FINALS

XIII. AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL

Amendment, defined.

Change or modification

By addition, deletion or alteration

Of a statute which survives in its amended form

If transparent, construction is dispensed with

Amendment, who has authority.

The legislature

Legislative power to enact includes the power to amend or repeal

Subject to constitutional requirements or existing law

Amendment, Scope

It extends to statute in the nature of contracts

Example: legislative franchises to establish and operate utilities

Which may be unilaterally amended by the legislature

Without impairing the obligations of contract

Because it normally provides that it is subject to amendment or repeal by

Congress

When common good requires

Amendment, how effected.

By enactment of an amendatory Act modifying or altering some provisions of

the statute wither expressly or impliedly
Express amendment

Specific sections or provisions sought to be amended

Example: a provision sought to be amended is quoted, followed by is

hereby amended to read as follows:
Implied amendment

Does not specify sections or provisions

But provides for a general phrase

Implied amendment, example of.

any provision of law which is inconsistent therewith is modified accordingly

but the absence of such provision does not mean that the subsequent law
may no longer amend a prior Act on the same subject

it still amends, if there is irreconcilable repugnancy between them

but implied amendment is neither presumed nor favored

every statute should be harmonized with other laws on the same subject
Amendment, when effective.

15 days following its publication of the OG or a newspaper of general

circulation

unless another date is specified after publication

Amendment, how construed.

A statute and its amendment should be read together as a whole

The amended Act is regarded as if the statute has been originally enacted in
its amended form and the amendment becomes part of the original statute

Amendment, effect of.

An amended Act should be construed differently from the original Act

It would not want to change meaning

Example: if the exception included in the scope of the general term

Amendment, how it operates.

General rule: amendatory Acts operate prospectively

Except: contrary is provided or implied

Condition: No vested rights or obligation of contracts is impaired

Amendment, effect on vested rights.

Does not affect vested rights

Because it takes effect prospectively

Amendment, effect on jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law in force at the
time

Of commencement of action

Once acquired, it cannot be divested by amendatory Act and stays until

decided

Unless: express prohibitive words or words of similar import are used

it applies to quasi-judicial bodies

illustrative case: Erectors, Inc. Vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 104215, May 8, 1996, 256 SCRA 629
(1996)

facts: erectors recruited an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) to work as

service contract driver in Saudi Arabia for 1 year with a salary of $165 and
allowance of $165 a month plus $1,000 renewal bonus.

But it was not implemented because the position of service driver was no
longer available.

Thus, they executed another 1 year contract, but for the position of helper/
laborer with a salary of $105 and allowance of $105 monthly.

The OFW returned to the country and invoked his first contract, demanding
for the difference in his salary and allowance plus contractual bonus for not
availing of his vacation or home leave credits

But this was denied by Erectors.

On March 31, 1982, the OFW filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint against
Erectors for underpayment of wages and non-payement of overtime pay and
contractual bonus.

On May 1, 1982 however, while the case was still in conciliation stage, E.O.
No. 797 creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
took effect.

It vested the POEA with exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases,
including money claims, involving employer-employee realtions arising out of
or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
employment.

Despite E.O. 797, the Labor Arbiter heard the case and decided in favor of
the OFW.

Erectors appealed to thre NLRC but was denied, hence this petition for
special civil action for certiorari.

Contention of erectors: E.O. 797 divested the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction

over cases arising from overseas employment contract.
It applies retroactively to affect pending cases pursuant to the ruling in Briad
Agro Development Corp vs. Dela Cerna.
Held: E.O. 797 did not divest the Labor Arbiter with jurisdiction claims
arising from overseas employment contract.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the law at the time of
the commencement of the action.
Prior to the efficacy of E.O. 797, the laws in force were P.D. Nos. 1691 and
1391 which vested the Labor Arbiter with original and exclusive jurisdiction
over these cases.
Laws should be applied prospectively unless the legislative intent to give
them retroactive effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from
the language used.
The reliance on the ruling in Briad Agro Development Corp vs. Dela Cerna is
misplaced.
In that case, E.O. 111 amended Article 217 of the Labor Code to widen the
workers access to the government for redress of griecances by giving the
regional directors and labor arbiters concurrent jurisdiction over money
claims.
This amendment however crewated a situation where their jurisdiction
overlapped.
As a remedy, R.A. 6715 delineated their respective jurisdiction.
As such, E.O. 111 and R.A. 6715 are curative statutes which retroactive
application is an exception to the general rule on prospective application of
laws.
Curative statutes are enacted to cure the defects in a prior law or to validate
legal proceedings, instruments or acts of public authorities which would
otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain existing legal
requirements.
E.O. 797 is not a curative statute. It was not intended to remedy any defect
in the law.
It should thus be applied prospectively and should not affect jurisdiction over
cases filed prior to its efficacy.
Erectors, Inc. Vs. NLRC
Facts: A money claim arising out of overseas employment contract (OEC)
was filed by an overseas Filipino worker with the Labor Arbiter.
During pendency of the case however, a law was passed transferring
jurisdiction over money claims arising out of OEC from the Labor Arbiter to
the POEA.
Held: Jurisdiction is determined by the law at the time of commencement of
action. Once acquired, court proceeds to hear and decide. It is not divested
by subsequent amendatory act unless it expressly provides or is curative
statute which may be given retroactive effect.

Effects of Nullity of prior or amendatory Act.

If the prior Act is declared invalid, the amendatory Act is also invalid

If the amendatory Act is invalid, the prior Act stays

Revision, defined.

Intends to re-examine the whole law, or of certain provisions which have

over-all implications for the entire law
Amendment and revision, distinguished.

