Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

PARTS OF STATUTES

1. Preamble. contains the reason or the rationale behind the passage of


that particular legislation.
2. Title of statute.
3. Enacting clause. it tells us the authority which enacted that
particular legislation.
4. Purview or body of statute. is that part of the statute which
contains the terms, the conditions, the provisions of a particular
legislation. It is a legislative practice that the purview would contain in
sequence the following:
First, there will be a short title.
Second, there is a policy statement which serves the function of the
preamble. It will also tell us the reason behind such passage.
Third, legislative enactment would containa section devoted for
definition of terms. In statutes, they provide for a legal definition of
these words as they were used in that particular piece of legislation.
Fourth, usually there is also that administrative section. A section
devoted to specify the administrative structure, which will be tasked to
enforce that particular legislation.
Fifth, section prescribing the standards of conduct.
Sixth, a section providing for the sanctions to be imposed in case of
non-compliance or violation.
Seventh, there will also be a sanction for remedies, or provisional
remedies. The law will provide specific rights, the law also provides for
sanctions in case of violation, so there will be remedies laid down by
that particular law.
5. Separability clause.
It is a declaration that in the event a particular provision of that law
will be rendered unconstitutional in some future time, the rest of the
provision will stand as valid. The law in its entirety will still stand valid
or constitutional. So that is an expression of the intent of the
legislature that despite the declaration of a nullity of a particular
provision, the remainder of the law will be declared valid.
However, it is important to note that this is not controlling to the
courts. It is not binding. What does it mean? Despite the presence of a
separability clause in a particular legislation, the courts may declare
the entirety of the law invalid or unconstitutional, when, after taking
out the void portions, the remaining provisions will be incomplete or
uncooperative.
6. Repealing Clause.
Almost all laws contain a repealing clause. A repealing clause may
either be specific or it may just be a general repealing clause. A
specific repealing clause will provide for an expressed repeal of a
prior law. While a general repealing clause will provide for an
implied repeal of any law, any rule, or any regulation that is
inconsistent to the provisions of that particular law where repealing
clause was based.
So, a repeal may either be expressed or implied. There is an
express repeal where there is a declaration in a particular provision

of the repeal of a prior legislation designating the particular law


number and title. An implied repeal, however, there is no
designation of a particular law sought to be repealed by that later
legislation, there is just a statement that a particular repeal is
conditioned upon ensuring that the terms of a prior law are
inconsistent to the provisions in the subsequent law.
Now, to understand the concepts of express and implied repeals. Let
us discuss the case of Javier v. COMELEC, GR No. 215847, January
12, 2016.
A repeal may be express or implied. An express repeal is one wherein a
statute declares, usually in its repealing clause, that a particular and
specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed. An implied
repeal, on the other hand, transpires when a substantial conflict exists
between the new and the prior laws. In the absence of an express repeal,
a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless an
irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new
and the old laws. In the present case, it is clear that R.A. No. 7890
expressly repealed Section 261, paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of the
Omnibus Election Code.
A law that has been expressly repealed ceases to exist and becomes
inoperative from the moment the repealing law becomes effective. The
effect of this repeal is to remove Section 261(d) from among those listed
as ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code.

In discussing repealing by implication, let us discuss the case of


Antonio Mecano v. COA, GR No. 103982, December 11, 1992.

Mecano v. COA
GR No. 103982, December 11, 1992
FACTS
Mecano is a Director II of the NBI. He was hospitalized and on account of which
he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total amount of which he is
claiming from the COA. In a memorandum to the NBI Director, Director Lim
requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the
benefits under Section 699 of the RAC, the pertinent provisions of which read:
Sec. 699. Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness incurred in performance
of duty. When a person in the service of the national government of a province,
city, municipality or municipal district is so injured in the performance of duty as
thereby to receive some actual physical hurt or wound, the proper Head of
Department may direct that absence during any period of disability thereby
occasioned shall be on full pay, though not more than six months, and in such
case he may in his discretion also authorize the payment of the medical
attendance, necessary transportation, subsistence and hospital fees of the injured
person. Absence in the case contemplated shall be charged first against vacation
leave, if any there be. xxx xxx xxx
In case of sickness caused by or connected directly with the performance of some
act in the line of duty, the Department head may in his discretion authorize the
payment of the necessary hospital fees. Director Lim then forwarded petitioners
claim, to the Secretary of Justice. Finding petitioners illness to be service-

