A.

Answers to Final Exam First Semester 2007-2008 Statutory Construction Atty. Clemente M. Clemente PUP School of Law - SC 111/6:00-8:00PM Friday I. 20 points 2 points each Translate the following Latin terms, and give their meaning according to their application in Statutory Construction: VERBA LEGIS NON EST RECEDENDUM FROM THE WORDS OF THE LAW THERE CAN BE NO DEPARTURE. The basic application of this rule is what is commonly known as the PLAIN-MEANING RULE. When the words of the law are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for Statutory Construction. The Law is to be applied as it is and there is no room for interpretation or construction. RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA LEGIS THE REASON FOR THE LAW IS ITS SPIRIT. The Latin Maxim is resorted to when a doubt occurs from reading the words of the law. While the first rule is verba legis, when the same fails, the reason for the law shall be sought to clarify the ambiguous provision. The reason for the law as set forth in other parts of the statute or using extrinsic aids will guide the courts in ascertaining the real meaning of the doubtful provision of law. MENS LEGISLATORIS INTENT OF THE LEGISLATORS. Generally refers to the legislative intent that is sought or ascertained in Statutory construction. The same may be found in numerous ways and using various aids. DURA LEX SED LEX THE LAW MAY BE HARSH BUT IT IS STILL THE LAW. This has application to criminal or penal statutes that even if the law imposes a harsh penalty courts are without discretion but to impose the penalty prescribed for the crime or offense. This is true because the primary duty of the courts is to apply the law, as and where it is found. EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS THE EXPRESS MENTION OF SOME EXCLUDES ALL OTHERS. The law has application to enumerations contained in the law which are exclusive. When the law provides a list and does not make reference to others to which it applies, that list is exclusive of all others not expressly mentioned therein. EJUSDEM GENERIS SAME SPECIES FOLLOW. In Statutory Construction, the term has application to cases when the law contains an enumeration and at the end of the enumeration the words and others or and the like are found wherein the clear intention of the law is to include in the enumeration, other similar or analogous cases such as those found in the enumeration. Only those which are of the same species as those enumerated are to be regarded as included in the enumeration or falling within its context. CASUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST WHAT HAS BEEN OMITTED IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. There are two kinds of Casus Omissus, Permissive and or Restrictive. The first kind states that Courts are permitted to supplant the insufficiencies of the law when clearly the legislative intent so permits, as when a typographical error has been committed. The second kind disallows courts from making such supplements when

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

the clear intention was to leave the portion omitted. This happens when the amendatory law contains a list that is short of the amended law. The Courts will use the rule to desist from rewriting the omitted provision into the law. H. PARI MATERIA RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. When there are two laws covering the same subject which are irreconcilably inconsistent with each other, one will be struck down as having been repealed by the other. The general idea is that a later law on the same subject repeals an earlier law. This is pursuant to the Civil Code provision that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones (Article 7(1) Civil Code of the Philippines). I. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS ASSOCIATED WORDS. Words of the law are to be read in its context with other provisions. They are not to be taken as separated from each other. The reading of the context will reveal an intention deeper than that which is contained in the reading of a single provision or word. UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUERE DEBEMOS WHEN THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH WE SHOULD NOT. The rule has application to cases when the law speaks in general terms so as not to exclude anything from its application. Courts and lawyers should avoid making special distinctions as to certain classes as not belonging to the application of the law when the clear intention was to apply the same generally. II. 20 points 2 points each How may the following be used as an aid to Statutory Construction? Capitalization of Letters indicates whether the noun is Proper or common and aids the Courts in determining whether the law applies generally or to a particular person or thing or class of person. Presumptions these indicate upon which party has the burden of proof. The failure to prove the case by the degree of proof required in a certain case to overturn such presumption should prompt the court to rely and rule on the basis of the presumption. Example: In Criminal Cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt has the effect of dismissing the criminal case for insufficiency of evidence. Headnotes or Epigraphs these are convenient indicators of the index of the statute. Although weak as an aid to construction and interpretation, the same may nevertheless be used to clarify an ambiguity. As indices of the law, the same may serve to particularize the subject and thus resolve the ambiguity that may be found. Punctuation Marks are separators of ideas and they are indicators of intent to the application of the law. They are grammatical tools used to determine the separation of thoughts from each other, and to which thought or clause a particular phrase applies. Examples of this are the case of Florentino vs. PNB and People vs. Subido, where the comma in the text indicated what the intention of the author was. Necessary Implication(s) that which is plainly implied form the language is much a part of it as that which is expressed. Unavoidable inferences guide the courts in determining legislative intent in cases where the silence of the law leaves a vacuum or absurd application thereof. This is illustrated best by the case of City of Manila vs. Gomez. The basis for this authority is Article 9 of the Civil Code which

J.

