STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

CHAPTER 9
FOCUS/DOCTRINES
1. Prospective operates upon facts or transactions that occur after the statute takes effect. It looks
and applies to the future
2. Retroactive is a law which creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty or attaches a new
disability in respect to a transaction already past
3. Statutes are to construed as having only prospective operation, unless the intendment of the
legislature is to give them a retroactive effect, expressly declare or necessarily implied from the
language used.
4. Lex prospicit, non respicit the law provides for the future, not backward
5. Lex de future, judex de praetirito the law provides for the future, the judge for the past
6. If law is couched in the past tense, it does not necessarily imply that it should have retroactive
effect
7. No substantive statute shall be so construed retroactively as to affect pending litigations
8. Statutes that are retroactive in nature are (a) remedial or curative statutes (b) statutes which
create new rights (c) Statutes that expressly provide that it should be applied retroactively (d)
where it uses words clearly indicating its intent
9. A statute may not be construed and applied retroactively if it impairs substantive right that
has become vested
10. The law has no retroactive effect except in (a) procedural laws (b) curative laws
11. Nova constitutio futuris foram imponere debet non praeteritis A new statute should affect
the future not the past
12. Leges et constitutions futuris certum est dare fornam negotiis, non ad facta praeterita
revocari, nisi nominatum et de praeterito tempore et adhuc pendentibus negotiis cautum sit
Laws should be construed as prospective, not retrospective, unless they are expressly made
applicable to past transactions and to such as are still pending.
CASES:
1. GREGO vs COMELEC

- One of the respondents was elected as councilor for his 3
rd
and final term
- Petitioner questions his qualifications because he questions the fact that petitioner was
removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff because of serious misconduct in an
administrative case on October 1981.
- Sec 40 of the Local Government Code provides for the disqualification of such and petitioner
argues that it must be applied retroactively in this case
- ISSUE: WON Sec 40 of the Local Government Code should be applied retroactively
- SC: No. Statutes are not be construed as to have a retroactive effect so as to affect pending
proceedings, unless such is expressly declared or clearly implied from the language of the
enactment.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- Sec 40 does not qualify the date of a candidates removal and that it is couched in the past
tense should not deter the court from applying the law prospectively
- Nova constitutio futuris foram imponere debet non praeteritis A new statute should
affect the future not the past

2. SANTOS vs DUATA

- Duata and Aguilar bought a parcel of land. Santos, Gaanan and Aguilar bought the land but
for convenience, the title was issued in Santos name
- The daughter of Duata insituted an action for reconveyance of the lot but Santos refused
claiming that the land was sold to her by Aguilar in a private document
- ISSUE: WON Santos and Aguilar intended a mortgage or sale with pacto de retro in the
private document
- SC: It is a mortgage. Art 1602 of the Civil Code was designed to curtail evils brought about by
contracts of sale with right of repurchase
- The said Article is remedial in nature and can be applied retroactively to cases arising prior
to the effectivity of the Civil Code
- Leges et constitutions futuris certum est dare fornam negotiis, non ad facta praeterita
revocari, nisi nominatum et de praeterito tempore et adhuc pendentibus negotiis cautum
sit Laws should be construed as prospective, not retrospective, unless they are expressly
made applicable to past transactions and to such as are still pending.

3. BERNABE vs ALEJO

- Late Fiscal Bernabe fathered a son with Carolina Alejo and was named Adrian Bernabe, born
in 1981. Bernabe died in 1993.
- Carolina prayed that Adrian be declared as acknowledged illegitimate child
- RTC dismissed the claim ruling that under the Family Code, the death of the putative father
had barred the action.
- ISSUE: WON the Family Code shall have retroactive effect
- SC: Adrian should be allowed to prove that he was the illegitimate child of Fiscal Bernabe
and since the boy was born in 1981, his rights are governed by Article 283 of the Civil Code.
Article 285 is a substantive law as it gives the child the right to file his petition for
recognition within 4 years from attaining the majority age. The Family Code cannot impair
the right because it had already been vested prior to enactment.