connected, the Committee on Physical Examination of the Department of Justice


favorably recommended the payment of petitioners claim.
However, then Undersecretary of Justice Bello III returned petitioners claim to
Director Lim, having considered the statements of the Chairman of the COA to the
effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Administrative Code of
1987.
Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with a copy of Opinion No.
73, S. 1991 of then Secretary of Justice Drilon stating that the issuance of the
Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abregate in its entirety the
Revised Administrative Code, including the particular Section 699 of the latter.
Director Lim transmitted anew Mecanos claim to then Undersecretary Bello for
favorable consideration; Secretary Drilon forwarded petitioners claim to the COA
Chairman, recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman however, denied
petitioners claim on the ground that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed
by the Administrative Code of 1987, solely for the reason that the same section
was not restated nor re-enacted in the Administrative Code of 1987. He
commented, however, that the claim may be filed with the Employees
Compensation Commission, considering that the illness of Director Mecano
occurred after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987.
Eventually, petitioners claim was returned by Undersecretary of Justice
Montenegro to Director Lim with the advice that petitioner elevate the matter to
the Supreme Court if he so desires. Hence this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
WON the Aministrative Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the
RAC.
HELD
NO. The question of whether a particular law has been repealed or not by a
subsequent law is a matter of legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly
repeal a law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which expressly and
specifically cites the particular law or laws, and portions thereof, that are intended
to be repealed. A declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a
particular and specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed is an
express repeal; all others are implied repeals
In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, the ascertainment of
whether or not it was the intent of the legislature to supplant the old Code with
the new Code partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of the new
Code. This provision is found in Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the
Administrative Code of 1987 which reads:
Sec. 27. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or
portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of this repealing
clause?
It is certainly not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or
designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. Rather, it is an
example of a general repealing provision. It is a clause which predicates the
intended repeal under the condition that substantial conflict must be found in
existing and prior acts. This latter situation falls under the category of an implied
repeal.

There are two categories of repeal by implication.


1. Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an
implied repeal of the earlier one.
2. If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly
intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.
Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new Code does not cover nor
attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old Code. There are several
matters treated in the old Code which are not found in the new Code, such as the
provisions on notaries public, the leave law, the public bonding law, military
reservations, claims for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.
According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, what appears
clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to
administration, organization and procedure, understandably because of the many
changes that transpired in the government structure since the enactment of the
RAC decades of years ago.
Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the two Codes on
the matter of the subject claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can
be no such conflict because the provision on sickness benefits of the nature being
claimed by petitioner has not been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987.
Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by
implication are not favored. 20 The presumption is against inconsistency and
repugnancy for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the
subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.

What happens now if the repealing law is repealed? You have law 1,
repealed by law 2, what will happen now if law 2, the repealing law is now
repealed. And will there be any difference if law 2 provides for an express
repeal or an implied repeal.
7. Effectivity Clause
The effectivity clause will state the date of when the law will take its
effect.
Doctrine of Presumption of Constitutionality
Now, let us revisit the Doctrine on the Presumption of Constitutionality.
Before the legislature passes a bill, it is presumed that it knows that the
provisions of that bill are all consistent with the Constitution. Because the
President also approves the bill, it shows that the President has been
convinced of the validity of the law. So to strike down a law as
unconstitutional, there must be a clear showing that what the Constitution
prohibits, the Statute allows it to be valid. In order to justify a declaration
of unconstitutionality, there must be a clear and manifest showing that a
particular law or a particular legislation runs counter to the very essence
of the Constitution. However, only the SC en banc has the authority to
declare a particular law unconstitutional. SC en banc, by a vote of a
majority of all the members of the court who took part and actually voted
thereon.
However, you can file a complaint for the declaration of unconstitutionality
of the law before the regional trial court, you exhaust the remedy in the
lower courts in order not to the principle of the hierarchy of courts.

What is an Enrolled Bill?


