Saving clause

•Provision of law which operates to except from the e f f e c t o f t h e l a w w h a t t h e c l a u s e

p r o v i d e s , o r s a v e something which would otherwise be lost.
•Used to save something from effect of repeal of statute
•Legislature, in repealing a statute, may preserve in thef o r m o f a s a v i n g c l a u s e , t h e r i g h t
o f t h e s t a t e t o prosecute and punish offenses committed in violationof the repealed law.
•Where existing procedure is altered or substituted byanother, usual to save proceedings under the old
lawa t t h e t i m e t h e n e w l a w t a k e s e f f e c t , b y m e a n s o f saving clause
•Construed: in light of intent by legislature
•Given strict or liberal meaning depending on nature of statute.

C H A P T E R S I X : S t a t u t e C o n s t r u e d a s W h o l e a n d i n Relation to other

StatutesSTATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE

Generally
•Statute is passed as a whole
oIt should have one purpose and one intent
oConstrue its parts and section in connection with other parts
oWhy? To “produce” a harmonious whole
• Never:
oD i v i d e b y p r o c e s s o f e t y m o l o g i c a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ( w h y ?
B e c a u s e t h e r e a r e instances when the intention of the legislative body is different from that of
the definition inits original sense)
oSeparate the words (remember that the whole p o i n t o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o c o n s t r u e i t a s
a whole)
oSeparate context
oBase definitions on lexicographer (what is a l e x i c o g r a p h e r ? A p e r s o n w h o
s t u d i e s lexicography. What is lexicography then? A n a l y z e s s e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s
b e t w e e n lexicon and language – not important. Never mind
) – ang kulit!
•The whole point of this part is to construe the whole statute and its part together (actually kahit
ito nalangtandaan hanggang matapos kasi ito lang yung sinasabing book)Intent ascertained from statute as
whole
•L e g i s l a t i v e m e a n i n g a n d i n t e n t s h o u l d b e extracted/ascertained
from statutes as a whole (hencethe title…)
oWhy? Because the law is the best expositor of itself
•Optima Statuti Interpretatio est ipsum statutum
- the best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself
o[
remember this story to memorize the maxim
:Optima at Statuti

Frutti where interpreting asto why when cockroaches(IPIS) when addedresults to SUM (ipsum) a stadium
(statutum)] – sorry blockmates, weird si cherry!

•D o n o t i n q u i r e t o o m u c h i n t o t h e m o t i v e s w h i c h influenced the legislative
body unless the motive isstated or disclosed in the statute themselves.
Aisporna v. CA
• pointed out that words, clauses, phrases should not bestudied as detached/isolated expressions
oC o n s i d e r e v e r y p a r t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e meaning of its part to produce a
harmoniouswhole
oMeaning of the law is borne in mind and not to be extracted from a single word
oMost important: Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context
Aboitiz Shipping Corp v. City of Cebu
•Described that if the words or phrases of statute be taken individually it might convey a meaning
differentform the one intended by the author.
•Interpreting words or phrases separately may limit theextent of the application of the provision
Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court
•Case of wire tapping
•T h e r e i s a p r o v i s i o n w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t “ i t s h a l l b e unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by allthe parties to any private communication or spokenword to tap any
wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,o r
r e c o r d s u c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r s p o k e n w o r d b y using such device commonly known as
dictagraph…”
•I s s u e : w h e t h e r t h e p h r a s e d e v i c e o r a r r a n g e m e n t includes party line and extension
•Statcon: it should not be construed in isolation. Rather it should be interpreted in relation to the
other words( t a p , t o o v e r h e a r ) t h u s p a r t y l i n e o r t e l e p h o n e e x t e n s i o n i s n o t
included because the words in the p r o v i s i o n l i m i t i t t o t h o s e t h a t h a v e a
p h y s i c a l i n t e r r u p t i o n t h r o u g h a w i r e t a p o r t h e d e l i b e r a t e installation of
d e v i c e t o o v e r h e a r. ( R e m e m b e r t h e maxim noscitus a sociis because in here they
applieda n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h o t h e r w o r d s i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e intention or limitation of the
statute)
National Tobacco Administration v. COA
•I s s u e : w h e t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e g i v e n t o individuals prior to the enactment
of RA 6758 should be continued to be received?
•Held: Yes. Proper interpretation of section12 RA 6758d e p e n d s o n t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f
f i r s t a n d s e c o n d paragraph
•F i r s t s e n t e n c e s t a t e s t h a t “ s u c h o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n n o t
o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d a s m a y b e determined by the DBM shall be deemed included inthe
standardized salary rates herein prescribed.” The s e c o n d s e n t e n c e s t a t e s “ s u c h
o t h e r a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n , w h e t h e r i n c a s h o r i n k i n d , b e i n g received by
incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e s t a n d a r d s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o
b e authorized.” (you can ask cheery na lang to explain it,ang haba ng nasa book

)
•statcon: do not isolate or detach the parts. Construing as t a t u t e a s a w h o l e i n c l u d e s
r e c o n c i l i n g a n d harmonizing conflicting provisionsPurpose or context as controlling guide
•construe whole statute and ascertain the meaning of the words or phrases base on its context, the
nature of the subject, and purpose or intention of the legislative body who enacted the statute
•give it a reasonable construction
•Leeway are accepted on grammatical construction,letters of the statutes, rhetorical
framework if it can p r o v i d e a c l e a r a n d d e f i n i t e p u r p o s e o f t h e w h o l e statute ( as long
as it can produce a clear and definites t a t u t e s , i t i s s o m e t i m e s a f f e c t e d t o b e l a x o n
t h e construction of grammar)
•Harmonize the parts of each other and it should be consistent with its scope and objectGiving
effect to statute as a whole
•W h y c o n s t r u e a s t a t u t e a s a w h o l e ? - B e c a u s e i t implies that one part is as
important as the other
•What if the provision/section is unclear by itself? - One can make it clear by reading and
construing it inrelation to the whole statute
•H o w d o y o u p r o p e r l y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y c o n s t r u e a p r o v i s i o n / s t a t u t e ? - 3
w a y s : ( 1 ) U n d e r s t a n d i t s meaning and scope; (2) apply to an actual case; (3) courts
should consider the whole act itself
•Why should every part of the statute be given effect? -Because it is enacted as an integrated
measure not ahodgepodge of conflicting provisions
•Wa y s o n h o w t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d c o n s t r u e a s t a t u t e (according to
Republic v. Reyes
):
oInterpret the thought conveyed by the statuteas whole
oConstrue constituent parts together
oAscertain legislative intent form whole part
oConsider each and every provision in light of the general purpose
oMake every part effective, harmonious andsensible (adopt a construction which would give
effect to every part of the of the statute)
Ut res magis valeat quam pereat - theconstruction is to be sought whichg i v e s e f f e c t t o
t h e w h o l e o f t h e statute - of its every word.Apparently conflicting provisions reconciled
•included in the rule of construing statute as a whole, isthe reconciling and harmonizing conflicting
provisions because it is by this that the statute will be given effectas a whole.
•Why is it a must for courts to harmonize conflicting provision? - Because they are equally the
handiwork of the same legislature
RP v. CA
•Issue: whether or not an appeal of cases involving justcompensation should be made first by DARAB
beforeRTC under Sec. 57
•Held: SC said that the contention of the Republic andthe Land Bank in the affirmative side has no
merit because although DARAB is granted a jurisdiction o v e r a g r a r i a n r e f o r m
m a t t e r s , i t d o e s n o t h a v e jurisdiction over criminal cases.
Sajonas v. CA
•Issue: what period an adverse claim annotated at the back of a transfer certificate effective?
•H e l d : I n c o n s t r u i n g t h e l a w S e c . 7 0 o f P D 1 5 2 9 (adverse claim shall be
effective for a period of 30days from the date of the registration…) care should betaken to make
every part effectiveSpecial and general provisions in same statute
•special would overrule the general
•special must be operative; general affect only those itapplies
•except to general provisionConstruction as not to render provision nugatory
•another consequence of the rule: provision of a statuteshould not be construed as to nullify or render
another nugatory in the same statute
•Interpretatio fienda est et res magis valeat quam pereat- a law should be interpreted with a view to
upholdingrather than destroying
oDo not construe a statute wherein one portionwill destroy the other
oAv o i d a c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h w i l l r e n d e r t o provision inoperativeReason for the rule
• because of the presumption that the legislature has enacted a statute whose provisions are in
harmony andc o n s i s t e n t w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g intentions is the
same statute are never supported or regardedQualification of rule
•What if the parts cannot be harmonized or reconciledwithout nullifying the other? - Rule is for the court
toreject the one which is least in accord with the general plan of the whole statute
•What if there is no choice? - the latter provision mustvacate the former; last in order is frequently
held to prevail unless intent is otherwise
•What if the conflict cannot be harmonized and made tos t a n d t o g e t h e r ? - o n e m u s t
i n q u i r e i n t o t h e circumstances of their passageConstruction as to give life to law