Amendment alters one or a few specific and separable provisions whereas

revision overhauls the entire law

Codification, defined.

Enactment of various laws on the same subject matter into a single,

comprehensive statute

It is to be considered as such and not as a series of disconnected articles or

provisions
Revision

and codification, purpose.

To restate into one statute
Similar subject found in various laws
Simplify complicated provisions
And make them accessible and easily found

Revision and codification, effects.

Insertion of new provisions does not alter the construction of previous

Acts unless otherwise clearly intended

Omission of old provisions deemed repeaked, unless the statute or code

was intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect
system in itself

When both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of repeal, all omitted
parts are deemed repealed.
Illustrative case: Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500 (1992)

Facts: An NBI Director was confined for cholecystitis which coset him
hospital and medical expenses the he wants to be reimbursed.

He based his claim on Section 699 of the Revised Adminstrative Code (RAC)
of 1917 which affords civil servants allowances in case of injusry, death, or
sickness incurred in the performance of duty but it was denied by the
Commission on Audit (CoA).

Contention of CoA: Section 699 of the RAC was omitted in the

Administrative Code of 1987 hence deemed repealed.

Contention of CoA: Allowing Section 699 to remain in force argues against

the Adminstrative Code of 1987 itself which wheras clause says:

the effectiveness of the Government will be enhanced by a new

Administrative Code which incorporate in a unified document the major
structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance.

In effect, what is contemplated is only one code, the Administrative Code of

1987.

Held: Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.

Held: The repealing clause of the Administrative Code of 1987 says:

All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof,

inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Since it did not specify the title or number of the law sought to be repeal,
which has two categories.

One is where the provisions of the two laws on the same subject matter are
irreconcilable.

The other is where the enactment of a statute revising or codifying the

former laws on the whole subject matter.

But the second category is possible only if:

The revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to be a
complete and perfect system in itself

It revises the whole subject matter of the statute

Both intent and scope evince the idea of repeal

It is clear intent of the legislature to substitute the prior Act.
The Administrative Code of 1987 does not fall under this category, because
the intent is clear that it covers the aspects of administration organization
and procedure only.
It also does not fall under the first category because there is no irreconcilable
conflict between the provisions of both laws.
Lastly, implied repeal is not favored.
The presumption is against repugnancy or inconsistency because the
legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and not to
have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statues.
Thus, even if Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of1917
was omitted in the Administrative Code of 1987, it remains in force
in the absence of irreconcilable inconsistency, apart from the fact
that it was not specifically identified for repeal.

Mecano vs. CoA

Facts: A claim for reimbursement was denied because the provision of law it
invoked was omitted in the subsequent law.

Held: Mere omission of a probision in the subsequent law does not result in
amendment or repeal unless it expressly provided.

Otherwise, it is deemed an implied repeal which may either be due to

irreconcilable differences between the prior and subsequent law or the
enactment of a subsequent law revising or codifying the old laws is intended
to cover the whole subject to be a complete and perfect system in itself.
Change in phraseology mere change in phraseology does not imply that the
lawmakers intended to change the construction of the old laws
General Rule: neither change in phraseology nor omission or addition of words
alters the construction of former Acts
Except: if intent to change the construction is very clear, especially if the change or
omission is material as to indicate intent to depart from the previous construction of
the old laws
Rearrangement of sections does not change the operation, effect or meaning of
statute unless changes are of such nature as to clearly manifest legislative intent to
change old laws
Repeal, defined.

Recalling, revoking or abrogation of a statute by another

Repeal, who has authority.

The legislature, subject to constitutional limitations

Section 1, Article VI, the Legislative Department, 1987 Constitution.

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines

which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
Repeal, constitutional limitations.

Except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.

Non-delegability of legislative power

Prohibition against enactment of irrepealable laws
They are not found in the text of the Constitution because the are mere
corollaries in the nature of implied substantive limitations.

Illustrative case: City of Davoa vs. RTC, G.R. No. 127383, August 18, 2005.

First, that Section 33 of P.D. 1146 be expressly and categorically repealed by

law;

Second, that a provision be enacted to substitute the declared policy of

exemption from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of
the GSIS fund.

These requisites for repeal have not been satisfied by the LGC.

Contention of the local government unit:

the exemption granted to GSIS under Section 33 of PD 1146 was effectively

withdrawn uopm the enactment of the LGC which further says that special
laws like PD 1146 which are inconsistent with it are repealed or modified
accordingly.

Held: concededly, the second condition prescribed by section 33 of P.D.

1146 does not appear to be met as no provision is found in the Local
Government Code of 1991 that substitutes the declared policy of exemption
from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of the fund.

but the amendatory second paragraph in Section 33 introduced by P.D. 1981

is fundamentally flawed.

This unorthodox condition effectively imposes restrictions on the

competency of Congress to enact future legislature on the taxability of GSIS.

This places undue restrain on the plenary power of Congress to

amend or repeal laws in violation of the prohibition against the
passage of irrepealable laws.

Irrepealable laws are prohibited because they deprive succeeding

legislatures of the fundamental best senses carte blanche in crafting laws.

Reynato S. Puno once said, to be sure, there are no irrepealable laws just as
there are no irrepealable Consitutions.

Change is the predicate of progress and we should not fear change.

Xxx

it may be argued that section 33 does not preclude repeal of tax-exempt

status of the GSIS, but merely imposes conditions for its validity.

But if these conditions are honored, they have the precise effect of limiting
the power of Congress.

Thus, the same rationale for prohibiting irrepealable laws applies in

prohibiting restraints on future amendatory laws.

