EILEEN JAYNE ABUSTAN 01 OCTOBER 2024

1F – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Instructions: Make a list of all the rules on statutory construction in Chapters III and IV.
Go through all the cases assigned to you in your major courses and identify at least two cases that
made use of a particular Stat Con Rule. You are expected at least two cases per rule.

Chapter III Rules

1. Verba Legis

The case of People v. Mapa (1967) has provided a clear example as to how it is the Court’s
duty to apply the law if no construction or interpretation is needed to understand the law.
Civilians who are in possession of firearms and are claiming to be “special agents” are not
covered by the provision, which clearly enumerates those who are only included in the lawful
possession of firearms:

firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines
[of the Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment
of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincial
treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of provincial prisoners and
jails…

No provision is made for those who are claiming to be “special agents”, therefore Mapa is not
exempted from the criminal liability. When the law is clear, the Court has not other duty but
to apply the law, therefore the conviction of the accused must stand.

In the case of Conducto v. Monzon (1998), the Court ruled that the respondent (Judge
Monzon) has erred in the non-suspension of the barangay chairman Benjamin Maghirang on
his violation of Article 244 of the RPC – the Unlawful Appointment of his sister-in-law as
Barangay Secretary. Section 13 of RA 3019 states that:

SEC. 13. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense
involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a single or as complex
offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in Court, shall
be suspended from office.

2. Statutes as a Whole

In the case of United States v. Ah Chong (1910), the rule of looking at statutes as a whole
come into play when the Court is determining the criminal liability of Ah Chong, when he
attacked his roommate (Pascual) due to a mistake of fact which led to Pascual’s death. Article
 1 of the Penal Code established that acts and omissions that are punished by law must be
“voluntary” in nature and that any person voluntarily committing a crime shall incur criminal
liability. If the decision would be based on that provision alone, the Court would have ruled
that Ah Chong is indeed guilty of homicide, however, Article 8 of the Penal Code establishes
how a person acting in defense of his person or rights is exempt from criminal liability.

Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System (1997) exhibits the rule in
taking into consideration the entirety of the statute itself, which is apparent in the Court’s
interpretation of the “Filipino First” policy. Preference on qualified Filipinos has influenced
the decision on allowing Manila Prince Hotel to match the bid of Renang Berhad for the 51%
shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC).

3. Spirit and Purpose of the Law

In the case of Estrada v Sandiganbayan (2002), the rule considering the spirit and the
purpose of the law comes into light during the Court’s ruling on Jinggoy’s argument that the
punishment is too severe despite not meeting the “at least fifty million pesos” aggregate
amount. Section 2 of RA 7080 states that:

Section 2. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with the members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code,
shall be considered by the court.

The purpose of this provision is to punish those who are part of the conspiracy of amassing
or ill-gotten wealth, to which Jinggoy is a part of. Estrada alongside other conspirators were
charged with plunder as part of a conspiracy in aiding the former President Estrada in
amassing a total amount of Php 4,097,804,173.17. By examining the purpose of the provision
which is to punish those who are part of the conspiracy, the Court ruled that the charges and
punishment placed upon Jinggoy is within the bounds of the law.

Alongside looking into statutes as a while, the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. Government
Service Insurance System (1997) is also an example of determining the spirit and purpose
of the law. This is shown in the Court’s interpretation of the “Filipino First” policy. Preference
on qualified Filipinos has influenced the decision on allowing Manila Prince Hotel to match
the bid of Renang Berhad for the 51% shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC).
4. Implication

In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals (2003), Scalzo has declared that he is entitled
to diplomatic immunity due to him being a representative of the United States Drugs
Enforcement Agency. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations cites that “diplomatic
agents” are vested with diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits.

In his attempt to prove his diplomatic status, Scalzo submitted Diplomatic Notes 414. 757 and
791 which shows that he was listed as an Assistant Attache of the United States diplomatic
mission and was therefore accredited diplomatic status by the Philippine government. With
this evidence, it should be implied that Scalzo is indeed immune to suit in his relation to the
drug charges against Minucher and Torabian.

In Mamiscal v Abdullah (2015), Article 155 of the Muslim Code provides the jurisdiction of
Shari’a Courts over:

(1) All cases involving offenses defined and punished under this Code.
(2) All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been
married in accordance with Article 13 involving disputes relating to:
a. Marriage;
b. Divorce recognized under this Code;
c. Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
d. Customary dower (mahr);
e. Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
f. Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts, (mut'a); and
g. Restitution of marital rights.
(3) All cases involving disputes relative to communal properties.
Thus, it is implied that the Court shall only confine its involvement in determining whether
Abdullah should be held administratively liable for his involvement with the registration of
the divorce between the petitioner and his wife (Adelaidah).

