BASIC FRAMEWORK IN

CONSTRUCTION
Legislative Intent
 Object of construction is to ascertain the intention of
the legislature, to the end that the same may be
enforced
 Meaning (literal) and Intention (may be outside the
literal meaning) must be sought first in the language
of the statute itself:
 CASE: Ramirez vs CA and Garcia (Anti-wiretapping)
Verba Legis
 Plain meaning rule - Statute must be interpreted
literally though the court should be convinced that
some other meaning was really intended by the law
making power and even though the literal
interpretation should defeat the very purposes of
the enactment. (with exceptions)
 CASES: Globe Mackay Cable et al vs. NLRC (Labor
Code re security of tenure)
Felicito Basbacio vs. Office of the Secretary,
DOJ (Board of Claims)
Statutes as a Whole
 Legislative intent must be ascertained from a
consideration of the statute as a whole and not
merely of a particular provision.
A word or phrase might convey a meaning different
from the one intended if taken in the abstract eg. a
general provision may have limited application if read
with other provisions
 Effect and meaning must be given to every part of the
statute which is being subjected to construction (not to
be presumed that legislature used any useless word)
 Court should construe all of the constituent parts of the
statute together, and seek to ascertain the legislative
intent from the whole act, considering every provision
thereof in the light of the general purpose and object
of the act itself and endeavoring to make every part
effective, harmonious and sensible.
 Court should avoid absurd consequences and refuse to
regard any word as superfluous unless it is clearly
unavoidable.
 CASES: JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs.
NRLC and delos Santos (POEA Rules re
appeal bond)
Radiola Toshiba Phils, Inc. vs. IAC (Insolvency
Law re attachment)
Spirit and Purpose of the Law
 Exception to Verba Legis Rule
 When literal interpretation would lead to absurd and
mischievous consequences or would thwart or
contravene the manifest purpose of the legislature in its
enactment, it should be construed according to its spirit
and reason, disregarding or modifying so far as may
be necessary the strict letter of the law:
 A case which falls within the letter of a statute may not be
governed by the statute because it is not within the intention
of the legislature
 Statutes may be extended to cases not within the literal
import of the terms if plainly meant to be included
 NOT APPLICABLE if statute is free from AMBIGUITY
(there is no doubt on the meaning and intent)
 A construction that gives to the language used in a
statute a meaning that does not accomplish the
purpose of which the statute was enacted should be
rejected
 CASE: Manuel de Guia vs. COMELECA (synchronized
election re Metro Manila districts)
 Between two statutory interpretations, that which
better serves the purpose of the law should prevail
 CASE: Elena Salenillas and Bernardino Salenillas vs.
CA, et al (Sec 119 Public Land Act)
 When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself
ceases
 CASE: B/Gen. Commendador et al vs Camera et al (CA
408 re challenges GCM, PD 39/PD 1498 MT and Proc.
No. 2045)
IMPLICATIONS
 Doctrine of Necessary Implications
 The implications and intendments arising from the
language of a statute are as much a part of it as if
they had been expressed. But it is only the
necessary implications which may thus be read into
the statute
TEST: The implication must be so strong in its probability
that the contrary thereof cannot be reasonably
supposed.
  CASES: Lydia O. Chua vs. CSC and NIA (Early
retirement re co-terminus employee)
City of Manila and City Treasurer vs. Judge
Amador E. Gomez et.al (Tax ordinance, SEF)
 Example of Implications:
 Grant of power right or privilege deemed to include all
incidental power, right or privilege
 Implications in a grant of jurisdiction

 Remedy implied from a Right

CASUS OMISSUS
 When a statute makes specific provisions in regard to
several enumerated cases or objects, but omits to make
any provision for a case or object which is analogous to
those enumerated, or which stands upon the same
reason, and is therefore within the general scope of the
statute, and it appears that such case or object was
omitted by inadvertence or because it was overlooked
or unforeseen, it is called a “casus omissus”. Such
omissions can be supplied by the courts.
 CASE: People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo
Manantan (Revised Election Code re prohibition of
justice of the peace)
STARE DECISIS
 Policy of Courts to stand by precedent and not
disturb settled points. When the court has once laid
down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and
apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same, regardless of whether the
parties and property are the same.
 CASE: J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc. et al. vs. Hon.
Hermino Mariano et al. (OCT 735)
Next Topic
Construction and Interpretation of Phrases