The present legislature cannot bind future legislature to particular

mode of repeal. It cannot declare in advance the intent of
subsequent legislatures.
City of Davao vs. RTC

Facts: GSIS refused to any real property taxes to the local government unit
because of a prior exempting law setting two conditions for repeal which
were not met by the subsequent law.

Held: the conditions set by the prior law place undue restraint on the
plenary power of Congress to amend or repeal laws in violation of the
prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws.

the present legislature cannot bind future legislature to a particular mode of

repeal. It cannot declare in advance the intent of future legislatures.
Repeal, Kinds of.

Total revokes the statute completely

Partial leaves unaffected portions in force
Express declaration in a repealing clause that a particular and specific law
is sought to be repealed, by identifying the number or title
Implied all other repeals are deemed implied repeals
Failure to add the repealing clause indicated that there is not intent to repeal
any existing law
Unless there is irreconcilable inconsistency
In which case it is deemed an implied repeal

Repeal, kinds of.

Even if there is a repealing clause but if fails to identify or specify the law
sought to be repealed, it is still an implied repeal

Example: All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

The intent is not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless there is
irreconcilable inconsistency

Laws are repealed only by the enactment of subsequent laws, not by

violation, non-observance, disuse of customs and contrary practice.
Repeal by implication conditions.

There must be sufficient revelation of the intent to repeal, which must be

very clear
Repeal by implication, categories or modes.

Irreconcilable conflict between provisions of two Acts.

Conditions: two statutes cover the same subject matter and object

Clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other

That they cannot be harmonized

Both cannot be given effect

That is, that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other
Repeal by implication, categories or modes.

If the subsequent Act covers the whole subject of the prior Act and
is clearly intended as a substitute

Of the same subject matter but different objects, the two laws can
stand together, although they refer to the same subject matter
Illustrative cases:
Aguejetas vs. CA, 261 SCRA 17 (1996)

Facts: the members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers were convicted of

the election offense under Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).

This after they proclaimed the losing candidate as eighth elected board
member.

Contention of the canvassers:

The election offense for which they were convicted is repealed by R.A. 6646
and R.A. 7166 which amended the OEC by deleting or adding certain
provisions.

Paragraph 2, Section 231 of the OEC states:

The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvassers

shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint
of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of
the votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and, on the
basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidtates who obtained

the highest number of votes cast in the province, city municipality or

barangay. Failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an
election offence.
This was modified by Section 28 of R.A. 7166 by removing the specific
manned by which the winning candidates are proclaimed.
Thus, it repealed the second paragraph, Section 231 of the OEC under which
they were convicted.
Held: Sec. 231 was not expressly repealed by the amending and repealing
clause of R.A. 7166 which says:
Sec. 39. Amending and Repealing Clause. Sections 107, 108 and 245 of
the Omnibus Election Code are hereby repealed. x x x
x x x Likewise, the inclusion in Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code of
the violations of Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 and 112 as
among election offenses is also hereby repealed. This repeal shall have
retroactive effect.
Neither is there implied repeal
While Sec. 231 of the OEC and Sec. 28 of R.A. 7166 pertains to the
canvassing by the Board of Canvassers, this fact along is not sufficient to
cause an implied repeal.
While the two provisions differ in terms, neither is this fact sufficient to cause
repugnance.
In order to effect implied repeal, the two statutes must be so irreconcilably
repugnant and inconsistent with each other.

The following standard of irreconcilability resulting in implied repeal must be

satisfied:
1. Both laws deal with thew same subject matter
2. The latter law must be inconsistent with the earlier law.
3. Repugnancy is clear and convincing in character.
4. The language used in the latter must be such that as to render it
irreconcilable with the prior law.
An inconsistency that fally short of this standard does not suffice because
implied repeal is not favored.

The presumption is against inconsistency and accordingly, against

implied repeal because Congress is presumed to know the existing
laws on the same subject and not to enact inconsistent statutes.
Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 241 (1995)

Facts: Criminal and administrative complaint were filed against Mayor

Alfredo Ouano and other members of the Sanguniang Panglungsod (SP) with
the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas for violation of the
Revised Penal Code and R.A. 6713.

the complainants moved to preventively suspend Mayor Ouano and other

respondents.

Mayor Ouano opposed the motion ad moved to dismiss the complaint.

Contention of Mayor Ouano and other respondents:

The Deputy Ombudsman is without jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the
administrative complaint.

They argued that under Section 63 of the Local Government Code of 1991
(LGC), the power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions,
including preventive suspension against local officials, is now vested with the
Office of the President (OP).