4. SUBIDO vs SANDIGANBAYAN

- Subido, then Commisioner of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and Parina, a BID
special agent issued a warrant of arrest against Maksimuk even if the decision for his
deportation is not not yet final and executor thus leading to his detention of 43 days.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- Subido and Parina charged of Arbitrary Detention defined and punished by Art 124 of the
RPC
- Sandiganbayan took over the case but petitioners contended that it has no jurisdiction to try
the case because when it was filed Subido was no longer part of the service and Parina was
not occupying a position corresponding to salary grade 27
- ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the case
- SC: Yes. RA 7975 provides that Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all cases
involving violations of anti-graft and corrupt practices where one of the principal accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in permanent,
acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the crime (not at the time of
the filing of the case as claimed by Subido)
- Parina, although holding a position lower than salary grade 27, wan prosecuted as a co-
conspirator of Subido, the principal accused and the exemption only applies when none of
the principal accused occupies positions corresponding to salary grade 27, where
jurisdiction is vested on the other courts. They also contend that RA 7975 is likewise curative
or remedial statute, which cures defects and adds to the means of enforcing existing
obligations
- RA 7975 as regards the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction, mode of appeal, and other procedural
matters is clearly a procedural law (prescribes rules and forms of procedure enforcing rights
or obtaining redress for their invasion, or those which refer to rules of procedure by which
courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice
- As a procedural and curative statute, it may be validly given a retroactive effect, there
being no impairment of contractual or vested rights
CHAPTER 10
FOCUS/DOCTRINES:
1. Amendment the change or modification, by deletion, alteration, of a statute which survives in its
amended form. Power to amend belongs to the legislature.
2. Express Amendment vs Amendment by Implication: (1) Express amendment is done by providing in the
amendatory act the specific sections or provisions of a statute to be amended as recited therein or as
commonly indicated to read as follows (2) Amendment by Implication legislative intent to amend a
prior law on the same subject is shown by a statement in the latter act that any provision of law that is
inconsistent therewith is modified accordingly
3. The amendatory act, complete by itself, will be considered as an original or independent act
4. In the absence of a clear inconsistency, every statute should be harmonized with other laws on the same
subject
5. A part of a prior statute embracing the same subject as the later may not be enforced without nullifying
the pertinent provision of the latter in which event, the prior act is deemed amended or modified to the
extent of repugnancy.
6. Amendment takes effect 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general
circulation, unless a date is specified therein after such publication.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

7. Deliberate selection of language in the amendatory act different from that of the original act indicates
that the legislative intended a change in the law or in its meaning.
8. An amendment will not be construed as having a retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided or the
legislative intent to give it a retroactive effect is necessarily implied from the language used and no vested
right is impaired
9. Effect of Amendment on Vested Rights: the original act continues to be in force with regard to all rights
that had accrued prior to the amendment. Obligations that were contracted under the prior act and such
rights and obligations will continue to be governed by the law before its amendment. (no retroactive
effect)
10. Effect of Amendment on Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law in force at the time
the action is instituted. It remains with the court until the case is finally decided therein.
11. Effect of Nullity of Prior or Amendatory Act: Where a statute which has been amended is invalid, nothing
in effect has been amended.
12. Revision and Codification: done to restate the existing laws into one statute and simplify complicated
provisions, and make laws on the subject easily found
13. What is omitted is deemed repealed. All laws and provisions of the old laws that are omitted in the
revised statute or code are deemed repealed, unless the statute or code provides otherwise.
14. A codification should be construed as the continuation of the existing statutes.
15. The power to repeal a law is as complete as the power to enact one.
16. Repeal: (1) total revoked completely, (2) partial leaves the unaffected portions of the statute in force,
(3) expressed a particular or specific law, identified by its number or title, is repealed as an express
repeal (4) implied all other repeals
17. Failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law,
unless an irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy exist in terms of the new and old laws, latter
situation is an implied repeal.
18. Where provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict and the later
act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier.
19. Legis posteriores priores contraries abrogant. A later law repeals the prior law on the subject which is
repugnant thereto.
20. Implied Repeal by Revision or Codification: Revised statute is in effect a legislative declaration that
whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail and whatever is excluded there from shall be
discarded.
21. Where a statute is a reenactment of the whole subject in substitution of the previous laws on the
matter, the latter disappears entirely and what is omitted in the reenacted law is deemed repealed.
22. All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly Repealing clause.
23. The presence of such general repealing clause in a later statute clearly indicates the legislative intent to
repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter whether or not the prior law is a special law.
24. A later general law will ordinarily not repeal a prior special law on the same subject, as the latter is
generally regarded as an exception to the former.
25. As between two laws, one passed later prevails. The later law repeals an earlier one because it is the
later legislative will. The lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. In enacting the older
law, the legislators could not have known the newer one and could not have intended to change what
they did not know. The Civil Code provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, not the
other way around.
26. A general law does not repeal a special law, generally.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

