University of Cebu

SCHOOL OF LAW
Banilad, Cebu City

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
COURSE OUTLINE
By: Atty. Edgardo Bojos Luardo, Jr.

I. STATUTES
A. Definition
B. Distinguished from
1. Constitution
2. Ordinances
3. Administrative orders
C. Classification
1. According to duration: permanent vs. temporary
a. GR: Permanent; EXC: law with sunset clause; emergency measures (Read Sec. 23(2),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution)
CASE:
Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949 (read also the resolution
on September 16, 1949)
Rodriguez v. Gella, G.R. No. L-6266, February 2, 1953
2. According to time of applicability: prospective vs. retroactive
3. According to operation: declaratory; curative
4. According to compliance requirement: mandatory vs. directory
5. According to WON rights are given: substantive vs. non-substantive (remedial)
6. According to form: affirmative vs. negative
7. According to WON there is a penal provision: penal vs. non-penal
D. Enactment (How a bill becomes a law)
1. Legislative power: vested on Congress (Read Sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution)
2. Procedure (Read Sec 24, 25, 26 and 27, Art. VI of the Constitution)
E. Enrolled Bill doctrine
CASES:
Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
F. Parts of Law
1. Title
a. Single subject rule [Read Section 26 (1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution]
CASES:
Lidasan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003
2. Enacting clause
3. Preamble (seldom included)
4. Body (purview) of the statute
5. Separability clause
G. Effectivity (See Art. 2, Civil Code)
1. Publication requirement
CASES:
Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985 (decision); December 29, 1986
(resolution of the M.R.)
Phil. Veterans Bank Employees Union v. Vega, G.R. No. 105364, June 28, 2001
(deviation from Tañada v. Tuvera)
2. GR: Prospective operation of laws (Art. 4, Civil Code)
a. Exception to prospectivity
(1) law provides for retroactive application
(2) penal provision favorable to the accused
CASE:
People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014  SHOULD BE: Pang v.
People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017
(3) rules of procedure
CASE: Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
b. Exception to exception
(1) rule of procedure intended to apply prospectively
CASE: People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003
 (2) rules that are substantive in character
CASE: In Re Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan, A.C. 9676, April 2, 2018
H. Amendments
1. Coverage: only specific provisions
2. Form
a. General rule: express
b. Exception: amendment by implication
3. Construction of amendments
CASE: Estrada v. Caseda, G.R. No. L-1560, October 25, 1949
4. Operation of amendments
a. Generally, prospective
b. Exception: express provision on retroactivity
c. Exception to the exception: when vested rights are impaired
5. Effect on jurisdiction of courts
6. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
I. Revision and Codification
1. Construction: harmonize the different provisions of the revised statute or code
2. Effect of omission of provision/s of the old laws
a. Generally: what is omitted is deemed repealed
b. Exception: revised statute provides otherwise
3. Effect of change in phraseology
CASE:
Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009
People v. Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962
J. Repeals
1. Civil Code provision on repeals [Art. 7 (1), NCC]
2. Distinguished from Amendments
3. General Rule: Non-retroactive application
CASE: Tac-an v. CA, G.R. No. L-38736 May 21, 1984
4. Forms of repeal
a. Express repeal
b. Implied repeal
(1) Presumption Against Implied Repeal
CASE: National Power Corporation v. Angas, G.R. Nos. 60225-26, May 8, 1992
(2) Categories of implied repeal
a) Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws with similar subject matter
CASES:
Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-31711, September 30, 1971
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, December 12, 1995
University of the Philippines v. City Treasurer of Quezon City, G.R. No.
214044, June 19, 2019
b) Later law covers whole subject of earlier law AND is clearly intended as a
substitute
CASE: People v. Almuete, G.R. No. L-26551, February 27, 1976
5. Nature of repealing clause: predicated on substantial (irreconcilable) conflict between prior
and later laws
6. Earlier law vs. later law
a. Irreconcilable inconsistency of two laws: later law prevails
CASE: David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997
b. Earlier special law vs. later general law
(1) Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does not repeal
earlier special law)
CASE: Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71
December 7, 1995
(2) Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed an exception
to the later general law
CASE: Magtajas v. Pryce properties Corp., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
(3) Exceptions
a) Later general enactment intended to cover the whole subject and to repeal the
all prior laws inconsistent therewith
CASE: Gaerlan v. Catubig, G.R. No. L-23964, June 1, 1966
b) Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates specific
rule
CASE: City of Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968
c) manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the earlier special law
CASE: City Government of San Pablo v. Reyes, G.R. No. 127708, March
25, 1999
 c. Earlier general law vs. later special law – Effect: later special law deemed an exception
to earlier general law
CASES:
Lagman v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-23305, June 30, 1966
Republic v. Yahon, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
7. Effect of Repeal
a. On when repealed law is rendered inoperative: date repealing act takes effect
b. On jurisdiction already acquired by courts: not lost by subsequent repeal or expiration
of the law giving the jurisdiction
(1) But courts are to use the prevailing law in disposing of the merits of the case
a) Exception: where vested rights are impaired
c. On contracts previously had under the repealed law
d. On taxes assessed under the repealed tax law
e. On municipal offices under the old charter of an LGU
8. Effect of Repeal or Declaration of Unconstitutionality of Repealing law
CASE: JG Summit Holdings v. CA, G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000 (decision);
September 24, 2003 (resolution of 1st MR); January 31, 2005 (resolution of 2nd MR)
9. Only a law can repeal another law
CASES:
Palanca v. CA, G.R. No. 106685, December 2, 1994
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5,
2014
10. No such thing as irrepealable law
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011