Under Secs.61 and 63 of the LGC, the OP, not the Office of the Ombudsman,
has jurisdiction over administrative complaints against any elective official of
a province, highly urbanized city or independent component city.
Contention of complainants:
The LGC could not have repealed, abrogated or otherwise modified the
pertinent provisions of the power to investigate cases against elective local
officials.
The power of the Ombudsman to investigate local officials under the
Ombudsman Act is unaffected by the provisions of LGC.
But the Deputy Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and even placed
mayor Ouano and other respondents under preventive suspension.
Mayor Ouano and other respondents petitioned to prohibit and restrain the
Deputy Ombudsman before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City which
granted it.
The respondent judge applied the rule of statutory construction that
endeavor to harmonize two laws to make each effective.
Since the investigatory power of the Ombudsman Act is general, broad and
vague as opposed to the LGC which provides for well defined
And specific grounds for administrative disciplinary action, the LGC could be
considered an exception to the authority and administrative power of the
Ombudsman to investigate local elective officials.
Issue: whether the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate local elective
officials under the ombudsman act of 1989 has been divested by virtue of
the subsequent enactment of the LGC of 1991.
held: the petition is meritorious.
Sec. 21 of the Ombudsman Act says:
???
Sec. 24 grants the Ombudsman authority to preventively suspend any
officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation x x x
Whereas Sec. 61(a) of the LGC provides:
A complaint against any elective official of a province, a highly urbanized
city, an independent component city or component city shall be filed before
the Office of the President.
Thus, respondent insist that conformably with Sec. 63(b), preventive
suspension can only be imposed by the President if the respondent is an
official of a province, highly urbanized city or an independent component
city.
Contention of the Solicitor-General:
While the LGC may have conferred on the OP disciplinary authority over local
elective officials, it is not exclusive.
The LGC did not withdraw the power of the Ombudsman to investigate local
elective officials vested by the Ombudsman Act conformable with a
constitutional mandate.
Indeed, the SC said, there is nothing in the LGC to indicate that it repealed,
expressly or impliedly, the Ombudsman Act.
The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent or
irreconcilable.
Two laws on the same subject matter, which prevails.
Between two irreconcilably inconsistent laws, the subsequent law prevails
because it is the latest expression of legislative will, and Congress is
presumed to know the earlier law.
Legis posteriors priores contrarias abrogant subsequent statute repeals
earlier law repugnant to it.

Illustrative case: David vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997

Contention of the Commission on Elections:

The repealing clause of the LGC includes all laws, whether general or
special, inconsistent with the provisions of the Local Government Code.
David and Rillon cannot claim a term longer than 3 years because they were
elected under the aegis of the LGC which fixed the term of 3 years only.
Held: The legislative intent is very clear, shorten the term of office of
Barangay officials to 3 years only.
First, the LGC was enacted later than R.A. 6679.
In case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the subsequent law
prevails pursuant to the principle legis posteriors priores contrarias
abrogant.
Sec. 43 of the LGC fixed the term of office of barangay officials at 3 years
whereas Sec. 1 of R.A. 6679 fixes it at 5 years.
Both laws refer to barangay officials elected on the second Monday of May
1994
There being irreconcilable inconsistency between the two laws, implied
repeal applies.
While it is true that R.A. 6679 is a special law and should prevail pursuant to
the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant, the LGC is not
necessarily a general law.
The LGC is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government
units.
Section 43(c) specifically fixes the term of office of elective barangay officials
at 3 years, a special provision that applies only to those elected on the
second Monday of May 1994.
The Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fisixng any term of
office for barabgay officials.
It merely left the determination of such term to the full discretion of the lawmaking body in accordance with the exigencies of public service.
To strike down a law as unconstitutional, there must be a clear and
unequivocal showing that what the Constitution prohibits, the statute
permits.
They miserably failed to discharge this burden to show clearly the
unconstitutionality they aver.

Statues in pari material, defined.

They are which refer to the same person or thing, or the same class of
persons or things, which have a common purpose.
Statutes in pari materia, how determined.

If court decisions point to one legislative intent, regardless of whether one is

criminal and the other is civil.
Statues in pari material, how construed.

They should be read together, and in connection with each other, as if they
constitute one law or one system enacted in the same spirit in furtherance of
the same policy.
In pari material rule, purpose.

To carry out the full legislative intent by giving effect to all laws and
provisions on the same subject matter.
In pari material rule, limitation.

It cannot be invoked where the language of the law is clear and

unambiguous.
It does not apply to private acts and is highly disfavored.

General and special laws, general rule on repeal.

General law does not repeal a prior special law on the same subject matter
unless clearly intended by the legislature.
Generalia specialibus non derogant a general law does not nullify a special law.

It applies irrespective of the date of passage of the special law.

If the special law is subsequent, it qualifies the general law. If the law is an
earlier law, it is an exception to the terms of the general law.
Repeal, general effects.

It renders inoperative the prior Act from the time repealing law takes effect.

But it does not invalidate the pior Act from the beginning.
Repeal, effect on Jurisdiction.

Neither repeal nor expiration of law divests the court of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction to try and decide cases is determined by the law in force at the
time it was filed.
Effects of repeal and expiration of law, distinguished.

In absolute repeal, the crime is obliterated, thus the stigma of conviction

is erased whereas the expiration of law does not have that effect.

Once jurisdiction is acquired, it proceeds unless the repealing acts says

otherwise.

But if the action was filed after the repealing act divesting jurisdiction
and the decision is null and void.
Repeal, effect on jurisdiction to try criminal case.

Same rule applies. But with added exception express prohibitive words
are used or criminal law violated is repealed.
Repeal, effects on actions, pending or otherwise.

Defeats all actions and proceedings, including those pending and

pending appeal, arising out of or based on the statute.
Repeal, effect on vested rights.

Does not impair rights accrued prior to the repeal.

Repeal, effect on contracts.

Does not affect the terms of contract, nor impair the rights of parties.

It applies even if the other contracting party is the government.

Repeal, effect on tax laws.

Does not preclude collection of taxes assessed prior to the repeal, unless
otherwise provided.
Repeal, effect on penal laws.
Example: the absolute repeal of the Anti-Subversion Act entitles the accused to the
dismissal of the case against him as the offense no longer exost and the court is
deprived of jurisdiction.
Reason: the legislative intent is to legalize what has been decreed as illegal.
Except: if the repealing act re-enacts the statute and penalizes the same act, even if
the penalty is lower

The repealing act contains a saving clause that pending cases are not affected.
Repeal, effect on municipal charter.

Abolishes all offices under the old charter.

Thus, conversion of a municipality to a city abolishes all municipal positions

unless otherwise provided.
Repeal or nullity of repealing law, effects.

When the repealing law expressly repealing a prior law is itself repealed, the
prior law is not revived unless otherwise provided.