27. Generalia specialibus non derogant a general law does not nullify a specific or special law.
CASES:
1. TUNG CHIN HUI vs RODRIGUEZ

- Petitioner is a Taiwanese citizen with a tampered passport earlier cancelled by Taiwanese authorities.
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation then ordered his summary deportation. Petitioner then filed
petition for habeas corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal.
- RTC of Manila then granted his petition and ordered his release from custody but BID filed a motion
for reconsideration which was denied, thereafter filing a notice of appeal from RTCs judgment.
- Petitioner filed opposition claiming that the notice was filed beyond the 48-hour reglementary period
for filing appeals in habeas corpus cases as prescribed by the pre-1997 Rules of Court. RTC rejected
his claim and granted due course to notice of appeal.
- ISSUE: WON the pre-1997 Rules of Court is applicable in this case?
- SC: No. Sec. 18 Rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court which prescribes a 48-hour period was omitted
and thereby repealed by the 1997 Rules of Court, which completely replaced Rules 1-71. Provisions of
an old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed
replaced and discarded. The omission showed SCs intention to abrogate those provisions of the old
laws that are not reproduced in the revised statute or code.
- Reglementary period for filing an appeal in a habeas corpus case is now similar to ordinary civil action
as governed by Sec 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court which is 15 days from notice of the
judgment or order.
- What is omitted is deemed repealed.
- Revised statute is in effect a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute
shall prevail and whatever is excluded there from shall be discarded.

2. DAVID vs COMELEC

- There are two petitions in the case beginning with Alex David, barangay chairman of Bgy. 77, Zone 7,
Kaloookan and followed by Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay Quezon City Chapter President Bonifacio
M. Rillon. The Court resolved to consolidate the two cases inasmuch as they raised basically the same
issue.
- Contending that their term is five years, petitioners ask to order the cancellation of the scheduled
barangay election this coming May 12, 1997 and to reset it to the second Monday of May, 1999,
further questioning, how long is the term of office of barangay chairmen and other barangay officials
who were elected to their respective offices on the second Monday of May 1994?
- RA 7160 (the Local Government Code) provides that it is three years while RA 6679 states that is five
years.
- ISSUE: Which should prevail? The Local Government Code (RA 7160) or RA 6679?
- SC: A later law repeals an earlier one, therefore RA 6679 is repealed by RA 7160. The Local
Government Code was enacted later than RA 6679. It is basic that in case of an irreconcilable conflict
between two laws of different vintages, the later enactment prevails.
- Legis posteriores priores contraries abrogant. A later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later
legislative will. It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- RA 7160: the term of office of barangay officials was fixed at three (3) years while RA 6679 states that
such "term shall be for five years." The provisions are clearly inconsistent and repugnant with each
other.
- In its repealing clause, RA 7160 states that "all general and special laws . . . which are inconsistent
with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." There being a
clear repugnance and incompatibility between the two specific provisions, they cannot stand
together. When a subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former
enactments, the latter is deemed repealed.
- As between two laws, one passed later prevails. The later law repeals an earlier one because it is
the later legislative will. The lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. In enacting
the older law, the legislators could not have known the newer one and could not have intended to
change what they did not know. The Civil Code provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent
ones, not the other way around.

3. LLDA vs CA

- The Laguna Lake Development Authority was created by RA 4850 as a government agency for the
Laguna Lakes environmental protection and development. PD 813 was later on created granting the
LLDA special powers which include exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of the lake
waters including navigation, construction, and operation of fish pens, and the like plus the power to
collect fees for such activities.
- RA 7160 (Local Government Code) was created thereafter and the municipalities around the Laguna
Lake Region interpreted the Code as granting them jurisdiction over issuing permits for fish pen
privileges within their jurisdiction and started issuing permits to big fish pen operators. The LLDA
issued a notice declaring these fish pens as illegal because they were not registered with the LLDA
further imposing fines and threatening demolition of the said projects. The private respondents
contended that the LLDA has no jurisdiction because it is the Local Government Code, a later law,
that shall prevail over the case.
- ISSUE: WON the LLDA can exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake Region as provided in RA 4850
and PD 813
- Yes. The LLDA should exercise jurisdiction over the lake insofar as the issuance of permits for fisheries
is concerned. RA 7160 did not repeal the laws creating the LLDA therefore the latter maintains
exclusive authority over issuances of permits. The charter of the LLDA is a special law while RA 7160 is
a general law. Even if RA 7160 was enacted later, it is still a general law and cannot be construed to
have repealed a special law.
- Special law prevails over general law because it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the
general statute. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent law by mere
implications.
- Generalia specialibus non derogant a general law does not nullify a specific or special law.