II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

A. In General
1. Definition
2. Importance
B. Construction vs. Interpretation
C. When Construction is Necessary
1. Purpose: to determine spirit of the law/legislative intent in case of ambiguity of the statute
2. Effect when the text of the statute utterly fails to express the legislative intent
D. Power to Construe: Judicial Function
1. Separation of Powers
2. Interrelationship/Overlap of Powers
a. Executive and Legislative Powers
b. Executive and Judicial Powers
c. Judicial and Legislative Powers
CASE: Floresca v. Philex Mining 136 SCRA 506
3. Power of Judicial Review: Requisites
4. Declaration of unconstitutionality of statutes
a. Doctrine of constitutional supremacy
(1) Constitution superior to statutes
(2) Executive issuances cannot prevail over statutory policy
CASE: Petitioner-Organizations v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147036-37,
April 10, 2012
b. Effect
c. Partial unconstitutionality: separable provisions/with separability clause
CASES:
Lidasan v. COMELEC, supra
Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997
d. Doctrine of Relative of Constitutionality
CASE: Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BSP, 446 SCRA 299
5. Reversal of Judicial Construction
6. Promulgation: Operative Act for the Effectivity of a Decision
CASES:
Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178831-32, July 30, 2009
See also Araneta v. Dinglasan, supra [Re: effect of the death of a justice J. Perfecto]
7. Rulings of the SC (in construing a statute)
a. Part of Legal System (See Art. 8, NCC)
b. Judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date that law was originally
passed
CASES:
Senarillos v. Hermosisima, G.R. No. L-10662, December 14, 1956
Phil. International Trading Corp. v. COA, G.R. No. 205837, November 21, 2017
c. Generally, no retroactive effect
CASES:
 People v. Santayana, G.R. No. L-22291, November 15, 1976 (in relation to People
v. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967 and People v. Macarandang, G.R. No.
L-12088, December 23, 1959)
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996
d. SC ruling cannot be undone by Congress by re-enacting a provision previously
declared unconstitutional
CASE: Sameer Oversees Placement v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

III. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULES

A. Ratio Legis: Spirit of the law/Legislative Intent as the Primary Object
1. As expressed in the literal reading of the text
a. Verba legis (literal or plain meaning rule)
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
CASES:
Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561
a) Exception: Inapplicability in criminal cases
CASE: People v. Santayana, 74 SCRA 25 in relation to People v. Mapa, 20
SCRA 1164
2. As determined through Construction
a. General Rule: Statute must be capable of construction, otherwise inoperative
CASE: Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106
b. Specific Rules
(1) Mens Legislatoris: Ascertain spirit/intent/purpose of the law
CASES:
Matabuena v. Cervantes, 38 SCRA 284
King v. Hernandez, 114 SCRA 730
Bustamante v. NLRC, supra
US v. Toribio, 15 Phil 85
Bocobo v. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520
Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v. Ponferrada, G.R. No. 114087, October
26, 1999
a) Instance whcomen the literal import must yield to spirit/intent: in election-related
cases
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
CASES:
Comendador v. De Villa, GR No. 93177, August 2, 1991
People v. Almuete, supra
(2) ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe statute as a whole
CASE:
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
a) Harmonize and give effects to all provisions whenever possible; reconcile
apparently conflicting provisions
CASES:
Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v. Ponferrada, supra
National Tobacco Admin v. COA, 311 SCRA 755 (1999)
Republic v. CA, 263 SCRA 758 (1996)
Dreamwork Contruction v. Janiola, supra
(3) Redendo singula singulis
CASE:
King v. Hernandez, supra
(4) Construe Statute in Relation to the Constitution and Other Statutes
a) Supremacy of the Constitution
b) When statutes admit of two constructions, one constitutional and the other
unconstitutional, construction in favor of constitutionality should be favoured
CASE: De la Cruz v. Paras, GR No. 42571-72, July 25, 1983
c) Statutes in Pari Materia
 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
(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) When the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish
CASES:
Ty-Delgado v. HRET, G.R. No. 219603, January 26, 2016
Republic v. Manalo, supra
Ramirez v. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
Garvida v. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)
(8) Meaning of Words and Phrases
a) Statutory definition
CASE: Victorias Milling v. Social Security Commission, 114 SCRA 555
(1962)
b) Ordinary sense of the words vs. technical or legal meaning
CASES:
Matuguina Integrated Wood v. CA, 263 SCRA 490 (1996)
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996)
Grego v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997)
c) Specific words
1. “May” vs. “Shall”
CASES:
Director of Lands v. CA, 276 SCRA 276 (1997)
Capati v. Ocampo, 113 SCRA 799 (1982)
PCFI v. NTC and PLDT, 131 SCRA 200 (1984) (But see dissent of Abad
Santos, J.)
Berces v. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539 (1995)
Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, supra
2. “Or” vs. “And”
CASES:
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529,
April 29, 2010
GMCR v. Bell Telecom, 271 SCRA 790 (1997)
Hda. Luisita Inc. v. PARC, G.R. No. 171101, Resolution, November 22,
2011
Gonzales v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967
Romulo, Mabanta, et al. v. HDMF, G.R. No. 131082. June 19, 2000
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197
3. “Principally”/”Primarily” vs. “Exclusively”
CASES:
Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
Alfon v. Republic, 97 SCRA 859 (1980)
Floresca v. Philex Mining, supra
Chavez v. NHA, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Vda. de Urbano v. GSIS, supra
4. “Term” vs. “Tenure”
CASE: Aparri v. CA, 127 SCRA 231 (1984)
5. “Every”
CASE: NHC v. Juco, G.R. No. L-64313 January 17, 1985 (Read however
the latter case of NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-69870 November 29,
1988)
6. “foreigner”