When the repealing law expressly repealing a prior law is declared

unconstitutional, the prior law remains in force.
Provisio, defined.

Condition precedent. Generally introduced by the word provided:

It is a clause on a preceding enactment to restrain or modify the enacting

clause, or of excepting something from its operation which otherwise would
have been without it, or of excluding some possible ground of
misinterpretation of it, as by extending it to cases not intended by the
legislature to be brought within its prurview.
Proviso, function.

To create a condition precedent, to exempt, limit, restrict or qualify a statute,

in whole or in part.

To limit the application of the law, and not to enlarge it s operation

Exception, defined.

Enumeration of what should not be covered by the general rule.

Exception and proviso, distinguished.

Exceptions exempts while proviso sets conditions.

Exceptions, how construed.

Strictly, especially where the statute promotes public welfare.

Saving clause, defined.

A clause which exempts special things out of the general things mentioned
in the law.
Saving clause, purpose.

To preserve something, as existing rights or causes of action or pending

proceedings, from immediate interference by operation of a statute.
Saving clause, limitation.

Inoperative if entirely inconsistent with the purview of the law.

How do you define Constitution?

-

It is a written instrument where fundamental powers of the

government are established, limited and defined, distributed
among several departments for their safe and useful exercise for
the benefit of the body politic.

Atty.G: of course you already defined the constinuh? And at the

bottom it says body politic, what is body politic? Organized
people, remember?
What is the purpose of Constitutional construction?
of course you know that already, first is to:
-

to determine the intent of the framers as expressed in the

language
to assure its realization

Are statutory construction rules applicable?

- yes, where it grants governmental powers in derogation of the

inherent and natural rights of the people.
Remember that, who are you against the government?
So, can we say it may be construed either way?
- yes, since constitutional construction is a question of intention.
Should we construe the Constitution according to the
prevailing circumstances?
-

Definitely, a good number are applicable.

-

So the way it was construed before in 1987 as it is now today

should be consistent. But however, the SC has flip flopped a
number of times, and if we say that the constitution no longer
responds to the prevailing circumstances, the remedy there is
amendment and not to construe it the other way to adapt to
the prevailing circumstances.

Yes, a good number are applicable.

Can you give examples of applicable rules of statutory

construction?
-

Verbalegisor the plain meaning rule

ratio legisest anima or words are interpreted according to intent
utmagisvaleatpereator the Constitution is to be interpreted as a
whole, (note: they cannot be separated)

how do you construe the Constitution?

-

As a whole, no provision is to be separated from all the

others.

No, it should be construed uniformly. It should not change

together with the fluctuations of public sentiment.

How do you construe amendments to the constitution?

-

they should be harmonized with the existing provision.

What if they cannot be harmonized, which prevails, the

existing provision or the amendment?
In case of conflict, what prevails?

What if there are conflicting provisions?

Atty.G: we harmonize them, as much as possible.

Because of the reason that the amendment is the latest or latter

expression of the will of the congress. Okay?

they should be harmonized.

Should you construe the constitution liberally or strictly?

how do you
constitution?

Of course liberally, to give effect to the purpose of the high objective

of the constitution.

Liberally, to accomplish its high objectives and carry out general

principles of government.

Is there an exception to liberal construction?

We know this noh, if it grants governmental power.

The amendment prevails.

construe

the

language

or

words

of

the

they should be construed in their common use and ordinary

meaning.
Except:
When technical terms are used.

Why are they construed in their ordinary meaning?

Because it is not primarily a lawyers document, it is the peoples

document expressed through ratification, dba? That is our
participation in the writing of the constitution, ratification.
-

The Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document. It is the

expression of the sovereign will of the people.

How did the sovereign will express it?

-

Through ratification.

Illustrative case: Ordillo v. Commission on Elections 192

SCRA 100 (1992)
Atty.G: kaninoh, this case actually that the constitution should be
construed in its ordinary meaning. The question here is what do you
understand by region? Region gani is, more than one province, dba?
But here, you know what happened to this case, right? The
COMELEC said there is now the CAR composed of the Ifugao
province only. And so the SC struck it down as unconstitutional
because, number 1, it doesnt make sense, dba? A region
dapatdaghanjudnasiaprobinsya, and remember that in this case the
SC tried to avoid that absurd situation where there are regional
officials as well as provincial officials governing the same
constituency and territory, so it cannot be done. When you say
region it always presupposes more than one province.
What are the facts in this case?
-

Congress enacted RA 6766, an organic act for the cordillera

autonomous region (CAR) to be composed of the province of
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra, Kalinga-Apayao and
the city of Baguio.
But it was overwhelmingly rejected by the people in a plebiscite
called for the purpose, except for the province of Ifugao.
Thus, COMELEC resolved that the CAR was, approved only by the
people of Ifugao province. Thus, Congress set the date of
election.

What is the contention of the petitioners?

-

There can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one

province as the Constitution and RA 6766 require that it be
composed of more than one constituent unit.

What is the contention of the Secretary of Justice?

Pursuant to Abbas v. COMELEC, the phrase by majority of the

votes cast by the constituent units called for the purpose found
in article 10, section 18 of the constitution means simple
majority in individual constituent units and not double majority
individually and collectively.

What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?

-

The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the CAR.

Sec.15, art.10 of the constitution says:
there shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao
and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities,
municipalities and geographical areas sharing common and
distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social
structures, and other relevant characteristics within the
framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as
well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
The keywords provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical
areas connotes that region means two or more provinces.
It should be construed accordingly to its common use and
ordinary meaning.
The 13 regions into which the country is divided for
administrative purpose are groupings of contiguous provinces.