5. Casus Omissus

The case of Silverio v. Republic (2007) has shown this rule in terms of the application and
interpretation of RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular, Section 1 of RA 9048:

SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order,
except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

The enumeration of the valid corrections or changes can make on the subject of name change
has established that reasons pertaining to sex-change should not allow the change of a
 person’s name in the civil register. This omission has purpose in determining the Court’s
decision in accepting and allowing Silverio’s petition.

In Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) (1956), the identification of

NACOCO as a government entity has been put into question as the organization declares that
they are exempt from paying stenographers’ fees according to Rule 130 of the Rules of the
Court. After great deliberation, the Court ruled that the term “Government of the Republic of
the Philippines” that was used in Section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to
government entities which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of
sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political authority is made
effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government.

Thus, government entities which are given a corporate personality that are governed by the
Corporation law is not included in the exemption in the paying of stenographers’ fees.

6. Stare Decisis
In the case of AAA v. BBB (2018), the Court has effectively made use of the rule of Stare
Decisis by citing a previous case (Trenas v. People) that have set a precedent on the
jurisdiction of the Court on continuing crimes and applying the doctrine in the presiding case.
Section 7 of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004)
contemplates the fact that violence against women and children may manifest as transitory
or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in
their consummation occur in one municipality or territory. A person charged with a transitory
or continuing crime may be validly tried in the municipality or territory where the crime was
partly committed.
By bringing up the precedent that has already been set, the Court is able to provide
justification and support on its ruling that the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over
the case.
In People v. Ventura (2004), the Court cited the previous rulings on People v. Loreto and
People v. Molas regarding the matter of “taking advantage of superior strength” to charge the
appellants Flores and Ventura with murder beyond reasonable doubt that is qualified by
abuse of superior strength with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
Because of this, the Court was able to justify that the appellant Flores clearly took the
advantage of superiority which is his strength, sex and weapon to harm the victim (Aileen
Bocateja).

Chapter IV Rules
1. When the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish

In the case of Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1969), the petitioner argued
that the Clark Air Base is part of the territory of the United States of America therefore the
Philippines does not have the jurisdictional power to tax the sale of 1960 Cadillac car to Fred
 Meneses. However, the Court ruled that the Clark Air Base is still under the Philippine
territory, and thus it is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Court to tax his sale of the
vehicle.

Both the US and the Philippine Courts have established that the ground that is being occupied
by a foreign state still belongs to the territorial sovereign, which in this case is the Philippines.
The Military Bases Agreement asserts this claim. Clark Air Base has not become foreign soil
or territory, thus the country retains its jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding
the power to tax, have been preserved.

The case of Ambrose v. Ambrose (2021) has shown an example on the doctrine of Ubi lex
non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. (No distinction should be made in the application
of the law where none has been indicated.) The Court ruled that the petitioner may file the
petition for the nullity of marriage because of his existing legal capacity to sue. The law does
not distinguish between citizens of the Philippines and foreigners who may institute an action
to file for the petition as stated in Section 2 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC:

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

A. Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife.
The provision is clear that either contracting party may file a petition to declare their
marriage void. No distinction has been made in the provision therefore no distinction shall
also be present in the application of the law.

2. Exceptions in the statute

The case of David, et al. v. Calilung (2021) has brought upon the jurisdiction and authority
of the Court to dispose of the controversy or issue without any interference from other courts
which is established in Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or
letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the
province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first
taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction
to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it
depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall
not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the
original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

Perez vs. Senerpida (2021) has affirmed the Court’s initial ruling that property regime of
Eliodoro and Adelita Perez was the absolute community property and that there was no
 marriage settlement between the two. Thus, the Waiver of Rights (RWR) is not a valid waiver
as mentioned in Article 89 of the Family Code:

No waiver of rights, interests, shares and effects of the absolute community property during the
marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property.

The waiver of rights, interests, shares and effects of the absolute community property is not
valid except in cases wherein there is a judicial separation of property (e.g. marriage
settlement).

3. General and Special terms

In Silverio v. Republic (2007), the Court’s ruling on the change of entry in the birth
certificate based on the grounds of sex reassignment is supported by RA 9048 (Clerical Error
Law), which covers that changes in the civil register can be made due to clerical and
typographical errors. In order to provide more understanding on what constitutes that error
and what form of changes are being allowed as stated in Section 2(c):

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of

clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is
harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which
is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by
reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve
the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

The case of Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System (1997) has
called upon the interpretation of the term “qualified Filipinos” as mentioned in Section 10
para. 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitutions:

Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency,
when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly
owned by Filipinos.