CASE: Gatchalian v. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 435 1970)
7. “government”
CASE: C & C Commercial v. NAWASA, 21 SCRA 984 (1967)
8. “national government”
CASE: Central Bank v. CA, 63 SCRA 431 (1975)
9. “employer”
CASE: Republic v. Yahon, supra
10. “reinstatement”
CASE: Grego v. COMELEC, supra
 d) Specific Phrases/Clauses
1. Provisos
a. Purpose: to limit application of provision; or to except something
therefrom; or to qualify or restrain its general application; or
exceptionally, to enlarge instead of restrict
CASE: U.S. v. Sto. Nino, 13 Phil 141 (1909)
b. What a proviso qualifies: only the phrase immediately preceding it
CASES:
ALU-TUCP v. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 (1994)
Arenas v. San Carlos City, 82 SCRA 318
2. Exceptions
a. Distinguished from provisos
b. Illustrations
CASES:
Meralco v. PUEA, 79 SCRA 409 (1947)
Samson v. CA, 145 SCRA 654 (1986)
e) Associated Words
1. Noscitur A Sociis (where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous, consider
the company of words in which it is associated to ascertain the correct
construction)
CASES:
Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993)
Magtajas v. Pryce, supra
Aisporna v. CA, supra
2. Ejusdem Generis (literally: same kind or species; general word or phrase
that follow an enumeration of particular and specific words, which are of the
class or kind, are restricted only to things or cases of the same kind or class
as those specifically mentioned)
CASES:
NPC v. Angas, supra  NOTE: modified rate of interest
Republic v. Migriño, 189 SCRA 289 (1990)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
Colgate-Palmolive v. Jimenez, 1 Phil 267 (1961)
RC Archbishop of Manila v. SSC, 1 SCRA 10 (1961)
3. Expressio Unios est Exclusio Alterius (opposite of the doctrine of necessary
implication: express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies
the exclusion of all others)
CASES:
Santos v. Pano, 120 SCRA 8 (1983)
Samson v. CA, supra
Catu v. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008
Gomez v. Ventura, 54 Phil 726 (1930)
Javellana v. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042 (1962)
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, supra
Commissioner of Customs v. CTA, 224 SCRA 665 (1993)
4. Cassus Omissus (a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration
must be held to have been omitted intentionally)
CASES:
People v. Manantan, supra
Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. CTA, supra
5. Doctrine of last antecedent (qualifying words restrict or modify only words
or phrases to which they are immediately associated)
CASES:
Pangilinan v. Alvendia, 101 Phil 794 (1957)
Florentino v. PNB, 98 Phil 959 (1956)
Mapa v. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76 (1989)
People v. Tamani, 55 SCRA 153 (1973)
Amadora v. CA, 160 SCRA 315 (1988)
c. Rules on Implications
(1) Doctrine of Necessary Implication (what is implied in a statute is as much a part
thereof as that which is expressed; opposite of the rule of expressio unios est
exclusio alterius)
CASES:
Chua v. CSC, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)
Batungbakal v. National Development Co., 93 Phil 182 (1953)
B. Basic Rules of Construing Specific Statutes
1. Political Laws
a. Election Laws
 CASES:
Villanueva v. COMELEC, supra
Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003
b. Local Government Code (See Section 5, RA 7610)
c. Expropriation laws
d. Naturalization laws
2. Labor and Social Legislation
CASES:
IBAA Employees Union v. Inciong, supra
Manahan v. ECC, 104 SCRA 198
Villavert v. ECC, 110 SCRA 223
Floresca v. Philex Mining, supra
3. Penal Statutes: strictly against the State; liberally in favor of the accused
CASES:
People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
People v. Manantan, supra
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, supra
4. Tax Laws
a) Those imposing taxes and custom duties
b) Those granting exemptions
5. Civil Law
a) Family Law
b) Wills and Succession
c) Obligations and Contracts (Read Art. 1370-1379, NCC)
6. Remedial legislation – liberally construed
CASE: City of Baguio v. Marcos, 27 SCRA 342 (1969)