• provide sensible interpretation to promote the ends of which they were enacted
•construct them in a reasonable and practical way to give life to them
•Interpretatio fienda es ut res magis valeat quam pereat- i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l g i v e t h e e f f i c a c y
t h a t i s t o b e adopted.Construction to avoid surplusage
•c o n s t r u e t h e s t a t u t e t o m a k e n o p a r t o r p r o v i s i o n thereof as surplasage
•each and every part should be given due effect and meaning
•d o n o t c o n s t r u e a l e g a l p r o v i s i o n t o b e a u s e l e s s surplusage and meaningless
•exert all efforts to provide the meaning. Why? Becauseof the presumption that the legislature used the
word or phrase for a purposeApplication of rule
Mejia v.Balalong
•Issue: how to constru “next general election” in Sec. 88 of the City Charter of Dagupan City?
•Held: the phrase refers to the next general election after the city came into being and not the one
after itsorganization by Presidential Proclamation.
Niere v. CFI of Negros Occidental
•Issue: does the city mayor have the power to appoint acity engineer pursuant to Sec. 1 of the City Charter
of La Carlote
•Held: no, the city mayor does not have such power.The phrase “and other heads and other
employees of such departments as may be created” whom the mayor can appoint, refers to the
heads of city departmentsthat may be created after the law took effect, and doesnot embrace the city
engineer. To rule otherwise is torender the first conjunction “and” before the words “fire
department” a superfluity and without meaning atall
Uytengsu v Republic
•Issue: whether the requirement the requirement for n a t u r a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e
a p p l i c a n t “ w i l l r e s i d e continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of
the petition up to the time of his admission toPhilippine citizenship” refers to actual residence
or merely to legal residence or domicile
•Held: such requirement refers to actual or physical residence because to construe it otherwise is
to render the clause a surplusage.
•A n a p p l i c a n t f o r n a t u r a l i z a t i o n m u s t b e a c t u a l l y r e s i d i n g i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s
f r o m t h e f i l i n g o f t h e petition for naturalization to its determination by thecourt
Manila Lodge No. 761 v. CA
•Issue: whether the reclaimed land is patrimonial or public dominion?
•Held: to say that the land is patrimonial will render nugatory and a surplusage the phrase of the
law to theeffect that the City of Manila “is hereby authorized tolease or sell”
•A s a l e o f p u b l i c d o m i n i o n n e e d s a l e g i s l a t i v e authorization, while a
patrimonial land does not.Statute and its amendments construed together
•rule applies to the construction and its amendments
•Whatever changes the legislature made it should be given effect together with the other parts.
Almeda v. Florentino
•Law – “the municipal board shall have a secretary whoshall be appointed by it to serve during the
term of office of the members thereof”
•A m e n d m e n t – “ t h e v i c e - m a y o r s h a l l a p p o i n t a l l e m p l o y e e s o f t h e b o a r d
w h o m a y b e s u s p e n d e d o r removed in accordance with law”
•C o n s t r u c t i o n o f b o t h L a w a n d A m e n d m e n t – t h e p o w e r o f t h e v i c e - m a y o r t o
make appointment pursuant to the amendatory act is limited to
t h e appointment of all employees of the board other thant h e b o a r d s e c r e t a r y w h o i s t o b e
a p p o i n t e d b y t h e board itself

S T A T U T E C O N S T R U E D I N R E L A T I O N
T O CONSTITUTION AND OTHER STATUTES
Statute construed in harmony with the Constitution
•Constitution- the fundamental law to which all laws are subservient
•General Rule: Do not interpret a statute independent from the constitution
•Construe the statute in harmony with the fundamentall a w : W h y ? B e c a u s e i t i s a l w a y s
p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e legislature adhered to the constitutional limitations when they enacted the
statute
•It is also important to understand a statute in light of the constitution and to avoid interpreting
the former inconflict with the latter
•What if the statute is susceptible to two constructions,one is constitutional and the other is
unconstitutional?A: The construction that should be adopted should bet h e o n e t h a t i s
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d t h e o n e t h a t w i l l render it invalid should be rejected.
•The Court should favor the construction that gives a statute of surviving the test of
constitutionality
•The Court cannot in order to bring a statute within thefundamental law, amend it by construction
Tañada v. Tuvera
•t h i s i s t h e c a s e r e g a r d i n g A r t . 2 o f t h e C i v i l C o d e especially the phrase “unless
otherwise provided”.
•Statcon: one should understand that
ifthe phrase referst o t h e p u b l i c a t i o n i t s e l f i t w o u l d v i o l a t e t h e constitution
(since all laws should be made public) [if malabo, vague, eh? huh? – cherry will explain it na lang

statutes in Pari Materia

• pari materia - refers to any the following:

osame person or thing
osame purpose of object
osame specific subject matter
•Later statutes may refer to prior laws.
•What if the later law have no reference to the prior law, does that mean they are not in pari
materia? - No.It is sufficient that they have the same subject matter.
•When is a statute not in pari materia? - The conditionsabove are the determinants of ascertaining if a
statuteis in pari materia, thus even if two statutes are under t h e s a m e b r o a d s u b j e c t a s
along as their specifics u b j e c t s a r e n o t t h e s a m e , t h e y a r e N O T i n
p a r i materialHow statutes in
Pari Materia
construed
•Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus i n t e r p r e t a n d i m o d u s – e v e r y
s t a t u t e m u s t b e s o construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform
system of jurisprudence (parang ganundin nung first part, construe it as a whole. But also bear in mind
that it should also be in harmony with other existing laws)
•Construe statutes in pari materia together to attain the purpose of an express national policy
•Why should they be construed together? - Because of the assumption that when the legislature
enacted thestatutes they were thinking of the prior statute. Prior statutes relating to the
same subject matter are to be compared with the new provisions.
•Again it is important to harmonize the statutes. Courtss h o u l d n o t r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d
w i t h o u t t a k i n g t h e necessary steps in reconciling them
Vda de Urbano v. GSIS
•there were no facts given in the book except that it wasin this case that in pari materia was
explained well.The explanation are the same in the aforementioned
•Other things to consider in constructing statutes whichare in pari materia
oHistory of the legislation on the subject
oA s c e r t a i n t h e u n i f o r m p u r p o s e o f t h e legislature
oD i s c o v e r t h e p o l i c y r e l a t e d t o t h e s u b j e c t matter has been changed or modified
oConsider acts passed at prior sessions even those that have been repealed
•Distingue tempora et concordabis jura – distinguish times and you will harmonize laws
•In cases of two or more laws with the same subject matter:
oQ u e s t i o n i s u s u a l l y w h e t h e r t h e l a t e r a c t impliedly repealed the prior act.
oRule: the only time a later act will be repealedo r a m e n d e d i s w h e n t h e a c t i t s e l f s t a t e s
s o (that it supersedes all the prior acts) or whenthere is an irreconcilable repugnancy betweenthe two.
oI n t h e c a s e o f “ i m p l i e d ” t h e d o u b t w i l l b e resolved against the repeal or amendment andin
favor of the harmonization of the laws on the subject (later will serve as a modification)Reasons
why laws on same subject are reconciled
•2 main reasons:
oThe presumption that the legislature took intoaccount prior laws when they enacted the newone.
(orbiter dictum ni cherry: this chapter keeps pointing out that the legislature are knowledgeable on the
law, but I wonder howthe actors fit? Im not discriminating but how did Lito Lapid, L o i
Ejercito, etc knew the prior laws? I heard they haveresearchers who do it for
t h e m . W h y d o n ’ t w e v o t e t h o s e researchers instead? Yun lang. I have been reading the
whole presumption that the legislature is knowledgeable. Madaming namamatay sa akala. Is agpalo still
alive?hahaha