What about the provisions in RA 6766, do they reveal what is

contemplated by the term region?
-

Yes, sec. 2 contemplates development of provinces, cities,

municipalities whereas sec.4 contemplates regional assembly,
districts among provinces, cities and municipalities.

What was the absurd situation anticipated by the Supreme

Court if the lone province of Ifugao becomes the CAR?
-

That it will have two sets of officials, regional and provincial,

governing exactly the same territory and constituents.

How did the SC treat applicability of Abbas v. COMELEC?

-

It is misplaced, the Abbas case established the rule to follow on

which provinces and cities comprise the autonomous region in
Muslim Mindanao whereas this case deals with whether a sole
province can constitute an autonomous region.

What is your one-liner for this case?

Words in the constitution should be understood in their common

use and ordinary meaning, thus, the term region as ordinarily
used in the 13 regions in the country refers to groupings of
contiguous provinces.
The keywords provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical
areas connote that region means two or more provinces.

Between words of general or restricted meaning, which

prevails?
-

the general meaning prevails.

Remember that this is the constitution, so general meaning

prevails..
Except?
if the context indicates that the limited sense is intended.
What is the reason for this rule?
Ngano general man? Because the constitution is an organic law that
deals with broader subjects.

Article XVI, Sec.10

the state shall provide the policy environment for the full
development of Filipino capability and the emergence of
communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations
of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of,
and across the country, in accordance with a policy that
respects the freedom of speech and the press.
Okay, now kung imonangbasahon, what do you understand?
(someone answers: nothing) muragsiya, Is it information
technology? Is it the bpo industry? Thats why justice Isagani
Cruz reacted.
- To, this Justice Isagani A. Cruz reacted:
- EXCUSE ME?
Because you cannot understand that, so maonianggiingon
master piece of circumlocution, excessive use of words,
inganakabatipagkasuwatang constitution. But remember that
the consti is actually a reaction to the abuses of the Marcos
dictatorship, thats why kung imonatanawon these are actually
provisions that try to remedy or avoid the repetition of the
abuses of the Marcos dictatorship, and the fact that its was
too lengthy it means that the abuses was so rampant during
that period.

Organic meaning, the source law, fundamental law or the basic law.
What are the criticisms against the 1987 Constitution?

What are the intrinsic aids to constitutional construction?

- Language or words of the Constitution.

Of course intrinsic aid dba, only in the face of constitution
What are the extrinsic aids?

That it is excessively long and verbose.

It sounds like a political speech rather than a formal document
stating only basic precepts.
It includes topics that have no place in the Constitution like
sports, love, drugs, and even advertising and rhythm and
harmony of nature.
Atty.G : Asa nimo Makita ang love?
Someone answers: sa preamble,
Atty.G: yeah, preamble, because according to them,
ilanggibutangang love because it actually represents the
bloodless revolution in 1986, because love prevailed at the time.
The Filipinos shun violence to transform society.
-

But worse, it uses tortuous language like the following

masterpiece of circumlocution:

Tortuous meaning, Circuitous

Circumlocution meaning, it uses excessive language.

1. History or realities existing at the time of the adoption of the

constitution
2. Proceedings of the constitutional convention
3. Changes in phraseology
4. Prior laws and judicial decisions
5. Construction of US Constitutional provisions
6. Contemporaneous construction and writings
7. Consequences of alternative constructions
8. Construction given by executive officers.
History or realities: Illustrative case: In re Bermudez, 145
SCRA 116
Art. XVIII, sec. 5 of the constitution states that (t)he six-year term of
the incumbent president and vice-president elected in the February

7,1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections,

hereby extended to noon of June 30, 1992.
Okay the main issue there is who are the incumbent president and
vice-president referred to by this provision, dba? Because I told you
already, Imelda claimed that oh my husband term was extended to
june 1992 because it was marcos and tolentino who were
proclaimed by comelec at that time.
Who is the incumbent president then?
- in applying history or realities, the SC said it is a matter of public
record and common public knowledge that the ConCom refers to
incumbent President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador
H. Laurel, and to no other persons.
What do proceedings of the convention include?
- they include debates, interpellations and opinions
Take note: the difference between Interpellate andInterpolate.
Interpellate: is when you interrupt be asking something.
Interpolate: interrupt by saying something.
Both RUDE
Can we resort to proceedings right away?
- no, resort to proceedings may be had if other extrinsic aids fail.
In other words dba, priority nato intrinsic, if ambiguity remains you
go to extrinsic, but among the extrinsic aids there is a hierarchy
there and the proceedings is the last resort.
But there was a case that actually used the preceding as extrinsic
aids.
Illustrative case: Montejo v. Comelec, 242 SCRA (1995)
(no power point slide, just the discussion of Atty.)
What happened there of course was, COMELEC transferred a
municipality from one district to another. And one petitioner
(Montejo) said that the COMELEC committed a mistake, because by
doing so it resulted in the imbalance of the number of registered
voters. So the COMELEC said no, there was no imbalance, because
what we did was we tried to segregate them according to the
standard that it must be contiguous, compact and adjacent