An enrolled bill is a printout of the final copy of the bill certifying by the
secretaries general of both houses. By certifying the final copy of the bill,
and the final copy of the bill will be signed by the House Speaker and the
Senate President.
The Legislative Journal and the Enrolled Bill, both of them are conclusive
and binding before the Courts. What will happen now if there is a conflict
between the Legislative Journal and the Enrolled Bill? What will prevail? As
a general rule, it will be the Enrolled Bill which will prevail because it
contains the final copy, the final provisions of a bill as approved by that
house in the final reading, except only those things which are required by
the Constitution to be entered in the Legislative Journal. And what are
those things, the objections of the President contained in its veto
message, the votes of the members of the congress in favor or against the
veto, and any question upon the petition of at least 1/5 of the Members of
the House.
STATUTORY LAW
Statutory Law meaning the statutes enacted by legislature. However,
you will encounter in other legal literature, statutory law in its true sense
may refer to any form of written law, it may refer even to administrative
rules, executive orders and proclamations by the president, even
ordinances enacted by local government units. However, in its strict sense,
statutory law would refer to the body of statutes as promulgated by our
legislative department.
2 Classifications of Executive Issuances
1. Presidential Issuances
These are those orders issued by the president who is the head of
the executive branch by virtue of his or her ordinance power. When
we say ordinance power it is just an authority afforded to the
president being the head of the executive department to
promulgate rules and regulations in order to ensure a more efficient
and effective enforcement of the law. Meaning, the ordinance power
of the president is merely a delegated legislative power, being
such, it is subordinate to the plenary legislative power granted by
the Constitution to the Congress of the Philippines.
In the case of David v. Arroyo, GR No. 171396, May 3, 2006,
the SC had the occasion had the occasion of enumerating the
Presidential issuances and giving the definition of each of these
issuances. As enumerated in the case of David v. Arroyo, the
president of the Philippines may issue the following:
1. Executive Orders. are the acts of the President providing for
the rules of a general or permanent character of a general in the
implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory
powers.
2. Administrative Orders. are acts of the President to particular
aspects of governmental operations in pursuant to his duties as

administrative head. Usually, these are issued to govern certain


administrative concerns within the department.
3. Proclamation. are acts of the President declaring a status or a
condition of public interest upon the existence of which, the
operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend.
4. Memorandum Orders. are acts of the President on matters of
administrative detail or of subordinate or temporary interest,
which only concern a particular officer or office.
5. Memorandum Circulars. are acts of the President on matters
relating to internal administration which the President desires to
bring to the attention of all or some of the departments,
agencies, bureaus, or offices of the government for compliance.
6. General or specific Orders. these are the acts and command
of the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the
armed forces of the Philippines.
So, Presidents ordinance power is limited to issuance of the enumerated
orders and proclamations and circulars. Meaning, that enumeration is
exclusive. The President cannot issue order or proclamation beyond what
is enumerated by the law. So, he has no power to issue Presidential decree
just like what Marcos did during his administration, because PDs has the
force and effect of law, under the 1973 Constitution. So those are the
Presidential issuances.
2. Administrative Rules and Regulations
These are promulgated by the administrative offices within the
executive branch. So these rules and regulations are issued by the
administrative and executive officers in accordance with and as
authorized by law.
There are requisites however that must be attendant or present
before it becomes valid:
1. The rules should be germane to the objects and purposes of the
law;
2. That the regulations be not in contradiction with, but conform to
the standards that the law prescribed; and
3. That they be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect the
general provisions of the law.
So if we go over those requisites, in essence, an administrative rule
or regulation cannot extend or restrict the application of the law.
The law itself, cannot be extended nor restricted by the
promulgation of these rules and regulations.
On Conflicting Sources
Now, we go to the question of whether or not this law, which is my law, is
the correct law. That question will be raised especially if we are confronted
with conflicting statutes. When a particular statute conflict with the
Constitution. When a particular administrative rule or regulation conflicts
with the Constitution.