IV. AIDS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

A. Public Policy sought to be implemented
CASES:
Tinio v. Francis, 98 Phil. 32 (1955)
Cajiuat v. Mathay, 124 SCRA 710 (1983)
Planters Association of Negros, Inc. v. Ponferrada, supra
B. Presumptions
1. Of Constitutionality/Validity of Statutes
CASES:
NHA v. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)  SUPERSEDED by EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-
59603, April 29, 1987
Tano v. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
Rama v. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, December 06, 2016
2. Of the Beneficial Purpose of Statutes
3. Of Prospective Application
CASES:
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 317 (1997)
Grego v. COMELEC, supra
4. In favor of right and justice
CASE: Salvacion v. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)
5. Against Absurdity
CASE: Oliveros v. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 (1974)
6. Against Injustice and Against Undesirable Consequences
CASES:
Amatan v. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995)
Ursua v. CA, 256 SCRA 147 (1996)
7. Against Implied Repeals
CASES:
NPC v. Province of Lanao del Sur, 264 SCRA 271 (1996)
Velunta v. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, 157 SCRA 147 (1988)
C. Intrinsic Aids
1. Title
CASES:
City of Baguio v. Marcos, supra  [Compare with Director of Lands v. Abaja, infra]
Ebarle v. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 (1987)
2. Preamble
CASES:
Pp. v. Purisima, supra
Pp. v. Echavez, 95 SCRA 663 (1980)
3. Body of the statute
a. Context of the whole text
 CASES:
Aisporna v. CA, 113 SCRA 459
CIR v. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992)
b. Punctuation marks
CASE: Agcaoili v. Suguitan, 48 Phil 678 (1926)
4. Head notes and epigraphs of sections
CASES:
Pp. v. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933)
Fule v. CA, G.R. No. L-40502, November 29, 1976
D. Extrinsic Aids
1. Legislative History
a. President’s message to the Legislature
CASE: Camacho v. CIR, 80 Phil 848 (1948)
b. Explanatory Note of the author/s
CASE: Nepomuceno v. Ocampo, 95 Phil 292 (1954)
c. Committee Reports on the legislative investigations and public hearings
d. Sponsorship Speech
e. Debates and Deliberations
CASES:
Phil. Assn. of Gov’t Retirees, Inc. v. GSIS, 121 Phil 1402 (1965)
Disini v. Secretary, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014 (re provision on cybersex)
f. Changes in the phraseology before final approval
CASES:
Palanca v. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 (1920)
Commissioner of Customs v. CTA, supra
g. Amendment by deletion
CASES:
Gloria v. CA, 306 SCRA 287 (1999)
Buenaseda v. Flavier, supra
RC Archbishop of Manila v. SSC, supra
People v. Manantan, supra
h. Prior laws from which the statute is based
CASES:
Director of Lands v. Abaja, 63 Phil 559 (1936)  [Compare with City of Baguio v.
Marcos]
Salaysay v. Castro, 98 Phil 364 (1956)
Ursua v. CA, supra
i. Origin of Adopted Statute
(1) Limitations
CASE: Procter & Gamble v. Commissioner of Customs, 23 SCRA 691 (1968)
j. Legislative history to determine intent
CASES:
Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001
David v. COMELEC, supra
2. Contemporary Construction
a. Executive Construction
CASES:
San Miguel Corp. v. Inciong, 103 SCRA 139 (1981)
Maceda v. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771 (1991)
(1) Weight: entitled to great weight
CASES:
Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. CA, 203 SCRA 504 (1991)
Philippine Sugar Centrals Agency v. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil 143 (1927)
(2) erroneous construction: does not bind the courts; does not preclude judicial
correction nor create rights; exception
CASES:
Chartered Bank Employees Union v. Ople, supra
Legaspi v. Executive Secretary, 68 SCRA 253 (1975)
ABS-CBN v. CTA, 108 SCRA 142 (1981)
b. Legislative Interpretation
CASE: Endencia v. David, 93 Phil 696 (1953)
3. Stare decisis
CASES:
Pines City Educational Center v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 (1993)
People v. Macadaeg, 91 Phil 410 (1952)
a. Ratio decidendi vs. obiter dictum
CASE: Delta Motors v. CA, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)
b. Limitations of stare decisis
 CASE: Koppel (Phils.), Inc. v. Yatco, 77 Phil 496 (1946)

V. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
A. Primary purpose: to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers
CASES:
JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
B. Rules of Constitutional Construction
1. Apply rules of Statutory Construction
CASE: Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
2. If no ambiguity: Verba legis
a. Give ordinary meaning to the words
CASES:
Saguisag v. Ochoa, January 12, 2016, G.R. No. 212426
Tano v. Socrates, supra
Ordillo v. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1992)
(1) Exception: where technical terms are employed
b. Words are used in a broad sense to cover all possible contingencies
3. If ambiguity exists
a. Rules
(1) Ratio Legis Est Anima: Consider intent of the framers/object to be accomplished
CASES:
Legaspi v. Minister of Finance, 115 SCRA 418 (1982)
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
(2) ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe the constitution as a whole
CASES:
Kida v. Senate, supra
Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 (Read also the discussions
in the dissent of J. Leonen)
(3) Self-executing rather than needs an implementing statute
CASE: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
(4) Mandatory rather than directory
CASE: Marcelino v. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)
(5) Prospective rather than retroactive
CASES:
Peralta v. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil 285 (1945)
Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996)
(6) reddendo singula singulis
CASE: Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November
10, 2003
b. Aids
(1) Intrinsic Aids
a) Language of the constitution itself
b) Interpret Constitution as whole
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary, 235 SCRA 630 (1994) (construction of Sec.
24, Art. VI, Constitution)
(2) Extrinsic Aids
a) History or realities at the time of the adoption
b) Object sought to be accomplished
c) Proceedings/debates of the Convention
CASES:
Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
Montejo v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)
d) Changes in the phraseology
CASE: Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
e) Previous laws and judicial decisions
f) Consequences of alternative (more than one) constructions
g) Contemporaneous legislative construction
CASE: De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil 289 (1950)
h) Utterances during the proceedings & contemporaneous writings of the framers
CASE: Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946)