STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULES a) Exception: Inapplicability in criminal cases
CASE: People v. Santayana, 74 SCRA 25 in
Ratio Legis: Spirit of the law/Legislative Intent as the Primary Object
1. As expressed in the literal reading of the text
General rule: if statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
a. Verba legis (literal or plain meaning rule)
× Index animi sermo – speech is the index of intention.
× Words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or
will
× Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be
no departure
× Thus, what is not clearly provided in the law cannot be extended to those
matters outside its scope
× Judicial legislation – an encroachment upon legislative prerogative to define the
wisdom of the law. Courts must administer the law as they find it without regard
to consequences
CASES:
Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24,
2018
Bustamante v. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61
IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong, 132 SCRA
663
Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople,
138 SCRA 273
(1) Dura lex sed lex
 Dura lex sed lex – the law may be harsh but it is still the law
 Absoluta sentential expositore non indigent – when the language of the law is
clear, no explanation of it is required
 When the law is clear, it is not susceptible of interpretation. It must be applied
regardless of who may be affected, even if it may be harsh or onerous
 Hoc quidem perquam durum est, sed ital ex scripta est – it is exceedingly hard
but so the law is written
 A decent regard to the legislative will should inhibit the court from engaging in
judicial legislation to change what it thinks are unrealistic statutes that do not
conform with ordinary experience or practice
o If there is a need to change the law, amend or repeal it, remedy may be
done through a legislative process, not by judicial decree
 Where the law is clear, appeals to justice and equity as justification to construe
it differently are unavailing – Philippines is governed by CIVIL LAW or
POSITIVE LAW, not common law
o EXCEPTION: Equity is available only in the absence of law and not its
replacement
o Aequitas nunquam contravenit legis – equity never acts in contravention of
the law
CASES:
Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561
relation to People v. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164
2. As determined through Construction
a. General Rule: Statute must be capable of construction, otherwise inoperative
 If no judicial certainty can be had as to its meaning, the court is not at liberty to
supply nor to make one.
 After such effort is found impossible to solve the doubt and dispel the obscurity
of a statute, if no judicial certainty can be had as to its meaning, the court is not
at liberty to supply nor to make one.
 Where a statute totally fails to express a meaning, a becoming sense of judicial
modesty forbids the court from assuming and supplying a meaning thereto.
 The statute, in such a case, is necessarily inoperative.
CASE: Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106
In this case, the Court adopted a literal meaning
thus, concluded that RA 6735 is inadequate to
implement the power of the people to amend the
Constitution (initiative on amendments) for the
following reasons:
1) Does not suggest an initiative on
amendments on to the Constitution
because it is silent as to amendments on the
Constitution and the word “Constitution” is
neither germane nor relevant to said section
2) Does not provide for the contents of a
petition for initiative on the Constitution
Does not provide for subtitles for initiative on
the Constitution
3) RA is incomplete and does not provide a
sufficient standard
b. Specific Rules
(1) Mens Legislatoris: Ascertain spirit/intent/purpose of the law
 Don’t literally construe the law if it will render it meaningless, lead to ambiguity,
injustice or contradiction
 What the legislature had actually in mind is not sometimes accurately reflected
in the language of a statute. When this happens, resort is had to the principle
that the spirit of the law controls its letter.
 Ratio legis – interpretation according to the spirit or reason of the law
 Spirit or intention of a statute prevails over the letter
 A law should accordingly be so construed as to be in accordance with, and not
repugnant to, the spirit of the law
 Presumption: undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative
measure
 Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire – words ought to be more
subservient to the intent and not the intent to the words
 Guide in ascertaining intent – conscience and equity
 It is possible that a statute may be extended to cases not within the literal
meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.
 Statutes should be construed in the light of the object to be achieved and the
evil or mischief to be suppressed
 As between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose
of the law should prevail
 Limitation: this rule applies only when there is ambiguity in the language
employed in the law.
CASES:
Matabuena v. Cervantes, 38 SCRA 284
King v. Hernandez, 114 SCRA 730
1) Issue: whether or not a Chinese (parang si
RA and Serge) may be employed in a non-
control position in a retail establishment, a
wholly nationalized business under RA
1180 Retail Trade Law (this law has been
repealed by the Retail Trade Liberalization
Act)
2) Held: No, the law has to be construed with
the Anti-Dummy Law – prohibiting an alien
from intervening in the management,
operation, administration or control thereof
3) When the law says you cannot employ such
alien, you cannot employ an alien. The
unscrupulous alien may resort to flout the
law or defeat its purpose.