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.

This special term was given interpretation and construction by the Court through the
establishment on what is the meaning of a “qualified Filipino” and how it is determined. The
Court ruled that the term "qualified Filipinos" simply means that preference shall be given to
 those citizens who can make a viable contribution to the common good, because of credible
competence and efficiency.

4. General terms following special terms

Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) (1956) has made use of this rule in
determining what entities are under the special term “Government of the Republic of the
Philippines” that was used in Sec. 2 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The case of AAA v. BBB (2018) has provided an explanation and definition on the grounds of
“violence against women and children”. Section 3 of RA 9262 establishes the definition of the
general term and special terms that is under the provision:

a. "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or
is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to,
the following acts:

i. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;

ii. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed

against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:

xxxx

iii. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to

cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited
to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public
ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or
psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim
belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive
injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custody and/or visitation of common children.

iv. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
5. Express Mention and Implied Exclusion

Minucher v. Court of Appeals (2003) shows how Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity
due to him being a representative of the United States Drugs Enforcement Agency. The Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations cites that “diplomatic agents” are vested with diplomatic
immunity from civil and criminal suits which are as follows:

(a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state

(b) envoys,11 ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of states
(c) charges d' affairs12 accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs

The Diplomatic Notes 414. 757 and 791 which shows that he was listed as an Assistant
Attache of the United States diplomatic mission and was therefore accredited diplomatic
status by the Philippine government. With this evidence, it should be implied that Scalzo is
indeed immune to suit in his relation to the drug charges against Minucher and Torabian.

The case of Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) (1956) has made use of the
rule on implied exclusion on the Court’s ruling in determining whether NACOCO is part of the
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines” that has been identified in Section 2 of the
Revised Administrative Code. The Court ruled that the government entities that fall under this
category are the entities through which the functions of the government are exercised as an
attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political authority
is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. The
enumeration has implied the exclusion of NACOCO due to its nature as a government
organization that was given a corporate power that is separate and distinct from the
government.

6. Associated Words

In Endencia v. David (1953), the Court ruled that Section 13 of RA 590 as unconstitutional
due to it violating Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution which states that:

SEC. 9. The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall hold office
during good behavior, until they reach the age of seventy years, or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office. They shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law,
which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Until the Congress shall
provide otherwise, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall receive an annual compensation
of sixteen thousand pesos, and each Associate Justice, fifteen thousand pesos.

David declared that the payment of income tax is not a form of diminution of compensation,
to which the Court countered by describing how the system of income taxation deducts the
amount directly from a person’s salary is a form of diminution since it decreases the pay of
Justice Endencia from Php 12,000 a year to Php 10.255.55. By providing an explanation as
well as illustrating the manner of deduction, the Court has effectively used word association
in interpreting what diminution is.
7. Use of Negative Words

The usage of negative words in the case of Silverio v. Republic (2007) appears on the Court’s
ruling that a change in a person’s civil register should not be corrected without a judicial order
as stated in Article 412 of the Civil Code:

ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.

Another example of the effective usage of negative words is on the case of Endencia v. David
(1953). The use of negative words has appeared on the respondent’s justification on taxing
the salary of Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo by citing Section 13 of RA 590:

SEC 13. No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall
be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be
dimunition of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.

8. Use of “may” and “shall”

The use of “shall” in statutes is present in the case of Manila Prince Hotel v. Government
Service Insurance System (1997) as mentioned in Section 10, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution:

Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency,
when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly
owned by Filipinos.

In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.

The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national
jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

The case of David, et al. v. Calilung (2021) has made use of this doctrine when it comes to
establishing the jurisdiction and establishment of Family Courts as stated in RA 8369 (Family
Courts Act of 1997) which states:

SEC. 3. Establishment of Family Courts. – There shall be established a Family Court in every
province and city in the country. In case where the city is the capital of the province, the Family
Court shall be established in the municipality which has the highest population.

xxxx
 SEC. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
The use of shall in the provisions establishes the mandatory nature of the statute.
In Perez vs. Senerpida (2021), the Court ruled that should the marriage between Eliodoro
and Adelita Perez be valid and their property regime is either Absolute Community {rp[ertu
or Conjugal Partnership of Gains, then the donation made by Eliodoro should be rendered
void due to Article 98 and 125 of the Family Code:

ART. 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the
other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations
from the community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress.
(n)

xxxx

ART. 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the
consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make
moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family
rejoicing or family distress. (174a)

9. Use of “must”

In the case of Singson v. Singson (2018), the Court ruled psychological incapacity must be
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The failure of the petitioner
to prove the gravity of the incapacity of her husband, and that it existed at the time of the
marriage, and that it is incurable has provided enough ground for the Court to set aside the
initial ruling.

