JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: Statutory Construction Professor: Atty. Virgel Amor O.

Vallejos

No. of Units: Two (2)

Semester/SY: 1st Semester SY 2019-2020

Pre-requisites: N/A

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

As briefly defined, Statutory Construction is the process of determining

the meaning of statutes, law, rules, regulations and ordinances for the purpose
of applying them in the most accurate and proper manner consistent with the
intent of the framers thereof. The necessity and relevance of such process of
determination was due to the fact that there are still legislations which are
sometimes ambiguous, vague and conflicting enough to support several
interpretations. In this regard, this course will focus on the manner on how the
courts will address such ambiguity with the aid of useful materials and resources
readily available in order to ascertain the real intention of the legislature thereby
of preventing absurdity of laws and injustice.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this course, students will be knowledgeable on how the

courts address ambiguity of legislations and be able to determine, enumerate
and elaborate on the factors considered by the judiciary in resolving not only
ambiguous but conflicting provision/s of same or different legislations.

III. TEACHING METHODOLOGY

The modified Socratic method or question and answer system shall be the
principal method of instruction to enable students to think clearly under
pressure, learn to analyze problem situations and develop in them a critical
attitude towards the subject matter being discussed. However, due to the
increase in the number of decided cases by the Supreme Court and the number
of new laws enacted by Congress, modern teaching techniques shall be adopted.
Group discussions, role-playing, moot court and other methods may be also used
as additional methods of instruction.

IV. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING SYSTEM

Course Requirements Grade Breakdown

Attendance, participation, 15%
quizzes and writing exercises
 Case Digests 15%
Exams
a) Midterms 30%
b) Finals 40%

V. COURSE POLICIES

1. The JMC College of law requires compliance with the highest standards of
academic performance, personal integrity, and self-discipline. Attendance
will be checked at the start of every class. The Law School’s rules and
regulations on attendance apply.
2. Students shall come to class decently dressed in appropriate attire.
Informal or house attire (i.e., shorts, undershirts, pajamas, flip-flop
slippers, et.) is absolutely prohibited.
3. Step out of the class if you need to use your mobile phone.
4. The students should come to class prepared- ready to recite and discuss
the topic at hand. Being prepared and ready is the best preparation.
5. All cases shall be written in a logbook.
6. As a general rule, no special examination except when justified by
urgency/necessity.

VI. COURSE OUTLINE

Week 1
June __, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part I – Preliminary Considerations

1. Legal System in the Philippines

2. Historical Overview
3. Branches of Government
4. Primary Source of Philippine Laws
5. Administrative Regulations: Rule-Making Power
6. Court Decisions: Stare Decisis
7. International Law: Incorporation Clause
8. Local Legislative Powers: Ordinances

Week 2
July __, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part II –Statutory Construction, Concepts, Purpose, Interpretation and

Effects

1. What is Statutory Construction?

Case:
Caltex v. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
2. Definition of Statutory Interpretation
3. Distinctions Between Construction and Interpretation
4. Situs of Construction and Interpretation
5. Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet
 Cases:
People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974
Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001

6. When is there room for interpretation or construction?

Cases:
Songco v. NLRC, GR L-50999 March 23, 1990
Amores v. HRET, GR 189600, June 29, 2010

7. Legislative Intent
Airsporna v. CA (113 SCRA 459)
China Bank v. Ortega (49 SCRA 355)
PVA Board v. Bautista (112 SCRA 59)

8. Nature of the Rules of Statutory Construction

PCFI v. NTC (G.R. No. L-63318, November 25, 1983 &

August 18, 1984) -Read J. Abad dissent.
9. Propriety of Construction
NFL v. Eisma (127 SCRA 419)
Paat v. CA (266 SCRA 167)
People v. Mapa (20 SCRA 1164)
Leveriza v. IAC (157 SCRA 282)
Daoang v. Municipal Judge (159 SCRA 369)

Week 3
July __, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

1. Principle of Separation of Powers

i. Rationale
ii. Checks and Balances

2. When can courts construe or interpret the law?

Case:
RCBC v. IAC, G.R. No. 74851, December 9, 1999

3. When courts need not resort to interpretation or construction.

Cases:
Go Ka Toc Sons v. Rice and Corn Board, G.R. No. L-23607, May 23,
1967
People v. Mapa, G.R. No. L-22301, August 30, 1967
Luzon Surety v. De Garcia, G.R. No. L-25659, October 31, 1969