territory. And the SC said that well, the COMELEC is wrong and
Montejo is wrong, because the COMELEC has no authority to transfer
a municipality from one district to another, because the power
granted to it by CONCOM is merely minor adjustments, but here how
was minor adjustments defined as a phrase? It was defined that, if
you say minor adjustments it only means that the COMELEC is
empowered to include a municipality that was inadvertently omitted
from the enumeration of those who comprise the district, as a
matter of fact it also authorize the COMELEC to correct misspelling
in the names of the municipalities, okay? So kana lang, it cannot
transfer, walasiyay discretion, it can only add something that was
inadvertently omitted. And how did SC discovered that intention?
Through the proceedings.
Why?
- the COMELEC is without jurisdiction to apportion legislative districts
and the phrase minor adjustments refers to the instance where a
municipality was omitted in the enumeration of those composing the
legislative district.
How did the SC construe minor adjustments?
- From the debates and interpellations of the Constitutional
Commission.
- the question of who has authority to apportion legislative districts
is clearly answered in the following deliberation:
Ms. Aquino: I have to object to the provision which will give
mandate to the COMELEC to do the redistricting. Redistricting is
vitally linked to the baneful practices of cutting up areas or spheres
of influence; in other words, gerrymandering. This commission,
being a nonpartisan, a nonpolitical deliberative body is the best
possible situation under the circumstances to undertake that
responsibility. X xx
By that statement alone you can actually discern the intent of the
CONCOM it did not want to afford COMELEC the power to apportion
or allocate district, because they said the COMELEC might be
influenced by politicians. The best body to grant that or to have that
power is this commission, dba? Because thats the fear
gerrymandering,you cut up areas to favor one candidate.
Mr. Ople, x xx We know that the reapportionment of provinces and
cities for the purpose of redistricting is generally inherent in the
constituent power in the legislative power. X xx

Mr. Sarmiento:
may I move that this Commission do the
reapportionment (of) legislative districts.

Mr. Davide: that is not even a minor correction, it is a substantive

one.

How did the Constitutional Commission vote?

See, kung mutransferka municipality from one district to another

that is no longer minor adjustments, substantive nana, which
comelec is without authority, okay? So diha Makita nimosa debates
and deliberations,klaro kayo, unsay intent .

- the results show 30 votes in favor and none against, the motion is
approved.
Take note that we said that constitutional body deliberations or
legislative deliberations can only be an extrinsic aid if that is already
the end result. You cannot go to the individual opinions of the
members, it must be a collective decision. So diridaogna man, 30
votes to nothing, it can be now a extrinsic aid.
But what is the extent of authority granted to COMELEC in
the phrase minor adjustments in sec.2 of the appended
Ordinance?

What is your one-liner for this case?

- Debates, deliberations and interpellations as part of the
proceedings of the Constitutional Convention may be resorted to as
extrinsic aids in construction provided they reflect the collective will
of the legislature and not the individual opinions of its members.
It was shown man dba? 30votes against to
collectively,thats why it was use as an extrinsic aid

nothing,

so

- the constitutional Commission deliberation shows that it is limited

to those omitted:

What is the value of changes in phraseology as an extrinsic

aid?

Mr. Davide: the authority conferred would be on minor corrections

or amendments, meaning to say, for instance, that we may have
forgotten and intervening municipality in the enumeration, which
ought to be included in one district. That we shall consider a minor
amendment.

- it may be inquired into to ascertain the intent of the provisions as

finally approved
Is mere deletion of a word or phrase conclusive?
-no, as it may have been omitted to avoid superfluity.

Klarokaayodiba? The authority is only to add something that was

inadvertently omitted in the enumeration.

Example:

Mr. De Castro: can it be possible that one municipality in a district

be transferred to another district and call it a minor adjustment?

- no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a

witness against himself was changed to no person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself

Now listen to what Mr. Davide said.

Mr. Davide: that cannot be done, Mr. Presiding Officer. Minor,
meaning, that there should be no change in the allocations per
district. However, it may happen that we have forgotten a
municipality in between which is still in the territory of one assigned
district or there may be an error in the correct name of a particular
municipality x xx

What is the intent why the phrase in a criminal case was

omitted?
- the intent is to make it available in cases other than criminal.
Why are prior
extrinsic aids?

laws

and

judicial

decisions

considered

Take note nuh, kung nasayopang spelling comelec can correct that,
kana lang.

- the constitution is written in reference to existing statutory laws at

the time.

Mr. De Castro: so the minor adjustment which the Comelec cannot

do is that, if for example, my municipality is in the first district of
Laguna, they cannot put that in any other district.

Why is the construction by the US Supreme Court of the US

constitutional provisions available as extrinsic aids?

- most provisions on police power, eminent domain, taxation and bill

of rights were taken or patterned after the US Constitution.
When do we apply contemporaneous construction?
- when there is substantial doubt and ambiguity
What is the value of the writings constitutional convention
delegates as extrinsic aid?
- they have persuasive effect.
What happens when a constitutional provision is susceptible
of more than one interpretation?
- The construction which leads to absurd, impossible or mischievous
circumstances must be rejected.
Illustrative case: Marcelino v. Cruz, GR no. 42428, March 18,
1983, 121 SCRA 51

- petitioner was charged with the crime of rape.

- On August 4, 1975, he rested his case.
- On September 4, 1975, he submitted his Memorandum
- On November 28, 1975, the judge submitted with the deputy clerk
of court his decision for promulgation.
- notices of promulgation were sent to all parties involved.
What was the ground for resetting?
- The trial court lost jurisdiction over the case for failure to decide
the case within 90 days from date of submission for resolution.
- The 3-Month period prescribed by section 11(1) of article X of the
1973 constitution, being a constitutional directive, is mandatory in
character.
- Section 11 (1) of Article X says:

Remember this? What happened here was, dba? The question there
was did the judge timely decide the case, and theres a difference
now between rendition of judgment and promulgation of judgment.
Rendition is when you submit the decision to the clerk of court.
Promulgation is when you read it that in open court. Kana
makitannatosacine,kana, wherefore premises considered the court
hereby finds blablabla guilty,something like that.