4) It is imperative that the law be interpreted in
a manner that would stave off any attempt
at circumvention of the legislative purpose
Bustamante v. NLRC, supra
1) Issue: how to compute for backwages to
which an illegally dismissed employee
would be entitled until his actual
reinstatement
2) 3 ways:
o 1st – before Labor Code – to be deducted
from the amount of backwages is the
earnings elsewhere during the period of
illegal dismissal
o 2nd – Labor Code Art. 279 – the amount
of backwages is fixed without deductions or
qualifications but limited to not more than 3
years
o 3rd – amended Art. 279 – full backwages
or without deductions from the time the
laborer’s compensation was withheld until
his actual reinstatement
3) The clear legislative intent of the
amendment in RA 6715 Labor Code) is to
give more benefits to workers than was
previously given them under the Mercury
Drug rule or the 1st way
US v. Toribio, 15 Phil 85
1) The prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos
for human consumption so long as these
animals are fit for agricultural work/ draft
purposes was a “reasonable necessary
limitation” on private ownership
2) Purpose or object of the law – to protect
large cattle against theft and to make easy
recovery and return of such cattle to their
owners, when lost, strayed or stolen
3) Issue: whether the slaughter of large cattle
outside the municipal slaughterhouse
without a permit by the municipal treasurer
is prohibited?
4) Held: YES! Outside or inside without permit
is prohibited
Bocobo v. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520
1) Issue: whether the CFI and a municipal
court in the capital of a province have
concurrent jurisdiction over the crime of libel
2) RPC – grants jurisdiction with CFI
3) Judiciary Act grants jurisdiction with the
municipal court in the capital of a province
in offenses where the penalty is not more
than prission correctional or fine not
exceeding 6,000Php (penalty for libel)
Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v.
Ponferrada, G.R. No. 114087, October 26, 1999
1) 2 apparently conflicting provisions should
be construed as to realize the purpose of
the law
2) The purpose of the law is to INCREASE the
worker’s benefits
3) Benefits under RA 6982 shall be IN
ADDITION to the benefits under RA 809
and PD 621
4) “Substituted” cannot be given literal
interpretation
a) Instance when the literal import must yield to spirit/intent: in election-related
cases
 The will of the electorate cannot be defeated by invoking some
technicality in the election law.
CASE:
 Villanueva v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-54718,
December 4, 1985 (Read the dissent of Justice
Aquino for the caveat on this rule)
Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. CTA, 100 Phil 850
b) When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases
× The reason which induced the legislature to enact a law is the
heart of the law.
× Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex – when the reason of the
law ceases, the law itself ceases
× Ratio legis est anima – reason of the law is its soul
× A subsequent statute may render a prior law devoid of reason. In
such a case, the later law will operate to repeal the prior law, even
though the two laws contain no conflicting reasons.
× Where a later law has a purpose in conflict with that of a prior
statute on the same subject, the earlier law has lost all meaning
and function and has ceased to exist.
CASES:
Comendador v. De Villa, GR No. 93177, August
2, 1991
1) Issue: whether PD 39, which withdrew the
right to peremptorily challenge members of
a military tribunal, had been rendered
inoperative by PD 2045 proclaiming the
termination of a state of martial law
2) Held: YES! The termination of the martial
law and the dissolution of military tribunals
created thereunder, the reason for the
existence of PD 39 ceased automatically
and the decree itself ceased
People v. Almuete, supra.
1) Agricultural Tenancy Act is repealed by the
Agricultural Land Reform Code
2) Agricultural Tenancy Act – punishes
prereaping or prethreshing of palay on a
date other than that previously set without
the mutual consent of the landlord and
tenant = Share tenancy relationship
3) Agricultural Land Reform Code – abolished
share tenancy relationship, thus does not
punish prereaping or prethreshing of palay
on a date other than that previously set
without the mutual consent of the landlord
and tenant anymore = Leasehold system
On Omissions:
- Where a literal import of the language of a statute shows that words have been
omitted that should have been in the statute in order to carry out its intent and
spirit, the court may supply the omissions.
- Exception: It cannot supply what it thinks the legislature would have supplied had
its attention been called to the omission. (Judicial Legislation)
On Clerical Errors
- The Court may correct clerical errors because it is the duty of the court to give a
statute a sensible construction, one that will effectuate legislative intent.
- It is not judicial legislation. The Court is merely endeavoring to rectify and correct
a clearly clerical error in the wording of the law.
- They must be clearly clerical errors, obvious mistakes, omissions, or misprints.
- Exception: The court cannot correct what they think is due to oversight as shown
by an examination of extraneous circumstances.
(2) ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe statute as a whole
 Super General Rule: a statute should be construed as a whole and each
of its provisions must be given effect.
 The intent or meaning of a statute should be ascertained from the statute
taken as a whole.
 General Rule: in interpreting the meaning and scope of a term used in
the law, a careful review of the whole law involved, as well as the
intendment of law, ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a
whole and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone, must
be made to determine the real intent of the law.
 The use of a general term in a statute does not render the law uncertain,
so long as the term is clear or made so from the whole statute.
 General Rule 1: Where a statute defines a word or phrase employed
therein, the word or phrase should not, by construction, be given a
different meaning. Exception: This rule should not be applied where its
application creates obvious incongruities in the language of the statute,
destroys its purpose, or becomes illogical as a result. As such, it will be
given a meaning that will avoid the aforementioned circumstances.
 General Rule 2: In the absence of a statute-given definition, the words
and phrases should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage
meaning.