4. How must legislative intent be ascertained?

Cases:
Aisporna v. CA, G.R. No. L-39419 April 12, 1982
Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
 5. When is it construction and when is it judicial legislation?
Cases:
Floresca v. Philex Mining, G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985

Week 4
July ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part IV - Aids in interpretation and construction

1. Punctuation and Grammar: An Aid to Construction
Case:
US v. Hart, G.R. No. L-8848 November 21, 1913
2. Intrinsic or internal aids in Statutory Interpretation
i. “Whereas” Clause as Aid
1. People v. Echavez (95 SCRA 663)
2. Llamado v. CA (G.R. No. 84850, June 29, 1989)
ii. Headings
1. Kare v. Platon (G.R. No. L-35902, October 28, 1931)
iii. Arrangement and ordering
1. De Castro v. JBC (G. R. No. 191002)
a. March 17, 2010 and April 20, 2010 decisions
b. J. Carpio-Morales dissenting opinion

3. Extrinsic or External aids in Statutory Construction

i. Legislative History / Origin of Statute

1. United States v. Serapio (23 Phil. 584)
2. U.S. v. De Guzman (30 Phil. 416)
3. Schneckenburger v. Moran (G.R. No. L-44896, July 31,
1936) & Dissenting Opinion
ii. Realities existing at the time of adoption
1. Gamboa v. Finance Sec. (G.R. No. 176579)
2. Aquino v. COMELEC (62 SCRA 275)
3. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary (194 SCRA
317)
4. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 221697,
March 8, 2016)

Week 5
July ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part IV - Aids in interpretation and construction (Continued)

4. Extrinsic or External aids in Statutory Construction (Continued)

iii. Legislative History / Origin of Statute

 1. United States v. Serapio (23 Phil. 584)
2. U.S. v. De Guzman (30 Phil. 416)
3. Schneckenburger v. Moran (G.R. No. L-44896, July 31,
1936) & Dissenting Opinion
iv. Realities existing at the time of adoption
1. Gamboa v. Finance Sec. (G.R. No. 176579)
2. Aquino v. COMELEC (62 SCRA 275)
3. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary (194 SCRA
317)
4. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 221697,
March 8, 2016)
v. Legislative Debates
1. Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR (192 SCRA 51)
2. Montejo v. COMELEC (242 SCRA 415)
3. China Bank v. Ortega (49 SCRA 335)
vi. Changes in phraseology
1. Umali v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014)
2. La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assocciation, Inc. v. Ramos
(G.R. No. 127882, January 27, 2004)
3. Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola (G.R. No.
184861, June 30, 2009)
vii. Usage
1. Manila Jockey Club v. Games and Amusement Board
(107 Phil 151)
viii. Contemporaneous Acts of Legislature
1. David v. COMELEC (271 SCRA 90)
ix. Executive Construction
1. Rule
2. When not favored
3. Rule v. Opinion
4. Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Customs (29 SCRA 617)
5. Chartered Bank Employees’ Association v. Ople (138
SCRA 273)
6. Nestle Phil., Inc. v. CA (G.R. No. 86738, November 13,
1991)
7. ACORD v. Zamora (G.R. No. 144256, June 8, 2005)
8. De Los Santos v. Torres (G.R. No. L-3881, August 31,
1950)

Week 6
August ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part V– General Principles in the Construction of Statutes

1. What is a statute?
2. Parts of a Statute
3. Kinds of Statutes
4. Constitutional Limitations of Statutes
5. Legislative Process
6. Effectivity of Statute, Regulation and Ordinances
a) When Does a Statute Become Effective?
Civil Code, Article 2; Section 18, EO 292; Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R.
No. L-63915 April 24, 1985

b) When Does a Regulation Become Effective?

Sections 2-9, Book VII of EO 292
People vs. Que Po Lay, G.R. No. L-6791, March 29, 1954
Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1985
Yaokasin vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 84111 December
22, 1989

c) When Does an Ordinance Take Effect?

