerations) 1.

Definition of Statutory Construction Caltex v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966 a. b.

Hermeneutics and Legal Hermeneutics

Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet 1. 2.

2.

People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974 Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001

When is there room for interpretation or construction? 1. 2.

Songco v. NLRC, GR L-50999 March 23, 1990 Amores v. HRET, GR 189600, June 29, 2010

3. Distinction Between Interpretation and Construction a. b. c.

Classes of interpretation according to Dr. Francis Lieber Intrinsic or internal aids in Statutory Interpretation Extrinsic or External aids in Statutory Construction

4.

Situs of Construction and Interpretation

5.

When can Courts Construe or Interpret the Law? 1.

6.

When courts need not resort to interpretation or construction 1. 2. 3.

7.

RCBC v. IAC, G.R. No. 74851, December 9, 1999

Go Ka Toc Sons v. Rice and Corn Board, G.R. No. L-23607, May 23, 1967 People v. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967 Luzon Surety v. De Garcia, G.R. No. L-25659, October 31, 1969

Punctuation and Grammar: An Aid to Interpretation and Construction

1. 8.

Statutory Construction vis-a-vis Judicial Legislation 1. 2.

9.

US v. Hart, G.R. No. L-8848 November 21, 1913

Floresca v. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985 Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

How must legislative intent be ascertained? 1. 2.

Aisporna v. CA, G.R. No. L-39419 April 12, 1982 Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

Part II – Statutory Construction and the Law 1.

What is a statute?

2.

Parts of a Statute

3.

Kinds of Statutes

4.

Constitutional Limitations of Statutes

5.

Legislative and Other Powers of Congress

6.

Legislative Process a. b.

7.

How a Bill Becomes a Law Flowchart of the Process

Void for Vagueness Doctrine 1. 2.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001 David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006

Part III – Basic Principles Used in Interpretation and Construction 1.

Verba Legis 1. 2.

2.

PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc., G.R. No. 177333, April 24, 2009 Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010

Plain Meaning Rule

1. 2. 3.

Pari Materia Rule 1. 2.

4.

2.

2.

Alpha Investigation and Security Agency v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111722 May 27, 1997 Serana v. Sandigabayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008

Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law 1. 2.

8.

Mun. of Nueva Era v. Mun. of Marcos, G.R. No. 169435 February 27, 2008 People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, August 30, 1962

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole 1.

7.

Canet v. Decena, G.R. No. 155344. January 20, 2004 Malinias v. Comelec, G.R. No. 146943 October 4, 2002

Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est 1.

6.

City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049 May 31, 1976 Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496. February 23, 2004

Expressium facit cessare tacitum 1. 2.

5.

Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007 Rural Bank of San Miguel v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 150886, February 16, 2007

People v. Salas, G.R. No. L-66469 July 29, 1986 Alonzo v. IAC, G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987

Stare Decisis 1.

Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 132051, June 25, 2001

2.

J.R.A. Phils. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 177127, October 11, 2010

Part IV – Latin Maxims Applied to Interpretation and Construction 1.

Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit (The law looks forward, not backward) – Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

2.

Lex de futuro, judex de praeterito (The law provides for the future, the judge for the past) – PDIC v. Stockholders Of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, G.R. No. 181556, December 14, 2009

3.

Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget (An absolute sentence needs no explanation) – Barcellano v. Bañas, G.R. No. 165287 September 14, 2011

4.

Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum (The best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself) – Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008

5.

Ratio legis est anima (The reason of the law is the soul of the law.) – League of Cities v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176951 December 21, 2009

6.

Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex (The reason for a law ceasing, the law itself ceases) - People v. Almuete, G.R. No. L-26551 February 27, 1976

7.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) – Malinias v. Comelec, G.R. No. 146943. October 4, 2002

8.

Generalia specialibus non derogant (General things do not derogate from special things) – Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434 March 5, 2010

9.

Dura lex sed lex (The law may be harsh but it is the law) – Obiasca v. Basallote, G.R. No. 176707 February 17, 2010

10.

Reddendo singula singulis (Referring each to each) – City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005

11.

Noscitur a sociis (Known from its associates) – Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012

12.

Ejusdem generis (Of the same kind) – Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, G.R. No. 189755 July 4, 2012