STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1. Where the law speaks in clear and

categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation, vacillation, or equivocation,
there is room only for application.
(Director of Lands Vs. Court of Appeals)

2. When the law is clear, it is not susceptible of

interpretation. It must be applied regardless
of who may be affected, even if the law may
be harsh or erroneous.
Olivia S. Pascual and Hermes Pascual Vs.
Esperanza C. Pascual Baustista, ET AL.
3. The first and fundamental duty of the Courts
is to apply the law.
People of the Philippines Vs. Mario Mapa Y Mapulong
3. The duty of the Courts is to apply the law
disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity
for the accused.
People of the Philippines vs Patricio Amigo
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The object of all interpretation and construction of
statutes is to ascertain the meaning and intention of
the legislature, to the end that the same may be
enforced.

4. Legislative intent is determined principally

from the language of the statute.
Socorro Ramirez Vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and
Esther S. Garcia
5. Plain Meaning Rule or Verba Legis
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Communications
VS. NLRC and Imelda Salazar
Verbal egis non est recedendum-( from words
of a statute there should be no departure.)
6. When the language of the law is clear, it
should be given its natural meaning.
Felicito Basbacio Vs. Office of the Secretary,
Department of Justice
STATUTE AS A WHOLE
A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that
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
easily convey a meaning which is different from the
one actually intended.
A statute should be construed as a whole because it is
not to be presumed that the legislature has used any
useless words, and because it is dangerous practice to
base the construction upon only a part of it, since one
portion may be qualified by other portions.
7. In interpreting a statute, care should be
taken that every part be given effect.

JMM Promotions andd Management, INC. Vs. NLRC

and Ulpiano L. Delos Santos
Radiola Toshiba Philippines, INC. Vs. IAC
GR 75222, July 18, 1991
Ut res magis valen quam pereat (construction
is to be sought which gives effect to the whole of
the statute)

10.
When the reason of the law ceases, the
law itself ceases- Cessante ratione legis,
cessat ipsa lex
Ratio legis est anima the reason of the law is
its soul
B/Gen.Jose Commendador, ET AL.
Vs.B/Gen.Demetrio Camera, ET. AL.

Implications
Spirit and Purpose of the Law.
When the interpretation of a statute according to the
exact and literal import of its words would lead to
absurd or 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.
8. A construction that gives to the language
used in a statute a meaning that does not
accomplish the purpose for which the statute
was enacted should be rejected.
Manuel T. De Guia Vs. COMELEC

9. Between two statutory interpretations, that

which better serves the purpose of the law
should prevail.
Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas Vs. CA,
ET AL.,
Ube lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere
debemos (makes no distinction)

The implications and intendments arising from

the language of a statute are as much a part of
it as if they had been expressed.
The implication must be so strong in its
probability that the contrary of thereof cannot
be reasonably supposed.
If the intent is expressed, there is nothing that
can be implied.

11.
Doctrine of necessary implications. What
is implied in a statute is as much a part
thereof as that which is expressed.
Lydia O. Chua Vs. CSC, National Irrigation
Adminstration
Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est- a
person or thing o,itted from an enumeration must
be held to have intentionally omitted intentionally.
Expressio unius est exclusion alteriuslegislature would not made specific enumeration
had not the intention been to restrict its meaning
and confine terms and benefits

In eo plus sit sunperinest et minus- the

greater included the lesser
City of Manila and City of Treasurer Vs. Judge
Amador E. Gomez of the CFI of Manila and ESSO
Philipines, INC.

Casus Omissus
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, it is called a casus
omissus. Such omissions or defects cannot be
supplied by the courts.

Stare Decisis.

It is the doctrine that, when court has once laid

down a principle, and apply it to all future cases,
where facts are substantially the same,
regardless of whether the parties and properties
are the same.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere
(follow past precedents and do not disturb what
has been settled.)