4. BAGATSING vs RAMIREZ

- Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7522, An Ordinance Regulating the Operation of
Public Markets and Prescribing Fees for the Rentals of Stalls and Providing Penalties for Violation
thereof and for other Purposes.
- Respondents seeks to nullify the ordinance
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- ISSUE: WON the Revised City Charter should govern over the Local Tax Code on publication of tax
ordinance enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila
- SC: The Local Tax Code prevails. Although the Revised City Charter is a special law, may be impliedly
modified by a later statute, and where the statute is controlling, it must be read into the charter,
notwithstanding any of its provisions. A special law is considered to be an exception to the general.
The Revised Charter of Manila speaks of ordinance in general whereas the Local Tax Code relates to
ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges in particular. A charter must not be
inconsistent with the general laws and public policy of the state.

5. DAR vs SUTTON

- Petitioners own a land in Masbate devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. Pursuant to the
agrarian reform of the government, respondents voluntarily offered to sell (VOS) their landholdings
to DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law such as cash incentives and other tax exemptions.
- RA 6656 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) then took effect, including in its coverage
farms used for livestock, poultry and swine. But certain provisions of the CARL were declared
unconstitutional because livestock farms should not be included in the coverage of agrarian reform as
mandated and exempted by the Constitution. Lands such as these are classified as industrial, not
agricultural.
- Congress then enacted RA 7881, which amended these certain unconstitutional provisions of the
CARL. Specifically, the new law changed the definition of the terms "agricultural activity" and
"commercial farming" by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock,
poultry and swine-raising.
- Petitioners then requested DAR to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively
to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL. DAR ignored the request.
- ISSUE: WON the landholding was exempt from the coverage of the CARL
- SC: It is exempted. The reenactment of a statute by Congress without substantial change is an
implied legislative approval and adoption of the previous law. On the other hand, by making a new
law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one. In the case at bar, after the passage of the 1988
CARL, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7881 which amended certain provisions of the CARL. With this
significant modification, Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the
intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of
agrarian reform.
CHAPTER 11
FOCUS/DOCTRINES:
1. Constitution fundamental law which sets up a form of government and defines and delimits the powers
thereof and those of its officers, reserving to the people themselves plenary sovereignty
2. The constitution is a written charter enacted and adopted by the people by which a government for them
is established
3. The constitution is permanent in nature thus it does not only apply to existing conditions but also to
future needs. It is absolute and unalterable except by amendment.
4. Constitutional Construction to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers of the constitution as
expressed in its language
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

5. The Constitution must be adaptable to various crisis of human affairs but it must also be solid permanent
and substantial. It should not change with emergencies or conditions. It should not be inflexible. It should
not be interpreted narrowly.
6. The primary source in order to ascertain the constitution is the language itself.
7. Do not construe the constitution in such a way that its meaning would change.
8. If the words used have both general and restricted meaning, the general prevails over the restricted
unless the contrary is indicated.
9. Aids to Construction: (1) History (2) Proceedings of the Convention (3) Prior laws and judicial decisions (4)
Contemporaneous constructions (5) Consequences of alternative interpretations
10. History basically helps in making one understand as to how and why certain laws were incorporated
into the constitution. In construing constitutional law, the history must be taken into consideration
because there are certain considerations rooted in the historical background of the environment at the
time of its adoption.
11. If the language of the constitutional provision is plain, it is not necessary to resort to extrinsic aids. Except
when the intent of the framer doesnt appear in the text or it has more than one construction. The
proceedings of the convention are usually inquired into because it sheds light upon what the framers had
in mind that time.
12. Constitution is construed as a whole. Provisions should not be construed separately from the rest, it
should be interpreted as a whole and be harmonized with conflicting provisions so as to give them all
force and effect.
13. Sections in the constitution with a particular subject should be interpreted together to effectuate the
whole purpose of the constitution.
14. Constitution operated prospectively only unless the words employed are clear that it applies
retroactively.
15. Constitutional provisions are self-executing, generally. Except when the provisions themselves
expressly require legislations to implement them.
16. Self-executing provisions provisions which are complete by themselves and become operative
without the aid of supplementary legislation
17. In case of doubt, construe such provision as self-executing rather that non self-executing
CASES:
1. DRILON vs ERMITA

- EO 464 Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on
Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in
Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes issued by the President GMA
- Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional.
- Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as
resource speakers in a public hearing on several issues concerning the President (i.e. election fraud,
wiretapping, railway project, etc.), in the exercise of its legislative power (legislative inquiries in aid of
legislation)
- Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the President as provided by EO
464, Sec 3 which requires all the public officials enumerated in Sec 2 to secure the consent of the
President prior to appearing before either house of Congress.
- ISSUE: Is EO 464 constitutional?
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- SC: No. Congress has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of
legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it
must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected.
- The enumeration in Section 2 of EO 464 is broad and is covered by the executive privilege. The
doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must, as a matter of
necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being, by definition, an
exemption from the obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be
of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case.