)
oBecause enactments of the same legislature on the same subject are supposed to form partof one
uniform system (Why? Because later s t a t u t e s a r e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o t h e
e a r l i e r enactments)
If possible construe the two statuteswherein the provisions of both are given effectWhere
harmonization is impossible
•Earlier law should give way to the later law because itis the “current” or later expression of the
legislativewillIllustration of the rule (in pari materia)
Lacson v. Roque
•Issue: the phrase unless sooner removed of a statute that states “the mayor shall hold office for
four yearsunless sooner removed”
•s t a t c o n : t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p h r a s e s h o u l d b e construed in relation to
removal statutes. Thus the p h r a s e m e a n t t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e m a y o r c a n n o t b e removed
during his term of office, once he violates those that are stated in removal statutes.
Chin Oh Foo v. Concepcion
•criminal case
Article 12(1) exempting circumstance(imbecile or insane)
•Statcon: the phrase “shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining permission of the
same court”should be reconciled with another statute that states“any patient confined in a
mental institution may bereleased by the Director of Health once he is cured. The Director
shall inform the judge that approved theconfinement”. These two statutes refers to a person
who was criminally charged but was proven to be an i m b e c i l e o r i n s a n e , t h u s t h e y
s h o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d together. Their construction would mean that in order f o r t h e p a t i e n t t o
b e r e l e a s e t h e r e s h o u l d b e a n approval of both the court and the Director of Health.
King v. Hernaez
•S t a t c o n : r e l a t i o n o f R A 1 1 8 0 ( R e t a i l T r a d e Nationalization Act) to
Commonwealth Act 108 (AntiDummy Law)
Dialdas v. Percides
•F a c t s : a a l i e n w h o o p e r a t e d a r e t a i l s t o r e i n C e b u d e c i d e d t o c l o s e h i s C e b u
s t o r e a n d t r a n s f e r i t t o Dumaguete. RTL (retail trade law) and Tax Code Sec.199 were the
statutes taken into consideration in this case. The former authorizes any alien who on May
15,1 9 5 4 i s a c t u a l l y e n g a g e d i n r e t a i l , t o c o n t i n u e t o engage therein until his voluntary
retirement from such business, but not to establish or open additional storesf o r r e t a i l b u s i n e s s .
T h e l a t t e r p r o v i d e s t h a t a n y business for which the privilege tax has been paid may be
removed and continued in any other place without payment of additional tax.
•Issue: whether the transfer by the alien from Cebu to D u m a g u e t e c a n b e
c o n s i d e r e d a s a v o l u n t a r y retirement from business.
•H e l d : N o . A l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e q u e s t i o n , t h e S C r u l e d
o t h e r w i s e s t a t i n g t h a t RT C overlooked the clear provision of Sec. 199.
C & C C o m m e r c i a l C o r p v . N a t i o n a l W a t e r w o r k s a n d Sewerage Authority
•Facts: R.A. 912 (2) states that in construction or repair work undertaken by the Government, Philippine
madematerials and products, whenever available shall be used in construction or repair work.
•F l a g L a w ( C o m m o n w e a l t h A c t 1 3 8 ) g i v e s n a t i v e p r o d u c t s p r e f e r e n c e i n t h e
purchase of articles byG o v e r n m e n t , i n c l u d i n g g o v e r n m e n t o w n e d
o r controlled corporations.
•I s s u e : i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t w o s t a t u t e s r e q u i r i n g t h a t preference be made in the
purchase and use of Phil. Made materials and products
•Held: The SC relates the two statutes as in pari materiaa n d t h e y s h o u l d b e c o n s t r u e d t o
a t t a i n t h e s a m e objective that is to give preference to locally producedmaterials.
Cabada v. Alunan III
•Issue: whether or not an appeal lies from the decisiono f r e g i o n a l a p p e l l a t e b o a r d
( R A B ) i m p o s i n g disciplinary action against a member of the PNP under Sec. 45 of RA 6975
regarding finality of disciplinaryaction
•The court held that the “gap” in the law which is silenton filing appeals from decisions of the RAB
renderedwithin the reglementary period should be construed a n d h a r m o n i z e d w i t h o t h e r
s t a t u t e s , i . e . S e c 2 ( 1 ) , Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution because the PNPis part, as a
bureau, of the reorganized DILG, as to form a unified system of jurisprudence
•Statcon: if RAB fails to decide an appealed case within6 0 d a y s f r o m r e c e i p t o f t h e
n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , t h e appealed decision is deemed final and executory, andthe aggrieved party
may forthwith appeal therefrom tothe Secretary of DILG. Likewise, if the RAB has decided the
appeal within 60-day reglementary period,its decision may still be appealed to the Secretary
of DILG
Manila Jockey Club Inc. v. CA
•Issue: who was entitled to breakages (10% dividend of winning horse race tickets)
•S t a t c o n : T h e r e a r e t w o s t a t u t e s t h a t s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d . R A 3 0 9
( a m e n d e d b y 6 6 3 1 & 6 6 3 2 ) i s silent on the matter but the practice is to use breakagesfor anti
bookie drive and other sale promotions. E.O. 88 & 89 which allocated breakages therein
specified.These two should be construed in pari materia, thus all breakages derived from all races should
be distributedand allocated in accordance with Executive Orders b e c a u s e n o l a w
s h o u l d b e v i e w e d i n i s o l a t i o n . (supplementary)General and special statutes
•General statutes- applies to all of the people of the state or to a particular class of persons in the
state withequal force.
oUniversal in application
•Special statutes- relates to particular persons or thingsof a class or to particular portion or section of the
stateonly
•Considered as statutes in pari materia thus they should be read together and harmonized (and given
effect)
•What if there are two acts which contain one generaland one special?
oI f i t p r o d u c e s c o n f l i c t , t h e s p e c i a l s h a l l prevail since the legislative intent is
morec l e a r t h u s i t m u s t b e t a k e n a s i n t e n d e d t o constitute an exception.
oT h i n k o f i t a s o n e g e n e r a l l a w o f t h e l a n d while the other applies only to a
particular case
•What if the special law is passed before the general law? It doesn’t matter because the special
law will still b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n e x c e p t i o n u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y repealed.
Solid Homes Inc. v. Payawal
•First statute provides that National Housing Authorityshall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decidecases involving unsound real estate (P.D. No. 959).
•Second statute grants RTC general jurisdiction over such cases.
•Issue: Which one will prevail?
•H e l d : T h e f i r s t s t a t u t e w i l l p r e v a i l b e c a u s e i t i s a special law, as compared to the latter
which is generallaw, thus it is an exception to the “general jurisdiction”of the RTC

Magtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp

•F a c t s : P . D . N o . 1 8 6 9 a u t h o r i z e d P A G C O R t o centralize and regulate all
games of chance.
•LGC of 1991, a later law, empowers all government u n i t s t o e n a c t o r d i n a n c e s t o
p r e v e n t a n d s u p p r e s s gambling and other games of chance.
•Stacon: These two should be harmonized rather than annulling one and upholding the other.
Court said thatthe solution to this problem is for the government unitsto suppress and prevent all
kinds of gambling exceptthose that are allowed under the previous law
Leveriza v. Intermediate Appellate Court
•RA 776 empowers the general manager of the Civil A e r o n a u t i c s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t o
l e a s e r e a l p r o p e r t y under its administration.
•A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o d e a u t h o r i z e s t h e P r e s i d e n t t o e x e c u t e a l e a s e c o n t r a c t
r e l a t i n g t o r e a l p r o p e r t y belonging to the republic
•How do you apply the rule? - In this case, the prior (special) law should prevailReason for the
rule
•t h e s p e c i a l l a w i s c o n s i d e r e d a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e general law (as long as same
subject)Qualification of the rule
•The rule aforementioned is not absolute.
•Exceptions:
oIf the legislature clearly intended the generalenactment to cover the whole subject and to repeal
all prior laws inconsistent therewith
oW h e n t h e p r i n c i p l e i s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l l a w merely establishes a general rule while
thegeneral law creates a specific and special ruleReference statutes
•a statute which refers to other statutes and makes themapplicable to the subject of legislation
•u s e d t o a v o i d e n c u m b e r i n g t h e s t a t u t e b o o k s o f unnecessary repetition
•should be construed to harmonize and give effect to the adopted statute.Supplemental statutes
•Intended to supply deficiencies in existing statutes
•Supplemental statutes should be read with the originalstatute and construed together Reenacted statutes
•statute which reenacts a previous statute or provision.
•R e p r o d u c i n g a n e a r l i e r s t a t u t e w i t h t h e s a m e o r substantially the same words.
Montelibano v. Ferrer
•I s s u e : a p p l i c a t i o n o f S e c . 3 f o t h e C i t y C h a r t e r o f Manila is valid in the criminal
complaint directly file by an offended party in the city court of Bacolod?
•Held: The court ruled that the criminal complaint fileddirectly by the offended party is invalid and it
orderedthe city court to dismiss it.
•The provisions of the City Charter of Manila Bacolodon the same subject are identically worded, hence
theyshould receive the same construction.
•RULE: two statutes with a parallel scope, purpose andterminology should each in its own field,
have a likeinterpretationAdoption of contemporaneous construction
•in construing the reenacted statute, the court should take into account prior contemporaneous
constructionand give due weight and respect to it.Qualification of the rule
•rule that is aforementioned is applicable only when thestatute is capable of the construction given to it
andwhen that construction has become a settled rule of conductAdopted statutes
•a statute patterned after a statute of a foreign country.
•Court should take into consideration how the courts of other country construe the law and its practices
CHAPTER SEVEN: Strict or Liberal ConstructionIN GENERAL
Generally
•W h e t h e r a s t a t u t e i s t o b e g i v e n a s t r i c t o r l i b e r a l construction will depend upon the
following:
The nature of the statute
The purpose to be subserved
The mischief to be remedied
•Purpose: to give the statute the interpretation that will b e s t a c c o m p l i s h t h e e n d d e s i r e d
a n d e f f e c t u a t e legislative intentStrict construction, generally
•C o n s t r u c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e t t e r o f t h e s t a t u t e , which recognizes nothing that is not
expressed, takesthe language used in its exact meaning, and admits noequitable consideration
• Not to mean that statutes are construed in its narrowestmeaning
•It simply means that the scope of the statute shall not be extended or enlarged by implication,
intendment, or equitable consideration beyond the literal meaning of its terms
•It is a close and conservative adherence to the literal or textual interpretation
•The antithesis of liberal constructionLiberal construction, defined

•Equitable construction as will enlarge the letter of a statute to accomplish its intended purpose,
carry out itsintent, or promote justice
• Not to mean enlargement of a provision which is clear,unambiguous and free from doubt
•It simply means that the words should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation, so as to attain
the intent,spirit and purpose of the lawLiberal construction applied, generally
•Where a statute is ambiguous, the literal meaning of t h e w o r d s u s e d m a y b e
r e j e c t e d i f t h e r e s u l t o f adopting said meaning would be to defeat the purposeof the law
•Ut res magis valeat quam pereat –
that construction isto be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute – its every
wordL i b e r a l C o n s t r u c t i o n J u d i c i a l
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n E q u i t a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n a s will enlarge the letter of a s t a t u t e
t o a c c o m p l i s h i t s intended purpose, carry outits intent, or promote justiceA c t o f
t h e c o u r t i n e n g r a f t i n g u p o n a l a w something which it
believeso u g h t t o h a v e b e e n embraced thereinL e g i t i m a t e
e x e r c i s e o f judicial power Forbidden by the tripartited i v i s i o n o f p o w e r s a m o n g t h e
3 d e p a r t m e n t s o f government
•A statute may not be liberally construed to read into itsomething which its clear and plain language
rejectsConstruction to promote social justice
•S o c i a l j u s t i c e m u s t b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n t h e interpretation and application of
laws
•Social justice mandate is addressed or meant for thethree departments: the legislative,
executive, and the judicial
•Social justice (included in the Constitution) was meantto be a vital, articulate, compelling principle of
public policy
•It should be observed in the interpretation not only of future legislations, but also of laws already
existing on November 15, 1935.
•It was intended to change the spirit of our laws, presentand future.C o n s t r u c t i o n t a k i n g i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n g e n e r a l w e l f a r e o r growth civilization
•Construe to attain the general welfare
•Salus populi est suprema lex –
the voice of the peopleis the supreme law
•Statuta pro publico commodo late interpretantur –
statutes enacted for the public good are to be construedliberally
•The reason of the law is the life of the law; the reasonlies in the soil of the common welfare
•The judge must go out in the open spaces of actualityand dig down deep into his common soil, if
not, he becomes subservient to formalism
•Construe in the light of the growth of civilization andvarying conditions
oThe interpretation that “if the man is too longfor the bed, his head should be chopped off rather
than enlarge the old bed or purchase anew one” should NOT be given to statutes
STATUTES STRICTLY CONSTRUED
Penal statutes, generally
•Penal statutes are those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment
oActs of legislature which prohibit certain actsand establish penalties for their violation
•T h o s e w h i c h i m p o s e p u n i s h m e n t f o r a n o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t t h e
s t a t e , a n d w h i c h t h e c h i e f executive has the power to pardon
•A statute which decrees the forfeiture in favor of the s t a t e o f u n e x p l a i n e d w e a l t h
a c q u i r e d b y a p u b l i c official while in office is criminal in naturePenal statutes, strictly construed
•Penal statutes are strictly construed against the State and liberally construed in favor of the
accused
oPenal statutes cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment, implication, or any equitableconsideration
o No person should be brought within its termsif he is not clearly made so by the statute
o No act should be pronounces criminal whichis not clearly made so
Peo v. Atop
•Sec. 11 of RA 7659, which amended Art. 335 of the RPC, provides that the death penalty for rape
may beimposed if the “offender is a parent, ascendant, step- parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinitywithin the 3rd civil degree, or the common-law spouseof the parent of the victim”
•Is the common-law husband of the girl’s grandmother included?
• No! Courts must not bring cases within the provisionsof the law which are not clearly embraced by it.
o No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly within the terms of a statute can
be brought within them.
oA n y r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t m u s t b e r e s o l v e d i n favor of the accused
•Strict construction but not as to nullify or destroy theobvious purpose of the legislature
oIf penal statute is vague, it must be construedw i t h s u c h s t r i c t n e s s a s t o
c a r e f u l l y SAFEGUARD the RIGHTS of the defendanta n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e p r e s e r v e t h e
o b v i o u s intention of the legislature
oCourts must endeavor to effect substantial justice

Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos
•P D 1 5 6 4 , w h i c h p u n i s h e s a p e r s o n w h o s o l i c i t s o r receives contribution for “charitable
or public welfare purposes” without any permit first secured from the D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l
S e r v i c e s , D I D N O T i n c l u d e “religious purposes”” in the acts punishable, the
lawCANNOT be construed to punish the solicitation of contributions for religious purposes,
such as repair or renovation of the churchReason why penal statutes are strictly construedg
•T h e l a w i s t e n d e r i n f a v o r o f t h e r i g h t s o f t h e individual;
•The object is to establish a certain rule by conformityto which mankind would be safe, and the discretion
of the court limited
•Purpose of strict construction is NOT to enable a guilty person to escape punishment through technicality
butto provide a precise definition of forbidden actsActs mala in se andmala prohibita

•General rule: to constitute a crime, evil intent must combine with an act
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intention wereso
• Actus me invite factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my
actM a l a i n s e M a l a
p r o h i b i t a Criminal intent, apart fromthe act itself is
requiredThe only inquiry is, has thelaw been
violatedR P C S p e c i a l
p e n a l l a w s
•H o w e v e r, i f s p e c i a l p e n a l l a w s u s e s u c h w o r d s a s “willfully, voluntarily, and knowingly”
intent must be proved; thus good faith or bad faith is essential beforeconvictionApplication of rule
Peo v. Yadao
•A s t a t u t e w h i c h p e n a l i z e s a “ p e r s o n a s s i s t i n g a c l a i m a n t ” i n c o n n e c t i o n
w i t h t h e l a t t e r ’s c l a i m f o r veterans benefit, does not penalize “one who OFFERSto assist”
Suy v. People
•W h e r e a s t a t u t e p e n a l i z e s a s t o r e o w n e r w h o s e l l s commodities beyond the retail
ceiling price fixed byl a w, t h e a m b i g u i t y i n t h e E O c l a s s i f y i n g t h e s a m e commodity
into 2 classes and fixing different ceiling prices for each class, should be resolved in favor of theaccused
Peo v. Terreda
•Shorter prescriptive period is more favorable to the accused
Peo v. Manantan
•T h e r u l e t h a t p e n a l s t a t u t e s a r e g i v e n a s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s n o t
t h e o n l y f a c t o r c o n t r o l l i n g t h e interpretation of such laws
•Instead, the rule merely serves as an additional singlef a c t o r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n a i d i n
d e t r m i n i n g t h e meaning of penal laws
Peo v. Purisima
•The language of the a statute which penalizes the merecarrying outside of residence of bladed weapons,
i.e., aknife or bolo, not in connection with one’s work or occupation, with a very heavy penalty
ranging from 5-1 0 y e a r s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t , h a s b e e n n a r r o w e d a n d s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d
a s t o i n c l u d e , a s a n a d d i t i o n a l element of the crime, the carrying of the weapon
infurtherance of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, such being the evil sought to be remedied
or prevented by the statute as disclosed in its preamble
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan
•Issue: whether a private person can be considered a public officer by reason if his being
designated by theBIR as a depository of distrained property, so as to make the conversion thereof
the crime of malversation
•H e l d : N O ! t h e B I R ’s p o w e r a u t h o r i z i n g a p r i v a t e individual to act as a depository
cannot include the power to appoint him as public officer
•A private individual who has in his charge any of the public funds or property enumerated in Art 222
RPCa n d c o m m i t s a n y o f t h e a c t s d e f i n e d i n a n y o f t h e provisions of Chapter 4, Title
7 of the RPC, shouldlikewise be penalized with the same penalty meted toerring public officers.
Nowhere in this provision is itexpressed or implied that a private individual fallingunder said Art 222 is to
be deemed a public officer Limitation of rule
•Limitation #1 – Where a penal statute is capable of 2interpretations, one which will operate to
exempt anaccused from liability for violation thereof and another which will give effect to the
manifest intent of thestatute and promote its object, the latter interpretationshould be adopted
US v. Go Chico
•A law punishes the display of flags “used during” theinsurrection against the US may not be so construed
ast o e x e m p t f r o m c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y a p e r s o n w h o displays a replica of said
flag because said replica is n o t t h e o n e “ u s e d ” d u r i n g t h e r e b e l l i o n , f o r t o s o construe
it is to nullify the statute together
•Go Chico is liable though flags displayed were just replica of the flags “used during”
insurrection againstUS
•L i m i t a t i o n # 2 – s t r i c t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p e n a l l a w s applies only where the law is
ambiguous and there isdoubt as to its meaning
Peo v. Gatchalian
•A s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t a n e m p l o y e r s h a l l p a y a minimum wage of not less than a
specified amount and punishes any person who willfully violates any of its provisions
•The fact that the nonpayment of the minimum wage isnot specifically declared unlawful, does not mean
thatan employer who pays his employees less than the prescribed minimum wage is not
criminally liable, for t h e n o n p a y m e n t o f m i n i m u m w a g e i s t h e v e r y a c t sought to be
enjoined by the lawStatutes in derogation of rights
•Rights are not absolute, and the state, in the exercise of p o l i c e p o w e r, m a y e n a c t l e g i s l a t i o n s
c u r t a i l i n g o r restricting their enjoyment
•A s t h e s e s t a t u t e s a r e i n d e r o g a t i o n o f c o m m o n o r general rights, they are generally
strictly construed andrigidly confined to cases clearly within their scope and purpose
•Examples:
oS t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z i n g t h e e x p r o p r i a t i o n o f private land or property
oAllowing the taking of deposition
oFixing the ceiling of the price of commodities
oLimiting the exercise of proprietary rights byindividual citizens
oS u s p e n d i n g t h e p e r i o d o f p r e s c r i p t i o n o f actions
•When 2 reasonably possible constructions, one whichwould diminish or restrict fundamental right
of the p e o p l e a n d t h e o t h e r i f w h i c h w o u l d n o t d o s o , t h e latter construction must be
adopted so as to allow fullenjoyment of such fundamental rightStatutes authorizing expropriations
•Power of eminent domain is essentially legislative innature
•May be delegated to the President, LGUs, or public utility company
•Expropriation plus just compensation
•A derogation of private rights, thus strict constructionis applied
•Statutes expropriating or authorizing the expropriationo f p r o p e r t y a r e s t r i c t l y
c o n s t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e expropriating authority and liberally in favor
o f property ownersStatutes granting privileges
•S t a t u t e s g r a n t i n g a d v a n t a g e s t o p r i v a t e p e r s o n s o r e n t i t i e s h a v e i n m a n y
i n s t a n c e s c r e a t e d s p e c i a l privileges or monopolies for the grantees and have thus
been viewed with suspicion and strictly construed
• Privilegia recipient largam interpretationem voluntatic o n s o n a m c o n c e d e n t i s –
p r i v i l e g e s a r e t o b e interpreted in accordance with the will of him who grants
them
•And he who fails to strictly comply with the will of thegrantor loses such privileges
Butuan Sawmill, Inc. v. Bayview Theater, Inc
•Where an entity is granted a legislative franchise tooperate electric light and power, on
condition that itshould start operation within a specified period, its failure to start operation
within the period resulted inthe forfeiture of the franchiseLegislative grants to local government units
•G r a n t s o f p o w e r t o l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t a r e t o b e construed strictly, and doubts
in the interpretationshould be resolved in favor of the national governmentand against the political
subdivisions concerned
•Reason: there is in such a grant a gratuitous donationof public money or property which results in an
unfair advantage to the grantee and for that reason, the grantshould be narrowly restricted in favor of the
publicStatutory grounds for removal of officials
•Statutes relating to suspension or removal of public officials are strictly construed
•Reason: the remedy of removal is a drastic one and p e n a l i n n a t u r e . I n j u s t i c e a n d
h a r m t o t h e p u b l i c interest would likely emerge should such laws be notstrictly interpreted against
the power of suspension or removal
Ochate v. Deling
•Grounds for removal – “neglect of duty, oppression, c o r r u p t i o n o r o t h e r f o r m s o f
m a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n office”
o“in office” – a qualifier of all acts.
oMust be in relation to the official as an officer and not as a private person
Hebron v Reyes
•Procedure for removal or suspension should be strictlyconstrued
•Statute: local elective officials are to be removed or suspended, after investigation, by the
provincial board,subject to appeal to the President
•
President has no authority on his own to conduct the investigation and to suspend such elective
official Naturalization laws
•
Naturalization laws are strictly construed against the applicant and rigidly followed and enforced
•
Naturalization is statutory than a natural rightStatutes imposing taxes and customs duties
•
Tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the
taxpayer
•
Power to tax involves power to destroy
•
Taxing act are not to be extended by implication
•
T a x s t a t u t e s s h o u l d b e c l e a r l y , e x p r e s s l y , a n d unambiguously imposed
•
Reason for strict construction: taxation is a destructive p o w e r w h i c h i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for
the support of the government