With respect to the Constitution, it is easier because it is a time-honored


rule that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It is the law
of all laws and our Civil Code is categorical with respect to this, especially
Article 7 of the Civil Code, the second paragraph states:
Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation
or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom, or practice
to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only
when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

Please read the case of Department of Agrarian Reform v. Delia


Sutton, et al. GR No, 162070, October 19, 2005. There was just a
long discussion by the SC of what will prevail if there exist a conflict
between an administrative regulation and a constitution.
The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid,
administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a
law and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. The
rule-making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge
the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be
used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the
scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with
respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by
administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations. (DAR v.
Sutton)

To give respect to the Constitution, all the time the Constitution will
prevail. It may happen however that 2 statutes dealing with substantially
similar subject matter governing almost similar subjects or objects and
having the same purpose or object will contain apparently conflicting
provisions. Maybe you have encountered the term in Pari Materia? These
statutes will be referred to as statutes in Pari Materia. As a general rule,
they must be taken together. As a general rule, effort must be exerted to
give effect to each of the statutes. This is premised on the presumption
that again, upon the enactment of a law, the legislative department is
aware of all existing and subsisting laws during that time.
There is this case on JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. NLRC
and Ulpiano Delos Santos, GR No. 109835, November 22, 1993. In
this case, there was a case filed before the POEA. JMM they lost before the
POEA, they elevated the case to the NLRC. However, the NLRC dismissed
their appeal on the ground of failure to file the necessary appeal. NLRC
cited the 2nd paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code, which provides
that, in case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by
irrefutable .. company to the accredited by the Commission, meaning the
NLRC and the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from. According to JMM, the said provision is not applicable, the
appeal bond is not necessary in the case of license recruiters for overseas
employment. In essence, what JMM is saying, yung Article 223 of the Labor

Code is applicable lang sa ibang employers, with respect to us, the license
overseas agency, hindi na yan applicable because as required by another
rule, from the time we were processing for our license, we were already
required to post a cash bond in the amount of 100k.
The SC noted that Article 223 of the Labor Code can stand together with
the rules as cited by JMM. So that is the rule, if both statutes can stand
together, effect should be given to both. That is the general rule.
JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. NLRC and Ulpiano Delos
Santos
GR No. 109835, November 22, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioners appeal was dismissed by the respondent National Labor Relations
Commission citing the second paragraph of Article 223 of the Labor Code as
amended and Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as
amended. The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the POEA. It insists that
the appeal bond is not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for overseas
employment because they are already required under Section 4, Rule II, Book II of
the POEA Rules not only to pay a license fee of P30,000 but also to post a cash
bond of P100,000 and a surety bond of P50,000. In addition, the petitioner claims
it has placed in escrow the sum of P200,000 with the Philippine National Bank in
compliance with Section 17, Rule II, Book II of the same Rule, to primarily answer
for valid and legal claims of recruited workers as a result of recruitment violations
or money claims. The Solicitor General sustained the appeal bond and
commented that appeals from decisions of the POEA were governed by Section 5
and 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is still required to post an appeal bond to perfect its
appeal from a decision of the POEA to the NLRC?
HELD:
YES. Petitioners contention has no merit. Statutes should be read as a whole. Ut
res magis valeat quam pereat that the thing may rather have effect than be
destroyed.
It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute (or a set of
rules as in this case), care should be taken that every part thereof be given effect,
on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a hodgepodge of conflicting provisions. Under the petitioners interpretation, the appeal
bond required by Section 6 of the POEA Rule should be disregarded because of
the earlier bonds and escrow money it has posted. The petitioner would in effect
nullify Section 6 as a superfluity but there is no such redundancy. On the contrary,
Section 6 complements Section 4 and Section 17. The rule is that a construction
that would render a provision inoperative should be avoided. Instead, apparently
inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a
coordinated and harmonious whole.

Now, what if the statutes cannot be reconciled? The case of Philippine


National Bank v. Cruz, et al., GR No. 80593, December 18, 1989.
This Court declared that whenever two statutes of different dates and of
contrary tenor are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the
statute of later date must prevail being a later expression of legislative will.

Applying the aforecited case in the instant petition, the Civil Code provisions
cited by the petitioner must yield to Article 110 of the Labor Code.