In People v Ventura (2004), the execution of the criminal must be preceded by the
reflection and thought of the accused to carry out the criminal intent during “a space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment”. The following must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt:
(1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
(3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him
to reflect upon the circumstances of his act
Flores and Ventura arrived at the Bocateja’s residence around 11pm and it took them three
hours to drill through a hole in the kitchen door to break inside the home.
10. Use of “and” and “or”

In the case of AAA v. BBB (2018), this rule came into play on the identification of the elements
of the crime under Section 5(1) of RA 9262, it is stated that the crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial
support or custody of minor children or access to the woman's child/children.

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with
whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they
may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;

(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish;
and

(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or
access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.

In Perez vs. Senerpida (2021), the Court ruled that should the marriage between Eliodoro
and Adelita Perez be valid and their property regime is either Absolute Community Property
or Conjugal Partnership of Gains, then the donation made by Eliodoro should be rendered
void due to Article 98 and 125 of the Family Code since the donation wasn’t done in occasion
of family rejoicing or family distress.

ART. 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other.
However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from
the community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (n)

xxxx

ART. 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of
the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate
donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing
or family distress. (174a)
11. “Only” means exclusive

In the case of Ambrose v Ambrose (2021), the Court has established that both of the
contracting parties may file a petition to declare the marriage void based on the provision of
Section 2 AM No. 0211-10-SC which states that:

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

A. Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife.
The use of the term “solely” in the provision is interchangeable to the rule of using “only”
which establishes exclusivity on who may file for the petition on the declaration of absolute
nullity of void marriage.
The case Mamiscal v Abdullah (2015) has made use of the rule through the definition of
Divorce under the Muslim Code. Article 45 of the law states:
Art. 45. Definition and forms. — Divorce is the formal dissolution of the marriage bond in
accordance with this Code to be granted only after the exhaustion of all possible means of
reconciliation between the spouses. It may be effected by:
a. Repudiation of the wife by the husband (talaq);
b. Vow of continence by the husband (ila);
c. Injurious assimilation of the wife by the husband (zihar);
d. Acts of imprecation (li'an);
e. Redemption by the wife (khul');
f. Exercise by the wife of the delegated right to repudiate (tafwid); or
g. Judicial decree (faskh).

12. Computation of time

The case of Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products (2014) illustrates the rule on the
computation of time on the Court’s ruling on the one-year period to revive the case, which
should be based on the date of receipt of the order of provisional dismissal. The Court still
held its decision that the motion to revive the criminal cases against Co were timely filed. A
year is equivalent to 365 days regardless of whether it is a regular year or a leap year.

A year is to be understood as twelve calendar months. A month consists of thirty. The specific
number of days shall computed accordingly should the calendar month has been identified.

In Tanada v. Tuvera (1985), the computation of the time is relevant due to effectivity of laws
taking effect after fifteen days of its publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
in general circulation, as stated in Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:
 ARTICLE 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless
it is otherwise provided.

13. Function of the Proviso

Tanada v. Tuvera (1985) – the effectivity of laws shall take after fifteen days of its publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper that is in general circulation, unless it is
provided otherwise in the provision within the statue itself.

ARTICLE 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless
it is otherwise provided.

David, et al. v. Calilung (2021) – the establishment of Family Courts among the branches of
the RTC in the transitory provision of RA 8369:

SEC. 17. Transitory Provisions. – Pending the establishment of such Family Courts, the Supreme
Court shall designate from among the branches of the Regional Trial Court at least one Family
Court in each of the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong,
Muntinlupa, Laoag, Baguio, Santiago, Dagupan, Olongapo, Cabanatuan, San Jose, Angeles,
Cavite, Batangas, Lucena, Naga, Iriga, Legazpi, Roxas, Iloilo, Bacolod, Dumaguete, Tacloban,
Cebu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran, Surigao, Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos,
Oroquieta, Ozamis, Dipolog, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Iligan, and in such other places as the
Supreme Court may deem necessary.

Additional cases other than those provided in Sec. 5 may be assigned to the Family Courts
when their dockets permit: Provided, That such additional cases shall not be heard on
the same day family cases are heard.

In areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases referred to in Section 5 of this Act shall be
adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court.