Statutes granting tax exemptions

•
Law frowns against exemption from taxation becausetaxes are the lifeblood of the nation
•
Laws granting tax exemptions are thus construed
strictissimi juris
against the taxpayer and liberally infavor of the taxing authority
•
B u r d e n o f p r o o f – o n t h e t a x p a y e r c l a i m i n g t o b e exempted
•
Basis for strict construction – to minimize the differenttreatment and foster impartiality, fairness, and
equalityof treatment among taxpayers
•
Tax exemptions are not favored in law, nor are they presumed.
CIR v. CA
•
Issue: whether containers and packaging materials can be credited against the miller’s deficiency tax
•
BIR claimed that there should be no tax credit
•
Held: proviso should be strictly construed to apply o n l y t o r a w m a t e r i a l s a n d n o t
t o c o n t a i n e r s a n d packing materials which are not raw materials; hence,the miller is entitled to
tax credit
•
R e s t r i c t i o n i n t h e p r o v i s o i s l i m i t e d o n l y t o s a l e s , miller’s excise taxes paid ‘on raw
materials used in themilling process’
Benguet Corporation v. Cenrtral Board of Assessment Appeals
•
PD 1955 withdrew all tax exemptions, except those e m b o d i e d i n t h e R e a l P r o p e r t y
C o d e , a l a w w h i c h grants certain industries real estate tax exemptions under the Real Estate
Code
•
Courts cannot expand exemptiom
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v Acting Commissioner of Customs
•
W h e r e a s t a t u t e e x e m p t s f r o m s p e c i a l i m p o r t t a x , equipment “for use of industries,” the
exemption doesnot extend to those used in dispensing gasoline at retailin gasoline stations
CIR v. Manila Jockey Club, Inc.
•
Statute: “racing club holding these races shall be exempt from the payment of any municipal or
nationaltax”
•
Cannot be construed to exempt the racing club from paying income tax on rentals paid to it
for use of therace tracks and other paraphernalia, for what the lawexempts refers only to
those to be paid in connectionwith said races
Lladoc v. CIR
•
S t a t u t e : e x e m p t i o n f r o m t a x a t i o n c h a r i t a b l e institutions, churches,
parsonages or covenantsa p p u r t e n a n t t h e r e t o , m o s q u e s , a n d n o n -
p r o f i t cemeteries, and all lands buildings, and improvementsactually, directly, and exclusively used for
religious or charitable purposes
•
Exemption only refer to property taxes and not from all kinds of taxes
La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez
•
Statute: tax provided shall not be collected on foreignexchange used for the payment of “fertilizers
whenimported by planters or farmers directly or through their cooperatives”
•
The importation of fertilizers by an entity which is n e i t h e r a p l a n t e r n o r a f a r m e r n o r a
c o o p e r a t i v e o f planters or farmers is not exempt from payment of thetax, even though said
entity merely acted as agent of planter or farmer as a sort of accommodation withoutmaking any
profit from the transaction, for the law uses the word “directly” which means without
anyoneintervening in the importation and the phrase “throughtheir cooperatives” as the only exemption
CIR v. Phil. Acetylene Co.
•
See page 305
•
Power of taxation if a high prerogative of sovereignty,its relinquishment is never presumed and any
reductionor diminution thereof with respect to its mode or its rate must be strictly construed
Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Corp. v. COA
•
On “most favored treatment clause”
•
2 franchisee are not competitors
•
The first franchisee is will not enjoy a reduced rate of tax on gross receiptsQualification of rule
•
Strict construction does not apply in the case of taxexemptions in favor of the government
itself or itsagencies
•
P r o v i s i o n s g r a n t i n g e x e m p t i o n s t o g o v e r n m e n t agencies may be construed liberally
in favor of non-taxliability of such agencies
•
The express exemption should not be construed with t h e s a m e d e g r e e o f
s t r i c t n e s s t h a t a p p l i e s t o exemptions contrary to policy of the state, since as tosuch
property exemption is the rule and the taxation isthe exemption
•
E.g. tax exemption in favor of NAPOCOR – whether direct or indirect taxes, exemptedStatutes
concerning the sovereign
•
R e s t r i c t i v e s t a t u t e s w h i c h i m p o s e b u r d e n s o n t h e public treasury or which diminish rights
and interestsare strictly construed.
•
U n l e s s s o s p e c i f i e d , t h e g o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t f a l l within the terms of any legislation
A l l i a n c e o f G o v e r n m e n t Wo r k e r s v. M i n i s t e r o f L a b o r a n d Employment
•
PD 851 – requires “employers” to pay a 13
th
month pay to their employees xxx
•
“employers” does not embrace the RP, the law not having expressly included it within its
scopeStatutes authorizing suits against the government

•
Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution – “The State maynot be sued without its consent”
o
General rule: sovereign is exempt from suit
o
Exception: in the form of statute, state may give its consent to be sued

Statute is to be strictly construed andwaiver from immunity from suit willnot be lightly inferred
•
Nullum tempus occurrit regi –
there can be no legalright as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends
•
Reason for non-suability – not to subject the state to inconvenience and loss of governmental
efficiency
Mobil Phil. Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Services
•
The law authorizing the Bureau of Customs to lease arrastre operations, a proprietary function
necessarilyincident to its governmental function, may NOT beconstrued to mean that the
state has consented to besued, when it undertakes to conduct arrastre servicesitself, for damage to
cargo
•
State-immunity may not be circumvented by directingthe action against the officer of the state instead of
thestate itself
o
The state’s immunity may be validly invokedagainst the action AS LONG AS IT CAN BES H O W N
t h a t t h e s u i t r e a l l y a f f e c t s t h e property, rights, or interests of the state and n o t
m e r e l y t h o s e o f t h e o f f i c e r n o m i n a l l y made party defendant
•
E v e n i f t h e s t a t e c o n s e n t s , l a w s h o u l d N O T b e interpreted to authorize garnishment
of public funds tosatisfy a judgment against government property
o
Reason:

Public policy forbids it

Disbursement of public funds must b e c o v e r e d b y a c o r r e s p o n d i n g appropriation
as required by law