Sections 54-59, RA 7160
Bagatsing vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-41631 December 17, 1976
Hagonoy vs Municipality, G.R. No. 137621, February 6, 2002
Solicitor General v MMA (G.R. No. 102782, December 11, 1991)
Magtajas v. Pryce (G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994)
Primicias v. Urdaneta (93 SCRA 462)

Week 7
August ____, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part V– General Principles in the Construction of Statutes (Continued)

d) Presidential Issuances
e) SC Circulars
1. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Hon. Lidua (G.R.
No. 169588, October 7, 2013)

f) Administrative Rule v. Interpretation

2. Victorias Milling Co. v. SSC (G.R. No. L-16704, March
17, 1962)
g) Construction of AOs and IRRs vis-à-vis Statutes
3. RMBSA v. HDMF (333 SCRA 777)
4. Grego v. COMELEC (274 SCRA 481)

7. Equity of the Statute Rule

Articles 9 and 10, Civil Code
8. Constitutional Test in the Passage of a Bill
 9. Single Subject Requirement
Cases:
Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006)
Reman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real
Estate Service (G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014)
10. Repeals of Statutes
11. Doctrines
1. Enrolled Bill Theory
Cases:
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Casco Phil. Chemical Co. Inc. vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-17931,
February 28, 1963
Morales vs. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968
2. Journal Entry Rule
Case:
Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475 April 30, 1974
3. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
Cases:
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001
David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May 2006
Sps. Romualdez v. Comelec, G. R. No. 167011, April 30, 2008

Week 8
August ___ 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part VI – Special v. General Provisions

1. Conflicting provisions of the same Statute

Laxamana v. Baltazar (G.R. No. L-5955, September 19, 1952)

2. Conflicting provisions of different statute

Philippine Railway Co. v. Collector of Int. Rev. (91 Phil. 35)

Romualdez v. Marcelo (G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006)
Butuan Sawmill v. City of Butuan (16 SCRA 227)

3. Conflict between special provisions of a general law and a general

provision of a special law

Bagatsing v. Ramirez (74 SCRA 306)

Teotico v. City of Manila (22 SCRA 267)
David v. COMELEC (271 SCRA 90)

Week 9
August ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part VII - Basic Principles Used in Statutory Construction

1. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est
Cases:
 Mun. of Nueva Era v. Mun. of Marcos, G.R. No. 169435 February
27, 2008
People v. Manantan, G.R. No. L-14129, August 30, 1962
2. Constitutional Avoidance
Case:
PACU v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955
3. Expressium facit cessare tacitum
Cases:
Canet v. Decena, G.R. No. 155344. January 20, 2004
Malinias v. Comelec, G.R. No. 146943 October 4, 2002
4. Last Antecedent Rule
Case:
PLDT Co. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-26762
August 29, 1975
5. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of
the statute as a whole
Case:
Alpha Investigation and Security Agency v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111722
May 27, 1997
Serana v. Sandigabayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008
6. Mens Legislatoris or Mischief Rule
Case:
Vda. De Macabenta v. Davao Stevedore Terminal Co., G.R. No. L-
27489. April 30, 1970
7. Pari Materia Rule
Cases:
City of Naga v. Agna, G.R. No. L-36049 May 31, 1976
Tan Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496. February 23,
2004

Week 10
September ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part VII - Basic Principles Used in Statutory Construction (Continued)

1. Plain Meaning Rule

Cases:
Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007
Rural Bank of San Miguel v. Monetary Board, G.R. No. 150886,
February 16, 2007
2. Ratio Legis or Golden Rule
Case:
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970
3. Rule Against Surplasage
4. Rule of Lenity
Case:
People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, Corona,
J., Sep. Op.
5. Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law
Cases:
People v. Salas, G.R. No. L-66469 July 29, 1986
Alonzo v. IAC, G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987
6. Stare Decisis
 Cases:
Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, G.R. No. 132051, June 25, 2001
J.R.A. Phils. Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
177127, October 11, 2010
7. Verba Legis
Cases:
Pagcor v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc., G.R. No. 177333,
April 24, 2009
Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010

Week 11
September ___ 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part VIII- Latin Maxims: Their Meaning and Importance

1. Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget (An absolute sentence

needs no explanation)
Case: Barcellano v. Bañas, G.R. No. 165287 September 14, 2011

2. Casus Omissus Rule

Case: People vs. Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962

3. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex (The reason for a law
ceasing, the law itself ceases)
Case: People v. Almuete, G.R. No. L-26551 February 27, 1976

4. Dura lex sed lex (The law may be harsh but it is the law)
Cases: Obiasca v. Basallote, G.R. No. 176707 February 17, 2010
People v. Callos (G.R. No. 133478, January 16, 2002)
People v. Suriaga (G.R. No. 123779, April 17, 2002)