13. Follow past precedents and do not

disturb what has been settled. Matters
already decided on the merits cannot be
relitigated again and again.
JM Tuason and Co. INC., ET AL. Vs. Hon. Herminio
C. Mariano, Manuel Aquial, Maria Aquial, Spouses
Jose M. Cordova and Saturnina C. Cordova

casus omissus. - omitted

12.
The rule of casus omissus pro omisso
habendus est can operate and apply only if
and when the omission has been clearly
established.
People of the Philippines Vs. Guillermo Manantan

casus omissu pro ommissus pro omisso

habendus est. omittion was intended

Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium- matters

already decide will consume the courts time and
enerhies at the expense of their litigants
Chapter IV Construction and Interpretation
of Words and Phrases
When the Law Does Not Distinguish,
Courts Should Not Distinguish
14.
When the law does not distinguish, courts
should not distinguish. The rule, founded on

logic, is a corollary of the principle that

general words and phrases of a statute
should ordinarily be accorded their natural
and general significance.
Philippine British Assurance Co., INC V. Intermediate
Appellate Court

statutes object and purpose. The rule is

applicable only to cases wherein, except
for one general term, all the items in a
enumeration belong to or fall under one
specific class.
Colgate-Palmolive V. Auditor General

Ube lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere

debemos- where the lae does not distinguish,
courts should not distinguish.

General Terms Following Special Terms

(Ejusdem Generis)

15. The rule is well-recognized that where

the law does not distinguish, courts
should not distinguish
JUANITO C. PILAR vs. COMELEC
16. If the law makes no distinction,
neither should the Court.
People of the Philippines Vs. Hon. Judge
Antonio C. Evangeista and Guildo S. Tugonon

Exceptions in the Statute

17. When the law does not make any
exception, living courts may not except
something unless compelling reasons
exists to justify it.
De Villa V. Court of Appeals
18. General terms may be restricted by a
specific words, with the result that the
general language will be limited by a
specific language which indicates the

It is a general rule of statutory construction that where

general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning,
such general words are not to be construed in their
widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to
persons or things of the same general kind or class as
those specifically mentioned. But this rule must be
discarded where the legislative intention is plain to the
contrary.
This rule is commonly called the ejusdem generis
rule, because it teaches us that broad and
comprehensive expressions in an act, such as and all
others, or any others, are usually to be restricted to
persons or things of the same kind or class with
those specially named in the preceding words.
Rule of ejusdem generis merely a tool of statutory
construction resorted to when legislative intent is
uncertain.
19.
Applying the rule in statutory
construction known as ejusdem generis, that
is where general words follow an
enumeration of persons or things, by words
of a particular, and specific meaing, such
general words are not to be construed in

their widest extent, but are to be held as

applying only to persons or things of the
same kind or class as those specifically
mentioned.
Republic V. Migrinio

20. Rule of ejusdem generis merely a tool

of statutory construction resorted to
when legislative intent is uncertain.
People V. Echavez
21. The familiar rule of Ejusdem Generis
Vera V. Cuevas

Express Mention and Implied Exclusion.

(Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius)

It is a general rule of statutory construction that

the express mention of one person, thing, or
consequence is tantamount to an express
exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius.
It is based upon the rules of logic and natural
workings of the human mind.
It is useful only as a guide in determining the
probable intention of the legislature.
Except:
When there is manifest injustice
When there is no reason for exception.

22. The express mention of one person, thing,

act, or consequence excludes all others.
Expressio unuis est exclusion alterius
SPMC V. Commission of Internal Revenue

MUNICIPALITY OF NUEVA ERA, ILOCOS NORTE, vs.MUNICIPALITY

OF MARCOS, ILOCOS NORTE,

23. Associated Words (Noscitur Sociis)

Explain and limit each other.

When a word used in a statute is ambiguous or
vague, its meaning may be clear and specific by
considering the company in which it is found
and the meaning of the terms which are
associated with it.
The meaning of a doubtful word or phrase may
be ascertained by reference to the meaning of
other words or phrases with which it is
associated and that, where several things are
referred to, they are presumed to be of the
same class when connected by a copulative
conjunction, unless a contrary intent plainly
appears.

24. Where a particular word is equally susceptible of

various meanings, its correct construction may be
made specific by considering the company of terms in
which it is found or with which it is associated.
Buenaseda V. Flavier

Use of Negative Words.

25. Negative words and phrases regarded
as mandatory while those affirmative are
mere directory.
Fule V. Court of Appeals

The use of the word may and shall in

the statute
26. Use of word may in the statute generally
connotes permissible thing while the word
shall is imperative
Bersabal V. Salvador

The word or is to be used as a function word

to indicate an alternative between different or
unlike things.