What happens if there is a conflict between the basic law and the
regulations issued by implementing In case of discrepancy or conflict
between the basic law and the executive issuance to implemenet it, the
statute prevails over the latter (administrative issuance). Because again,
the power of the executive offices to promulgate these rules and
regulations are merely delegated by Congress. So they are subordinate to
the plenary legislative powers of the legislative departments. It may not
issue rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of
the Constitution, and also with that of a statute.
What happens if there is a conflict between a statute and a local
ordinance. Are you aware of the case of Mayor Magtajas and the city
of Cagayan de Oro v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc. and PAGCOR, GR
No. 111097, July 20, 1994. In essence, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of CDO, in opposition to the opening of Casinos within the province, they
issued 2 ordinances. The first was prohibiting the approval of business
permits for the opening of Casino. The second providing for criminal
sanctions. The SC held that, these ordinances enacted by local
government units cannot go against the organic law for PAGCOR giving
it power to conduct these kinds of activities anywhere in the country. So
the rationale for such rule that ordinances must yield to organic law is
obvious, municipal corporations are only agents of the national
governments.
Mayor Magtajas and the city of CDO v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc. and
PAGCOR
GR No. 111097, July 20, 1994
FACTS: There was instant opposition when PAGCOR announced the opening of a
casino in Cagayan de Oro City. Civic organizations angrily denounced the
project.The trouble arose when in 1992, flush with its tremendous success in
several cities, PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro
City.he reaction of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City was swift
and hostile. On December 7, 1992, it enacted Ordinance No. 3353.Nor was this all.
On January 4, 1993, it adopted a sterner Ordinance No. 3375-93Pryce assailed the
ordinances before the Court of Appeals, where it was joined by PAGCOR as
intervenor and supplemental petitioner. Their challenge succeeded. On March 31,
1993, the Court of Appeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the writ
prayed for to prohibit their enforcement
ISSUE: WON Ordinance 3353 and 3375-93 valid
HELD: No. Local Government Code, local government units are authorized to
prevent or suppress, among others, "gambling and other prohibited games of
chance." Obviously, this provision excludes games of chance which are not
prohibited but are in fact permitted by law.The rationale of the requirement that
the ordinances should not contravene a statute is obvious.Casino gambling is
authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be
amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353
prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No.
3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their praiseworthy motives,
these ordinances are contrary to P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced

therein and are therefore ultra vires and void.

---------A pleading is your way to communicate the theory of the case to the
judge, to summarize to the judge a particular position, to summarize your
arguments in support of that position. However, it wont be sufficient that
you lay down the facts of your case, you must support these facts with
particular law, rules, and jurisprudence, in a way telling the judge that you
must favor my own version of the facts of the case because under the law,
under the rule, under the cases decided by the SC, my version of the facts
is correct, under the law you must uphold this particular position.
Now, legal citation, is the way of communicating the source of law upon
which a particular idea or a particular argument is placed. Citation in legal
documents particularly in pleadings submitted to the court, a citation
will sufficiently show the following information:
1. The bibliographical information meaning, the case title, the
GR no., or if your source is a printed source, the particular volume,
or the page where that particular argument can be found. Included
in such is the date of the promulgation of the decision.
2. Other sources to explore the topic further that may not be
the exact case which you are trying to cite the court but the court
may have decided in a similar manner in a line of cases. So, a legal
citation may contain other sources of law. Other cases, rules or
regulations, and other statutes, that may support that particular
position.
3. Supplement to or an expansion on a specific idea or thought
this refers not particularly to your source of law but maybe you
wanted to expound on a particular argument, you wanted to explain
a particular position or a particular legal doctrine.
There is no specific or standard system of legal citation in the Philippines.
It is difficult to impose a single particular standard of citation especially if
you are dealing with old legal practitioners who have been in the practice
of law for 30 years or more. But irrespective of that reality in the Philippine
context, it has always been the position of the legal education board, IBP,
to at least form a consensus on how should Philippine literature be cited in
legal documents. According to the Legal Education Board, this particular
standard will be taught in law school, will follow a single format. It is
necessary in order to ensure consistency, accuracy, order, and
effectiveness.
Members of the legal community may either use footnoting, endnotes or
they would just integrate their sources within the text of their legal
document. Footnotes, the source or the authority upon which a particular
argument is based will be shown at the bottom part of the page where
that particular argument could be found. Endnotes, all the sources will be
summarized at the end of the document. And then we say, in-text
citation, immediately after a particular argument, a lawyer may quote in
a parenthesis, the source, the case title, the particular statute, rules and
regulations.

