Situs of Construction and Interpretation.

In our system of government:

 Legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines – the Senate and the House of the
Representatives;
 Executive power is vested in the President of the Republic of the Philippines (Art. VII, Sec.1, 1987 Phil.
Constitution); and
 Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. (Art.
VIII, Sec. 1, 1987 Phil. Constitution)
Legislature – makes the law;
Executive — executes the law; and
Judiciary – interprets the law.
Simply stated, the situs of construction and interpretation of written laws is in the judicial department.
It is the duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The Supreme Court is the one and only Constitutional Court and all other lower courts are statutory courts and
such lower courts have the power to construe and interpret written laws.

Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet” is the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has
the force of law -People v. Jabinal 55 SCRA 607

Statutory Construction vis-a-vis Judicial Legislation

When is it construction and when is it judicial legislation?

To declare what the law shall be is a legislative power, but to declare what the law is or has been, is judicial. However, the
courts “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law. The Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of
the existing law and jurisprudence. (Floresca v. Philex Mining; Republic v. CA and Molina)
1. Floresca v. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985

Does the CFI (RTC) have jurisdiction over the complaint?

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Code which provides that: “No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason
of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.” It argues that the application or interpretation placed by the Court
upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court’s application or interpretation
merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. Yet, the
Court argues that the Court can legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code. However, even the legislator himself
recognizes that in certain instances, the courts “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of
the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply.
2. Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
Guidelines presented by the court.

The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new ground (in addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to
assail the validity of a marriage, namely, “psychological incapacity.” In addition to resolving the present case, the court
finds the need to lay down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code. In the
present case, it appears to that there is a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some
marital obligations of the respondent spouse. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in
no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. Hence, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of this
case vis-a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. For psychological incapacity to prosper, three characteristics should
manifest: gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.

B. How must legislative intent be ascertained?

How must legislative intent be ascertained?

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses and
phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. (Aisporna v. CA; China
Bank v. Ortega; PVA Board of Administrators v. Bautista)

1. Aisporna v. CA

Legislative intent of the Insurance Act: whether an insurance subagent or proxy covered in section 189 of Insurance Act.

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses and
phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. In the present case, the
first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or broker in the solicitation or
procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance
Commissioner; while the second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of the section; while the
third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation.

2. China Bank v. Ortega

Whether a banking institution can validly refuse a court process garnishing the bank deposit invoking the provisions of
R.A. No. 1405 (An Act prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry into, Deposits with any Banking Institution)

In gist of the pertinent provisions of RA 1405, Sec. 2., that although transactions with banking institutions in the
Philippines is absolutely confidential, there is an exception upon written permission of depositor, or in cases of
impeachment, or upon order of the competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases
where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. In the present case, China Bank is at default
because the court merely required the bank to inform the court whether or not the defendant had a deposit with the bank
for the purposes of garnishment issued by the court. However, the disclosure is purely incidental to the execution process.

3. PVA Board of Administrators v. Bautista

Whether plaintiff is entitled to the pension from 1955 instead of from 1968.

The purpose of Congress in granting veterans pensions is to compensate, as far as may be, a class of men who suffered
in the service for the hardships they endured and the dangers they encountered, and more importantly, those who have
become incapacitated for work owing to sickness, disease or injuries sustained while in the line of the duty. R.A. No. 65
(Veteran’s Bill of Rights) or veteran pension law is therefore, a governmental expression of gratitude to and those who
rendered service for the country, by extending to them regular monetary aid. If the pension awards are made effective
only upon approval of the application, then the noble and humanitarian purposes for which the law had enacted could
easily be thwarted or defeated.

Constitutional Avoidance

Constitutional Avoidance is the principal that, if possible, the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues,
and resolve the cases before them on other (usually statutory) grounds. In practice, what this often means is that if the
Supreme Court is faced with two possible interpretations of a statute, one of which is plainly constitutional, and the other
of which is of questionable constitutionality, the court will interpret the statute as having the plainly constitutional meaning,
to avoid the hard constitutional questions that would come with the other interpretation.
last antecedent rule

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A doctrine of interpretation by which a court finds that qualifying words or phrases refer to the language immediately
preceding the qualifier, unless common sense shows that it was meant to apply to something more distant or less
obvious. For example, in the phrase "the commercial vehicular license shall not apply to boats, tractors, and trucks under
three tons, " the qualifier "under three tons" applies only to trucks and not to boats or tractors.