29. The word only means exclusive

Roos Industrial Construction Vs. NLRC Roos Industrial Construction Vs.
NLRCRoss Industrial Construction Vs. NLRC

Computation of Time
27. Use of the Word Must
The word must in a statute like shall is
not always imperative and may be
consistent with an exercise discretion.
LGVHAI V. Court of Appeals
28. The use of the word may clearly shows it
is directory in nature and not mandatory.
Ombudsman Vs. De Sahagun Digest

The Use of the Term And and the Word

Or

And means conjunction connecting words or phrases

expressing the idea that the latter is to be added or
taken along with the first.
It basic in legal hermeneutics that the word
and is not meant to separate words but is a
conjunction used to a joinder or union.
Or is a disjunctive particle used to express as
alternative or to give a choice of one among two or
more things. It is also used to clarify what has already
been said, and in such cases, means in other words,
to wit, or that is to say.

When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights,

it shall be understood that years are of three hundred
sixty five days each; months of thirty days; days of
twenty four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be
computed by the number of days which they
respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded,
and the last day included (Art. 13, New Civil Code).
30. A week means a period of seven
consecutive days without regard to the day of
the week on which it begins.
PNB V. Court of Appeals
. Function

of the Proviso

Proviso is a clause or part of a clause in the statute,

the office of which is either to except something from
the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its
generality, or to exclude some possible ground of
misinterpretation of its extent.
Provided is the word used in introducing a
proviso.
31

ALU-TUCP V. NLRC

CHAPTER 5

1. Presumption Against
Unconstitutionality

Laws are presumed constitutional. To justify

nullification of law, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution.
The theory is that, as the joint act of the
legislative and executive authorities, a law is
supposed to have been carefully studied and
determined to be constitutional before it was
finally enacted.

Aris INC Vs. NLRC

the literal command without regard to its cause

and consequence.
A. In case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice
to prevail.

Salvacion Vs. Central Bank of the Philippines

B. A law should not be interpreted so as to
cause an injustice.

Alonzo Vs. IAC

3. Presumption Against Implied

Repeals.

A. All laws are presumed valid and

constitutional until or unless otherwise
ruled by the Court.
Lim Vs. Pacquing

B. The burden of proving the invalidity of a

law rests on those who challenge it.
Jovencio Lim and Teresita Lim Vs. People

2. Presumption Against Injustice.

The law should never be interpreted in such a

way as to cause injustice as this never within
the legislative intent.
We interpret and apply the law in consonance
with justice.
The law and justice is inseparable, and we must
keep them so.
Judges do not and must not unfeelingly apply
the law as it is worded, yielding like robots to

The two laws must be absolutely incompatible,

and clear finding thereof must surface, before
the inference of implied repeal may be drawn.
Interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus
interpretendi
Every statute must be so interpreted and
brought into accord with the other laws as to
form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
In order to effect a repeal by implication, the
latter statute must be so irreconcilably
inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law
that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand
together.

A. In the absence of an express repeal, a

subsequent law cannot be construed as
repealing a prior law unless an
irreconcilable inconsistency and
repugnancy exists in terms of the new and
old laws.

Berces Vs. Guingona

B. Repeals of statute by implication not

favored.
Mecano Vs. COA
Ponente: CAMPOS, JR.

4. Presumption Against
Ineffectiveness.

It is presumed that the legislature intends to

impart to its enactments such a meaning as will
render them operative and effective, and to
prevent persons from eluding or defeating them.
In case of any doubts or obscurity, the
construction will be such as to carry out those
objects.

A. In the interpretation of a statute, the

Court should start with the assumption
that the legislature intended to enact an
effective statute.
Paras Vs. COMELEC

5. Presumption Against Absurdity.

Statutes must receive a sensible construction
such as will give effect to the legislative
intention so as to avoid an unjust and absurd
conclusion.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Vs. Esso Standard

Presumption against undesirable consequences

were never intended by a legislative measure.

Ursua Vs. CA

6. Presumption Against Violation of

International Law.
Philippines as democratic and republican state adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations. (Art. II, Sec. 2, 1987 Phil.
Constitution).