F u n c t i o n s a n d s e r v i c e c a n n o t b e allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted b y t h e
d i v e r s i o n o f p u b l i c f u n d s f r o m t h e i r l e g i t i m a t e a n d s p e c i f i c objects, as
appropriated by lawStatutes prescribing formalities of the will
•
Strictly construed, which means, wills must bee x e c u t e d i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements, otherwise, it is entirely void
•
The court is seeking to ascertain and apply the intentof the legislators and not that of the testator,
and thelatter ’s intention is frequently defeated by the non- observance of what the statute
requiresExceptions and provisos
•
Should be strictly but reasonably construed
•
All doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions
o
H o w e v e r , a l w a y s l o o k a t t h e i n t e n t o f legislators if it will accord reason and
justicen o t t o a p p l y t h e r u l e t h a t “ a n e x p r e s s exception excludes all others”
•
The rule on execution pending appeal must be strictlyconstrued being an exception to the general rule
•
Situations which allows exceptions to the requirementof warrant of arrest or search warrant must be
strictlyc o n s t r u e d ; t o d o s o w o u l d i n f r i n g e u p o n p e r s o n a l liberty and set back a basic right
•
A preference is an exception to the general rule
•
A p r o v i s o s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d s t r i c t l y w i t h t h e legislative intent
o
Should be strictly construed
o
Only those expressly exempted by the provisos h o u l d b e f r e e d f r o m t h e o p e r a t i o n o f
t h e statute
STATUTES LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
General social legislation
•
General welfare legislations
o
To implem ent the soci al ju stic e an d protection-to-labor
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Constitution
o
Construed liberally
o
R e s o l v e a n y d o u b t i n f a v o r o f t h e p e r s o n s whom the law intended to benefit
o
Includes the following – labor laws, tenancylaws, land reform laws, and social security laws
Tamayo v. Manila Hotel
•
L a w g r a n t s e m p l o y e e s t h e b e n e f i t s o f h o l i d a y p a y except those therein enumerated
•
Statcon – all employees, whether monthly paid or not,who are not among those excepted are
entitled to theholiday pay
•
Labor laws construed – the workingman’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration
o
Article 4 New Labor Code – “all doubts in thei m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
t h e provisions of the Labor Code including itsimplementing rules and regulations shall
beresolved in favor of labor”
•
Liberal construction applies only if statute is vague, otherwise, apply the law as it is
statedGeneral welfare clause
•
2 branches
o
One branch attaches to the main trunk of m u n i c i p a l a u t h o r i t y – r e l a t e s
t o s u c h o r d i n a n c e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s a s m a y b e necessary to carry into
effect and dischargethe powers and duties conferred upon local legislative bodies by law
o
Other branch is much more independent of the specific functions enumerated by law
– a u t h o r i z e s s u c h o r d i n a n c e s a s s h a l l s e e m necessary and proper to provide for the
healthand safety, promote the prosperity, improve

the morals, peace, good order xxx of the LGUa n d t h e i n h a b i t a n t s t h e r e o f , a n d f o r

t h e protection of the property therein
•
Construed in favor of the LGUs
•
T o g i v e m o r e p o w e r s t o l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s i n promoting the economic
condition, social welfare, andmaterial progress of the people in the community
•
Construed with proprietary aspects, otherwise wouldcripple LGUs
•
M u s t b e e l a s t i c a n d r e s p o n s i v e t o v a r i o u s s o c i a l conditions
•
Must follow legal progress of a democratic way of lifeGrant of power to local governments
•
Old rule: municipal corporations, being mere creaturesof law, have only such powers as are expressly
grantedto them and those which are necessarily implied or incidental to the exercise thereof
•
New rule: RA 2264 “Local Autonomy Act”
o
Sec 12 – “implied power of a province, a city,or a municipality shall be liberally construedin its favor.
Any fair and reasonable doubt ast o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p o w e r s h o u l d b e interpreted
in favor of the local government and it shall be presumed to exist”Statutes granting taxing power (on
municipal corporations)
•
Before 1973 Constitution – inferences, implications,and deductions have no place in the
interpretation of the taxing power of a municipal corporation
•
New Constitution – Art. X, Sec 5 1987 Constitution – “each local government unit shall have the
power tocreate its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, f e e s , a n d c h a r g e s s u b j e c t
t o s u c h g u i d e l i n e s a n d limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic
policy of local autonomy”
o
Statutes prescribing limitations on the taxing power of LGUs must be strictly construed against the
national government and liberallyin favor of the LGUs, and any doubt as to theexistence of the taxing
power will be resolvedin favor of the local governmentStatutes prescribing prescriptive period to collect
taxes
•
Beneficial for both government and taxpayer
o
To the government – tax officers are obligedt o a c t p r o m p t l y i n t h e m a k i n g o f
t h e assessments
o
To t h e t a x p a y e r – w o u l d h a v e a f e e l i n g o f security against unscrupulous tax agents
whow i l l a l w a y s f i n d a n e x c u s e t o i n s p e c t t h e books of taxpayers
•
Laws on prescription – remedial measure – interpretedliberally affording protection to the
taxpayersStatutes imposing penalties for nonpayment of tax
•
liberally construed in favor of government and strictlyconstrued against the taxpayer
•
intention to hasten tax payments or to punish evasionsor neglect of duty in respect thereto
•
l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n w o u l d r e n d e r p e n a l t i e s f o r delinquents nugatoryElection laws
•
E l e c t i o n l a w s s h o u l d b e r e a s o n a b l y a n d l i b e r a l l y construed to achieve their purpose
•
Purpose – to effectuate and safeguard the will of the electorate in the choice of their
representatives
•
3 parts
o
Provisions for the conduct of elections whichelection officials are required to follow
o
Provisions which candidates for office are required to perform
o
P r o c e d u r a l r u l e s w h i c h a r e d e s i g n e d t o ascertain, in case of dispute, the actual
winner in the elections

Different rules and canons or statutory construction governsuch provisions of the election law
•
Part 1:
o
R u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n d u c t o f elections

Before election – mandatory (part 1)

After election – directory (part 3)
o
Generally – the provisions of a statute as tothe manner of conducting the details of
ane l e c t i o n a r e N O T m a n d a t o r y ; a n d irregularities in conducting
an election andcounting the votes, not preceding from anywrongful intent and which
deprives no legalvoter of his votes, will not vitiate an electionor justify the rejection of the entire votes
of a precinct

Against disenfranchisement

R e m e d y a g a i n s t e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l who did not do his duty – criminalaction against them
•
Part 2:
o
Provisions which candidates for office are required to perform are mandatory
o
Non-compliance is fatal
•
Part 3:
o
P r o c e d u r a l r u l e s w h i c h a r e d e s i g n e d t o ascertain, in case of dispute, the actual
winner in the elections are liberally construed
o
Technical and procedural barriers should not b e a l l o w e d t o s t a n d i f t h e y c o n s t i t u t e
a n o b s t a c l e i n t h e c h o i c e o f t h e i r e l e c t i v e officials
•
For where a candidate has received popular mandate,overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all
possibledoubts should be resolved in favor of the candidates eligibility, for to rule otherwise is
to defeat the will of the electorateAmnesty proclamations