A. B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G. H.

I.

J.

provides that no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. Legislative Debates are tools of construction that show the intention of the legislators in enacting a statute, they are resorted to in order to resolve ambiguities, especially when a party a different meaning from the ordinary and plain meaning of any term used in the law. Legislative Policy is the guiding light of the interpretation of a law. The policy sets forth the evils sought to be avoided, the acts sought to be regulated and the reason for the enactment of the law. Lingual Text the administrative code provides that in case of conflict in the construction of a law, the law shall be interpreted in accordance with the language of the text by which it is enacted, unless the lingual text does not indicate a true intent or does not pose a plausible interpretation in which case the original text shall be resorted to. Preamble the preamble sets forth the facts from which the law originated, the evils that are sought to be prevented, the problems that are supposed to be remedied, as well as the situations that are to be addressed or regulated by the Law. The case that best exemplifies the use of this aid is the case of People vs. Purisima. Title it sets forth the subject of the law. The title shall be resorted to when there is a need to restrict or expand the scope of the law, as the constitution provides that every bill passed by Congress shall contain only one subject which shall be expressed in the Title thereof.

III. 10 points 5 points each A. Distinguish Ejusdem Generis from Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. Explain. Ejusdem Generis is applicable when the law contains an enumeration and mentions in the end of the list of expansive terms to include things of the same species as those enumerated, while Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is applicable when the list is exclusive. The former is expansive, the latter is restrictive. B. Distinguish Casus Omissus Pro Habendus Est from Judicial Legislation. Explain. Casus Omissus Pro Habendus Est, restrictive, does not allow the Courts to write into the law that which was clearly omitted from an enumeration because the law presumes that such omission was intentional. Casus Omissus Pro Habendus Est, permissive, allows the courts to supplant to the law what was not intentionally omitted therefrom. This happens when the legislature has committed a typographical error in its enactment, this is allowed because the non-supplanting may result to an absurdity in the law. IV. 10 points A. What is a SEPARABILITY CLAUSE? (2 points) That part of the Law which provides that when any of its part(s) are declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain valid and binding or continue to be in force and effect. B. What is the underlying reason behind the inclusion of a Separability Clause in a Statute? (4 points) There is a presumption in law that the legislature intended the entire law to be valid and the declaration of one or some of its provisions would invalidate the entire law.

This is also known as the principle of INDIVISIBILTY of statutes. The inclusion of a separability clause indicates the intention of the legislature to make the law divisible. C. Distinguish between INDIVISIBLE and DIVISIBLE STATUTES? (4 points) INDIVISIBLE statutes are those which cannot stand alone when any of its provisions is declared invalid. DIVISIBLE statutes on the other hand are those which can stand on their own when one or some of its provisions is declared invalid. Even if an INDIVISIBLE statute includes a separability clause , the declaration of any of its provisions as invalid would render the entire statute invalid. This is illustrated by the case of Bara Lidasan vs. Comelec.

V. 10 points A. What is the effect of the declaration of a law as unconstitutional? (2 points) When the courts declare the law as inconsistent with the Constitution, the same shall become null and void and the law produces no effect and vests no right. (Article 7 [2], Civil Code of the Philippines. B. What are the requisites for the Exercise of Judicial Review on Constitutionality of a Statute according to the case of Dumlao v. Comelec? (4 points) 1. The existence of an actual case or controversy; 2. Brought by the Proper Party with Locus Standi; 3. The Constitutional issue must be brought at the earliest possible opportunity; 4. The Constitutional issue must be the Lis Mota of the Case meaning that the same cannot be decided without the constitutional issue. C. Cite a provision of law which provides for the presumption of the Legality of Statute. (2 points) In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of the law, it is presumed that the legislative body intended right and justice to prevail. (Article 10, Civil Code of the Philippines) D. What is the reason for the prospectivity of judicial doctrines or precedents? (2 points) (1) The language of Articles 7 (2) and 8 of the Civil Code is worded in such a way that the application thereof is prospective. Article 7 (2) the former SHALL be void Article 8 . SHALL form part of... OR (2) In the case of People vs Jabinal the Courts said that Decisions of the Court though not in themselves laws are nevertheless evidence of what the law mean, and this is the reason why under article 8 of the Civil Code Judicial Decisions applying or interpreting the law or the constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Even if the doctrine was overruled, the new doctrine should apply prospectively, and should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. VI. 15 points The Constitution provides that it shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions (Article XVIII Transitory Provisions, Section 27). The Civil Code provides that Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. This Code shall take effect one year after its publication (Article 2, Republic Act No. 386, Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended by E.O. No. 200). Consequently, the Constitution prior to the