5. Ejusdem generis (Of the same kind)

Cases: Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, G.R. No.
189755 July 4, 2012
Sulpicio Lines v. Curso (G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010)
NPC v. Angas (G.R. Nos. 60225-26, May 8, 1992)

6. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The expression of one thing

is the exclusion of another)
Case: Malinias v. Comelec, G.R. No. 146943. October 4, 2002

7. Generalia specialibus non derogant (General things do not

derogate from special things)
Case: Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434 March 5, 2010

8. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws

repeal those before enacted to the contrary)
Case: Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Philippine Labor Union, G.R. No.
L-47796, April 22, 1941Week 9

Week 12
September ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part VIII- Latin Maxims: Their Meaning and Importance (Continued)

1. Lex de futuro, judex de praeterito (The law provides for the future,
the judge for the past)
Case: PDIC v. Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, G.R. No.
181556, December 14, 2009

2. Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit (The law looks forward, not backward)
Case: Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815 September 3, 2009

3. Noscitur a sociis (Known from its associates)

Case: Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012

4. Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum (The best

interpreter of a statute is the statute itself)
Case: Serana v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008

5. Ratio legis est anima (The reason of the law is the soul of the law.)
Case: League of Cities v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176951 December 21, 2009

6. Reddendo singula singulis (Referring each to each)

Case: City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127 April 12, 2005

7. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus (When the law
does not distinguish, we must not distinguish.)
Case: Amores v. HRET, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010

Week 13
September ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part IX – Construction of Specific Words and Phrases

a. Ordinary Meaning
b. “May” and “Shall”
i. Director of Lands v. CA (276 SCRA 276)
ii. Capati v. Ocampo (113 SCRA 799)
iii. Basiana v. Luna (103 SCRA 49)
c. “Or” and “And”
i. GMRC v. Bell Telecom (271 SCRA 790)
d. Principally and Exclusively
i. Alfon v. Republic (97 SCRA 859)
e. Exclusively
i. CIR v. CA (G.R. No. 124043, October 14, 1998)
ii. Lung Center of Phil v. Quezon City (G.R. No. 144104, June
29, 2004)
f. Previously
i. Rural v. Lopena (137 SCRA 121)
ii. Francisco v. CA (G.R. No. 108747, April 6, 1995)
 1
g. Every
i. IBAAEU v. Inciong (132 SCRA 663)
ii. NHA v. Juco (134 SCRA 172)
h. “Term” and “Tenure”
i. Fetalino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 191890, December 04, 2012)
i. Surplasages
i. People v. Duque (212 SCRA 607)
j. Punctuations
i. Arabay v. CFI (66 SCRA 617)
ii. Florentino v. PNB (98 Phil 959)
k. Past Tense
i. Grego v. COMELEC (274 SCRA 481)
ii. Regalado v. Yulo (G.R. No. L-42935, February 15, 1935)
l. Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses
i. Rules and exceptions to the rules
1. Borromeo v. Mariano (G.R. No. L-16808, January 3,
1921)
2. Santos v. CCS (G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009)
3. Llmado v. CA (G.R. No. 84850, June 29, 1989)
ii. Conflict between main provision and proviso
iii. Exceptions
1. Lokin v. COMELEC (G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22,
2010)
2. Tagabi v. Tanque (G.R. No. 144024, July 27, 2006)
iv. Saving Clauses

Week 14
October ___, 2019
Topic/Activity/Cases

Part X– Presumptions
1. In favor of the validity of legislative acts

2. Against extrajudicial application of statute

 3. Against ineffectiveness of statutes

What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly

CSC v. Cortes (G.R. No. 200103, April 23, 2014)

4. In favor of beneficial operation of statutes

5. Against retroactive operation of statutes

6. Against injustice

7. Against inconvenience

8. Against absurdity

9. Against uncertainty

10. In favor of constitutionality

11. In favor of consistency

12. As to public policy

13. Of acquiescence of judicial construction

14. As to foreign law

15. Against violation of international law

16. Against implied repeals

VII. REFERENCES and OTHER MATERIALS

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION by SUAREZ

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF LAWS by SUALOG
1987 CONSTITUTION
Relevant Jurisprudence

14
VIII. CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION

 Email Address: [email protected]

 Mobile no.: 09173070417
 Consultation schedule: After class or on appointment

15