 The terms or phrases being part and parcel of the whole statute must
be given effect in their entirety as a harmonious, coordinated, and
integrated unit, not as a mass of heterogeneous and unrelated if not
incongruous terms, clauses, and sentences.
CASES:
Sajonas v. CA, G. R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, supra
Planters Association v. Ponferrada, supra
Aisporna v. CA, supra
b) Harmonize and give effects to all provisions whenever possible; reconcile
apparently conflicting provisions
 Basis: there is a presumption that the legislature has enacted a statute
whose provisions are in harmony and consistent with each other and
conflicting intentions in the same statute are never supposed or
regarded.
 A word or provision should not be construed in isolation from, but should
be interpreted in relation to, the other provisions of a statute or other
statutes dealing on the same subject.
  Should reconciliation be impossible, the Court must reject that one
which is least in accord with the general plan of the whole statute.
 If rejection is impossible, the latter provision shall prevail for it is the later
expression of legislative will. EXCEPTION: It clearly appears that the
intent of the legislature is otherwise.
CASES:
Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v.
Ponferrada, supra
National Tobacco Admin v. COA, 311 SCRA
755 (1999)
1) Whether educational assistance benefit
given to individuals prior to RA 6758 should
continue to be received by them.
2) 1st Sentence Section 12 Ra 6758 – such
other additional compensation not
otherwise specified herein as may be
determined by the DBM shall be deemed
included in the standardized salary rates
herein prescribed
3) 2nd Sentence – such other additional
compensation, whether in cash or in kind,
being received by incumbents only as of
July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standard
salary rates shall continue to be authorized
4) Court ruled that the particular words and
phrases should not be studies a sdetached
and isolated expressions, but the whole and
every part of the statute must be considered
in fixing the meaning of the parts in order to
produce a harmonious whole.
5) Apparently conflicting provisions should be
reconciled and harmonized.
Republic v. CA, 263 SCRA 758 (1996)
1) Whether in cases involving claims for just
compensation under RA 6657 must first be
made before a landowner can resort to the
RTC.
Dreamwork Contruction v. Janiola, supra
(3) Redendo singula singulis: referring each phrase or expression to its
corresponding object
 This requires that the antecedents and consequences should be read
distributively to the effect that each word is to be applied to the subject
to which it appears by context most appropriately related and to which
it is most applicable.
CASE:
King v. Hernandez, supra
1) Whether a Chinese holding a noncontrol
position in a retail establishment comes
within the prohibition against aliens
intervening “in the management operation,
administration, or control whether as an
officer, employee, or laborer therein.
2) The entire scope of personnel activity,
including that of laborers, is covered by the
prohibition against the employment of
aliens.
3) By reading the words management,
operation, administration, or control in
connection with the positions of officer,
employee, or laborer, one cannot draw any
other conclusion that that they cover the
entire range of employment.
(4) Construe Statute in Relation to the Constitution and Other Statutes
a) Supremacy of the Constitution
 The statute should not be interpreted in dependently of the Constitution.
It should be construed in harmony with, and not in violation of, the
Constitution.
b) When statutes admit of two constructions, one constitutional and the other
unconstitutional, construction in favor of constitutionality should be favored.
 To save the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality, it must be
given a reasonable construction that will bring it within the fundamental
law.
 Every intendment of the law should lean towards validity and the court
should favor that construction which gives it the better chance of
surviving the test of constitutionality.
CASE: De la Cruz v. Paras, GR No. 42571-72,
July 25, 1983
c) Statutes in Pari Materia
 Statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same person or
thing, or have the same purpose or object, or cover the same specific or
particular subject matter.
 Even if there is no express provision, two statutes may be in pari materia
provided that they relate to the same specific subject matter.
 Conversely, two or more laws are not in pari materia if they refer to
different specific matters although they both fall under the same broad
subject.
 Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi
modus – every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other
statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
 Construe statues in order to be consistent with itself and other laws
a. Ratio: in enacting a statute, the legislature is presumed to have been
aware of, and have taken into account, prior laws on the subject of
legislation. Otherwise, it would render legislation a useless and idle
ceremony.
 If harmonization is impossible, one has to give way.
CASES:
 Vda. de Urbano v. GSIS, GR No. 137904, Oct
19, 2001
Cabada v. Alunan, 260 SCRA 828 (1996)
Declarador v. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208 August
18, 2006
Naga City v. Agna, GR No. 36049, May 31, 1976
King v. Hernandez, supra
1) The Retail Trade Law implies that the
nationalization of the retail trade is merely
confined to its ownership and not to
management, control, or operation.
2) In pari matria with such law is the Anti-
Dummy Law which punishes acts of
evasion of the laws of nationalization of
certain rights, franchises, or privileges such
as the employment of aliens in a
nationalized business.
(5) Between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves the purpose of
the law should prevail
CASE: Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v.
Ponferrada, supra
(6) Construe statute in relation to the object for which it was enacted
CASE: US v. Toribio, supra
(7)