10

Now, we go back the purpose of finding and preparation of pleadings.


Again, it is a way for us to communicate to the judge our particular
position, to convince the judge to rule in our favor. According to the
literature, there is no single way of legal writing or legal citation. However,
considering your purpose in submission of these pleadings and legal
documents, you choose, and you identify the advantages and
disadvantages of these kinds of citation. Whether or not it would be more
disadvantageous for you to use footnoting, endnoting, or in-text citation. It
is the consensus within the legal community that the most advantageous
format in citation is footnoting, because for the judge, he would
immediately see the source, the authority. With respect to the in-text
citation, there will be a disruption in the discussion because of a several
citations. For the purpose of the final exam, I will be requiring footnoting.
Now because there have been attempts from the legal community to at
least establish a standard system of legal citation, there are available
manuals of legal citation as a guide in citing Philippine legal information.
Some these manuals are:
1. The Philippine manual of legal citations by Mirna Feliciano.
2. Legal Research and citation in the Philippines by Milagro SantosOng.
3. Fundamentals of decision writing for judges published by the
Philippine Judicial Academy 2009
4. The Ateneo de Manilas Legal Citation Primer series of 2008
So now, when confronted to the different sources of law as we discussed,
how would we cite a particular law from a particular source? Now, if you
are trying to cite a provision in the Constitution, how should your citation
comprehensively show the particular source and the complete
bibliographical information of that source? Now, in citing the constitution,
you must cite it with reference to a particular article, the section, and the
paragraph if necessary. You indicate the particular date of the Constitution
if you are not referring to the current constitution. But if you are citing the
present Constitution, the 1987 Constitution, you dont need to indicate the
date. However, there are moves to then again amend the 1987
Constitution.
Now, in citing statutes, the laws passed by the legislative department from
1901 to 1934, the statutes passed were referred to as Acts. So you write
the particular Act number and the date, enclosed in a parenthesis. From
1935 to 1945, during the Commonwealth period, our legislative
department promulgated or enacted Commonwealth Acts. And citing
commonwealth acts, you simply cite Act number 1 and 1935. From 1946
to 1972, and 1987 up to the present, statutes are referred to as Republic
Acts. However, according to the manual of Philippine Legal Citation, your
citations would again differ depending on whether your source was written
or electronic. Meaning, if a particular statute, when you got that particular
statute from the written publication of the laws of the land, which is the
Official Gazette but it is no longer available nowadays because these
laws are available online.
The executive or presidential issuances. Presidential Issuances are
cited by the number of the issuance and followed by the date of the

11

issuance. Are the dates necessary in citing presidential issuances? With


respect to executive issuances, it is necessary to indicate the date
because every year, the number of the issuance will go back to 1. So for
example, Exec. No. 1, (1996). So for procalamations, proc and then the
date of the issuance and the year of promulgation. Administrative order,
adm order, number of the issuance, the date.
General order, special orders these were issued by the late president
Marcos during the Martial Law period, because these are directed towards
members of the military. So these are presidential issuances under Martial
Law. Now, administrative rules and regulations. We learned that
executive offices or administrative offices under the executive department
also promulgate their own rules. So how will we cite and administrative
order number 1, for example issued by the Department of Energy on
January 5, 2006. First the abbreviation of the name of the specific agency,
followed by the name of the specific rule and regulation and the year of
promulgation in parenthesis. So it could be, DOE, AO 1 (2006).
How about ordinances passed by the local government units, or the city,
municipal, or provincial units? What about legal codes? The Civil Code, the
Corporation Code? How can we cite these compilation of laws and rules?
Actually, you indicate the particular code, say the Civil Code, you specifiy
the article, comma, specify the section if applicable and if you cite a
particular paragraph, you enclose the paragraph number in the
parenthesis.
Now, it is easier if we are citing a Supreme Court decision, however, there
are instances that we might be citing decisions promulgated by the lower
level courts. Even if they are not binding but they can be persuasive. Now,
in citing CA decision, it is just C.A. Now, we go to the decisions of the SC,
again the citation would be different whether you extracted the case from
the printed source. When we say the printed source of the SC case, we are
referring to the primary and secondary publication. The primary
publication is the Philippine reports, The secondary publication is the
SCRA.

12