•
Amnesty proclamations should be liberally construedas to carry out their purpose
•
Purpose – to encourage to return to the fold of the lawof those who have veered from the law
•
E.g. in case of doubt as to whether certain persons c o m e w i t h i n t h e a m n e s t y
p r o c l a m a t i o n , t h e d o u b t should be resolved in their favor and against the state
•
Same rule applies to pardon since pardon and amnestyis synonymousStatutes prescribing prescriptions of
crimes
•
Liberally construed in favor of the accused
•
Reason – time wears off proof and innocence
•
Same as amnesty and pardon
Peo v. Reyes
•
Art. 91 RPC – “period of prescription shall commencet o r u n f r o m t h e d a y t h e c r i m e i s
d i s c o v e r e d b y t h e offended, authorities, xxx”
•
When does the period of prescription start – day of discovery or registration in the Register of
Deeds?
•
Held: From the time of registration
•
N o t i c e n e e d n o t b e a c t u a l f o r p r e s c r i p t i o n t o r u n ; constructive notice is enough
•
More favorable to the accused if prescriptive period iscounted from the time of registrationAdoption
statutes
•
Adoption statutes are liberally construed in favor of the child to be adopted
•
Paramount consideration – child and not the adoptersVeteran and pension laws
•
Veteran and pension laws are enacted to compensate ac l a s s o f m e n w h o s u f f e r e d i n t h e
service for theh a r d s h i p s t h e y e n d u r e d a n d t h e d a n g e r s
t h e y encountered in line of duty
o
Expression of gratitude to and recognition of those who rendered service to the country byextending to
them regular monetary benefit
•
Veteran and pension laws are liberally construed in favor of grantee
Del Mar v. Phil. Veterans Admin
•
W h e r e a s t a t u t e g r a n t s p e n s i o n b e n e f i t s t o w a r veterans, except those who
are actually receiving asimilar pension from other government funds
•
Statcon – “government funds” refer to funds of the same government and does not preclude war
veteransreceiving similar pensions from the US Government from enjoying the benefits therein
provided
Board of Administrators Veterans Admin v. Bautista
•
Veteran pension law is silent as to the effectivity of pension awards, it shall be construed
to take effectfrom the date it becomes due and NOT from the datethe application for pension is
approved, so as to grantthe pensioner more benefits and to discourage inactionon the part of the officials
who administer the laws
Chavez v. Mathay
•
W h i l e v e t e r a n o r p e n s i o n l a w s a r e t o b e c o n s t r u e d liberally, they should be so
construed as to prevent a p e r s o n f r o m r e c e i v i n g d o u b l e p e n s i o n
o r compensation, unless the law provides otherwise
Santiago v. COA
•
Explained liberal construction or retirement laws
•
Intention is to provide for sustenance, and hopefullyeven comfort when he no longer has
the stamina tocontinue earning his livelihood
•
He deserves the appreciation of a grateful governmentat best concretely expressed in a generous
retirementgratuity commensurate with the value and length of hisservice
Ortiz v. COMELEC
•
I s s u e : w h e t h e r a c o m m i s s i o n e r o f C O M E L E C i s deemed to have completed his term and
entitled to fullretirement benefits under the law which grants him 5-year lump-sum gratuity and thereafter
lifetime pension,who “retires from the service after having completedh i s t e r m o f o f f i c e , ” w h e n
his courtesy resignationsubmitted in response to the call of the
P r e s i d e n t following EDSA Revolution is accepted
•
Held: Yes! Entitled to gratuity
•
Liberal construction
•
Courtesy resignation – not his own will but a mere manifestation of submission to the will of the
politicalauthority and appointing power
In Re Application for Gratuity Benefits of Associate Justice Efren I Plana
•
Issue: whether Justice Plana is entitled to gratuity andr e t i r e m e n t p a y w h e n , a t t h e t i m e o f h i s
c o u r t e s y resignation was accepted following EDSA Revolutiona n d e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a
revolutionary governmentunder the Freedom Constitution, he lacked a
f e w months to meet the age requirement for retirement under the law but had accumulated a
number of leaveof credits which, if added to his age at the time, wouldexceed the age requirement
•
Held: yes, entitled to gratuity! Liberal construction applied
In Re Pineda
•
Explained doctrine laid down in the previous case
•
The crediting of accumulated leaves to make up for lack of required age or length of
service is not donediscriminately
•
xxx only if satisfied that the career of the retiree wasmarked by competence, integrity, and dedication to
the public service
In Re Martin
•
Issue: whether a justice of the SC, who availed of thedisability retirement benefits pursuant to the
provisionthat “if the reason for the retirement be any permanentdisability contracted during his
incumbency in office

and prior to the date of retirement he shall receive onlya gratuity equivalent to 10 years salary and
allowancesa f o r e m e n t i o n e d w i t h n o f u r t h e r a n n u i t y p a y a b l e monthly during the rest of the
retiree’s natural life” isentitled to a monthly lifetime pension after the 10-year period
•
Held: Yes! 10-year lump sum payment is intended toa s s i s t t h e s t r i c k e n r e t i r e e m e e t i n g h i s
h o s p i t a l a n d doctor’s bills and expenses for his support
•
The retirement law aims to assist the retiree in his oldage, not to punish him for having survived
Cena v. CSC
•
Issue: whether or not a government employee who hasreached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years,
butwho has rendered less than 15 years of governmentservice, may be allowed to continue
in the service tocomplete the 15-year service requirement to enable him to retire with benefits
of an old-age pension under Sec 11(b) PD 1146
•
However, CSC Memorandum Circular No 27 providesthat “any request for extension of compulsory
retireest o c o m p l e t e t h e 1 5 - y e a r s s e r v i c e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r r e t i r e m e n t s h a l l b e
a l l o w e d o n l y t o p e r m a n e n t appointees in the career service who are
r e g u l a r members of the GSIS and shall be granted for a periodnot exceeding 1 year
•
H e l d : C S C M e m o r a n d u m C i r c u l a r N o 2 7 unconstitutional! It
is an administrative regulationw h i c h s h o u l d b e i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e l a w ;
l i b e r a l construction of retirement benefitsRules of Court
•
RC are procedural – to be construed liberally
•
Purpose of RC – the proper and just determination of alitigation
•
Procedural laws are no other than technicalities, theyare adopted not as ends in themselves but as
meansconducive to the realization of the administration of law and justice
•
RC should not be interpreted to sacrifice substantial rights at the expense of technicalities
Case v. Jugo
•
Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of procedurewill be overlooked when they do not involve
public policy; when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident; when they
have not prejudicedthe adverse party and have not deprived the court of itsauthority
•
Literal stricture have been relaxed in favor of liberal construction
o
W h e r e a r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l r e s u l t i n manifest failure or miscarriage of justice
o
Where the interest of substantial justice will be served
o
W h e r e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e e m o t i o n i s addressed solely to the sound and
judiciousdiscretion of the court
o
Where the injustice to the adverse party is notc o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h e d e g r e e o f
h i s thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure
•
Liberal construction of RC does not mean they may beignored; they are required to be followed except
onlyfor the most persuasive reasonsOther statutes
•
Curative statutes – to cure defects in prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would
otherwise bev o i d f o r w a n t o f c o n f o r m i t y w i t h c e r t a i n l e g a l requirements;
retroactive
•
Redemption laws – remedial in nature – construedliberally to carry out purpose, which is
to enable thedebtor to have his property applied to pay as many debtor’s liability as possible
•
S t a t u t e s p r o v i d i n g e x e m p t i o n s f r o m e x e c u t i o n a r e interpreted liberally in order to
give effect to their beneficial and humane purpose
•
Laws on attachment – liberally construed to promotetheir objects and assist the parties obtaining
speedy justice
•
Warehouse receipts – instrument of credit – liberally c o n s t r u e d i n f a v o r o f a b o n a f i d e
h o l d e r s o f s u c h receipts
•
Probation laws – liberally construed
o
Purpose: to give first-hand offenders a secondc h a n c e t o m a i n t a i n h i s p l a c e i n
s o c i e t y through the process of reformation
•
Statute granting powers to an agency created by the C o n s t i t u t i o n s h o u l d b e l i b e r a l l y
c o n s t r u e d f o r t h e advancement of the purposes and objectives for whichit was created
CHAPTER EIGHT: Mandatory and Directory StatutesIN GENERAL
Generally
•
Mandatory and directory classification of statutes – i m p o r t a n c e : w h a t e f f e c t
s h o u l d b e g i v e n t o t h e mandate of a statuteMandatory and directory statutes, generally
•
Mandatory statute – commands either positively thatsomething be done in a particular way,
or negativelythat something be not done; it requires OBEDIENCE,otherwise void
•
D i r e c t o r y s t a t u t e – p e r m i s s i v e o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y i n nature and merely outlines the act to be
done in such away that no injury can result from ignoring it or that its purpose can be accomplished
in a manner other thant h a t p r e s c r i b e d a n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e r e s u l t o b t a i n e d ;
c o n f e r d i r e c t i o n u p o n a p e r s o n ; n o n - performance of what it prescribes will not vitiate
the proceedings therein takenWhen statute is mandatory or directory
•
N o a b s o l u t e t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a s t a t u t e i s directory or mandatory
•
Final arbiter – legislative intent