conduct of the plebiscite was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, after its ratification however, it was never published. Ms. Nancy Boriga filed a Petition with the Supreme Court to declare the Constitution as not effective and to declare the 1973 Constitution as the one which is still in force and effect. She anchors her Petition on the Civil Code Provision on publication of laws for its effectivity, as well as the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Tanada v. Tuvera which declared that the publication of the law is an indispensible requirement for its effectivity. The Solicitor General, in representation of the Republic of the Philippines, filed its Comment/Opposition to the Petition stating that the later law (1987 Constitution) repealed the earlier law (Civil Code provisions). Nancy Boriga filed her Reply to the Comment/Opposition stating that the contention of the Solicitor General is without merit because the rule cited does not apply because the Constitution is a General Law and the Civil Code is a Specific Law. A. Is the Constitution a statute? Explain. (5 points) NO. A Statute by definition is an enactment of legislature. The Constitution is ratified directly by the People.. It is firstly not an enactment. Secondly, it is not an act of legislature. In the general sense the Constitution is a law, however, the same is not a statute by definition. B. If you were an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court called upon to draft the ponencia, how would you rule on the main case and on each and every argument of the parties? (10 points) The Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. CONTENTION IN THE PETITION The contention of Nancy Boriga is without merit, the Civil Code provision is inapplicable to the case at bar. The reason lies with the principle of the Supremacy of the Constitution. Constitutions are not ratified using other laws but previous Constitutions. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in accordance with the 1986 Freedom Constitution installed through the Freedom Government headed by President Corazon C. Aquino. The Tanada vs. Tuvera rulings are also inapplicable to support her contention because in the present case, the law was already published in its entirety prior to the ratification in a plebiscite. Even if we were to apply the doctrine laid down in those cases, there had already been substantial compliance with the publication requirement. When the law does not distinguish so must we. In this case there is nothing in the Civil Code provision which specifically provides that the law must be published after the enactment. COMMENT/OPPOSITION The contention of the Solicitor General is also without merit. The Constitution did not repeal the Civil Code provision. In order that repeals may take place, in this case implied repeal, the two laws or provisions of law should be in pari materia or relating to the same subject matter, and they are irreconcilably in conflict with each other. This basic element of implied repeals was not met. Furthermore, the Civil Code provision is still in force and effect and applies to laws in general. REPLY The Reply of Nancy Boriga was clearly misplaced. She misapplied the Rules on Statutory Construction by making a wrong classification of the Laws. In this case, the general law or provision is the Civil Code provision, and the specific law or provision is the Constitutional Provision. The reason for this is that the Constitutional provision relates only to the 1987 Constitution, and the Civil Code provision relates to all laws in general. In such cases, the specific provision is deemed to be an exception to the

general provision. This is the ruling of the Court in the case of Butuan Sawmill vs. City of Butuan. VII. 10 points 2 points each Discuss the Specific Rules of Construction of the following: A. Rules of Court Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides: Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. B. Insurance Contracts Where the terms of the policy are ambiguous, uncertain or doubtful, they should be interpreted strictly against the insurance company (insurer) and liberally in favor of the insured. C. Expropriation Laws Generally, expropriation laws since the same is analogous to tax laws are to be strictly construed against the state and in favor of the people. The reason for this is the nature of the power, that is, confiscatory. The same invades the rights of the people to peaceful enjoyment of their property. The Constitution has provided safeguards for the exercise of the power of eminent domain that is the taking of private property must be for public use and upon payment of just compensation. It also provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. D. Penal Laws Penal laws are strictly construed against the state and in favor of the offender/accused. So in case of doubt in the construction or interpretation of penal laws, the same shall be ruled in favor of the accused. E. Tax Laws GENERAL RULE: Tax or Revenue Laws, in as much as they impose special burdens upon taxpayers, they are construed most strongly against government and in favor of the taxpayer. EXCEPTION: In case of claims for Tax Exemptions, the same does not apply, the taxpayer must show clearly and unmistakeably that he falls under the exemption. Claims for tax exemption being against the inherent power of the state which is vital to its existence must be construed STRICTISSIMI JURIS against the taxpayer and in favor of the government. EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCEPTIONS: (1) Exemptions of Charitable, Religious and Educational Institutions, and; (2) Exemptions in favor of Government.