Upon effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period within

which a case or matter shall be decided or resolved from the date of
submission, shall be eighteen months for the Supreme Court, and,
unless reduced by the SC, Twelve months for all inferior collegiate
courts, three months for all other inferior courts.

And so in this case, the judge actually decided the case on time. five
days earlier, but even if he decided way beyond the 90 day period,
still the SC said, the court did not lose jurisdiction, because
otherwise if you say it losses jurisdiction,the result is all cases would
be dismissed, because no judge, no matter how efficient, can
decide within the 90day period.

all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution

must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the
date of submission for the SC, and unless reduced by the SC, Twelve
months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other
lower courts.

But what is the issue here is, they said that it should be mandatory
because it uses the words shall in 1973 consti and in the 1987
constitution it was even stronger Must, so kung imongtanawon
mandatory, but SC said that is only directory especially if it involves
procedural aspects, and the procedural aspects includes timeliness
in the rendering decision. Mere procedure.
(Proceed reading Section 11 (1) of article X)
What happened in this case?

-Art. VIII, Sec.151 (1) of the 1987 constitution says:

Again, take note ha balik ta, under what topic was this assign,
because we said that in case of various interpretations we should go
to that interpretation or construction that would not make it
absolute. Okay? If you are going to use that shall and must here as
mandatory it would result in absurdity, because it will make the
judges lose jurisdiction over cases, practically every case that they
handle, they will lose jurisdiction if we strictly enforce this. Thats
why nakakitauglusotang supreme court, if you think about it,
mandatory man gudsiya,but because even the SC cannot abide by
the 24month rule, it made pasulot that it is merely directory.
Because the purpose here is actually to expedite disposition of
cases, dba? But who are we to argue.

How did the SC resolve the issue of timeliness?

- Because they are the first to interpret the law.

- the case was submitted for decision on September 4, 1975 and the
judge rendered his decision on November 28, 1975 hence only 85
days have lapsed.

Is there a condition before it is given weight?

- As such, the judge complied with the 90-day period within which to
decide as it refers to rendition of judgment, which is the filling of the
decision with the clerk of rout, and not to promulgation of judgment,
which is the reading of the decision in open court.
How did the Supreme construe the constitutional provision
prescribing time to decide?
- it was construed as merely directory.

- yes, provided it has been construed for a considerable period of

time.
Are constitutional provisions mandatory or directory?
- Generally, they are mandatory in nature.
What are the exceptions?
-if expressly provided.
- by necessary implication

Why?

- a different intention is manifested.

- to make it mandatory would make judges lose jurisdiction over the

cases if they fail to decide on tine, which consequence will cause
greater injury to the public.
Does it follow litigants are powerless if the judge delays to
resolve the cases?

Why are they generally mandatory?

- It is the sovereign itself that speaks, laying down rules which for
the time being control both the government and the governed.

- not necessarily, the judge may be administratively liable.

- To hold that any of the constitutional provisions is to be obeyed or

disregarded at the will or pleasure of the legislature is a dangerous
doctrine.

But he or she will not lose jurisdiction on the basis of lack of time,
from the time untamodecide siya.

- It lowers the dignity of befitting the fundamental law of the land.

What is your one-liner for this case?

How are Preamble and title Construed?

- Constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory, unless

by express provision or by necessary implication, a different
intention is manifest, or if they relate merely to matter of procedure.

- they may have furnish evidence of the meaning and intention of

the Constitution, but they are given little weight.

Take note ha, matter of procedure, you know, thats my favorite

ground to cover there, will your answer be the same if? Dba? Take
note.
How do we know that a provision relates to matter of
procedure?
- when the time prescribed to decide a case was incorporated for
reasons of expediency, it is deemed merely procedural.
Why is construction
weight?

made

by

executive

officers

given

Again the preamble is not a source of right but a source of light

How are constitutional provisions construed?
-They are construed positively and unequivocally.
How is constitutional grant of power construed?
- it is construed as a mandate, and not a mere direction.
What does such grant of power include?
- It includes all such particular and auxiliary powers necessary to
make it effectual.

Or otherwise called the doctrine of necessary implications and

inferences.
But what if the means for the exercise of a grant of power
are specified in the Constitution?

- it should be resolved in favor of it being self-executing.

If provision is self executing, does it preclude congress from
enacting laws out of or based on it?

-all other means are deem excluded

- Not necessarily. Congress may still legislate to facilitate the

exercise of grant of powers directly granted by the constitution.

Remember that general concepts, but once it becomes specific,

then it must be followed.

Or it can enhance the provision it can make it more specific. And it

was illustrated in the case of Guingona v. Carague.

How are constitutional provisions applied, prospectively or

retroactively?
- Prospectively, unless otherwise intended.
How do you define self-executing provision?
- It is one which is complete by itself and becomes operative without
the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation or which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed
or protected.
Are constitutional provisions self-executing?
- Generally they are, except when the provision expressly requires
enabling law to implement it or from the language or tenure, they
are mere declarations of policies and principles.
What if there is a doubt whether a provision self-executing
or not?

Mandatory and self-executing provisions. Illustrative case:

Guingona Jr. v. Carague, GR no. 9457, April 22, 1991
Section 5 (5), Article IV of the Constitution says:
The state shall assign the highest budgetary priority to
education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its
rightful share of the best available talents through adequate
remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.
Again it uses the word shall, but the SC said, not necessarily
because you cannot tie the hands of congress. So whats the
keyword there? The arms of congress are not hamstrung, meaning
crippled.
Is this mandatory and self-executing?
-No, the provisions does not mean that the hands of congress are
so hamstrung as to deprive it of the power to respond to the
imperatives of the national interestand for the attainment of other
state policies or objectives.