2. DAVID vs ARROYO

- President GMA declared PP 1017 to be implemented by GO 5 due to the Magdalo siege and discovery
of plans to assassinate her. PP 1017 was aimed to suppress lawlessness and the connivance of
extremists to bring down the government.
- Pursuant to such PP, GMA cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and at the same time revoked all
permits issued for rallies and other public organizations.
- Notwithstanding the cancellation of their rally permit, KMU head Randolf David proceeded to rally
which led to his arrest without warrant. A week after PP 1017, GMA issued PP 1021 lifting the state of
national emergency.
- Petitioner averred that PP1017 and GO 5 are unconstitutional for they have no factual basis and they
cannot be validly declared by the president for such power is reposed in Congress.
- ISSUE: WON PP 1017 and GO 5 were unconstitutional
- SC: Petition was partly granted. The Court ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar
as it grants GMA the authority to promulgate decrees, taking into consideration that legislative power
is vested only in congress. PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it allows the President to call the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to
lawless violence are declared unconstitutional.
- The following acts of the government were held unconstitutional: warrantless arrest of the
petitioner, dispersal and warrantless arrests of rallyists in the absence of proof that said petitioners
were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, or violating BP 800;
imposition of media standards and any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as warrantless
search of the Tribune Offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials.

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

- An EO allowing members of the Cabinet, their secretaries and undersecretaries hold other offices or
positions in addition to their primary positions was assailed in this case.
- EO 284 runs counter with Art 7 Sec 3 of the Constitution which provides that the President, the VP,
the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies and assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.
- ISSUE: Is EO 284 constitutional?
- SC: No. It is null and void. In constitutional construction, the intention underlying the provision must
be recognized. The practice of holding multiple offices in the government would lead to abuses by
unscrupulous public officials who took the scheme for purposes of self-enrichment, particularly
during Marcos era.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- The court examined the history of the times, the conditions under which the constitutional provisions
was framed and its object. Before the adoption of the constitutional provision, there was a
proliferation of newly-created agencies created by PDs and other modes of presidential issuances
during Marcos time where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants were designated to head or
sit as members of the board with corresponding salaries, emoluments, allowances, per diems, and
other prerequisites of office
- The evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President, VP, Cabinet members, etc with respect to holding multiple government offices. The
language of the provision is prohibitory.
- The qualifying phrase unless otherwise provided cannot refer to the broad exceptions made for
appointive officials under Art 9-B Sec 7 of the Constitution. The former is meant to lay down the
general rule of holding multiple offices applicable to all elective public officials and employees while
the latter is meant for the exception of the President, VP, members of the Cabinet, etc. To construe
otherwise would render the meaningless the manifest intent of the framers of the Constitution.
- History basically helps in making one understand as to how and why certain laws were
incorporated into the constitution. In construing constitutional law, the history must be taken into
consideration because there are certain considerations rooted in the historical background of the
environment at the time of its adoption.

4. UNITED PEPSI COLA SUPERVISOR UNION vs LAGUESMA

- The union filed a petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola
Products Philippines, Inc. The petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route managers are managerial
employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership under the first sentence of Art 245 of the
Labor Code.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, pressing for resolution its contention that the first
sentence of Art 245 of the Labor Code, so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to
form, assist or join unions, contravenes Art 3 Sec 8 of the Constitution which provides the right of
the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged
- ISSUE: WON Art 245 of the Labor Code violates the Constitution (Art 3 Sec 8)
- SC: No. The Constitutional Commission intended the absolute right to organize of government
workers, supervisory employees, and security guards to be constitutionally guaranteed. By
implication, no similar absolute constitutional right to organize for labor purposes should be deemed
to have been granted to top-level and middle managers. Nor is the guarantee of organizational
right in Art 3 infringed by a ban against managerial employees forming a union. The right
guaranteed in Art 3 is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes "not
contrary to law."
- In the case of Art. 245, there is a rational basis for prohibiting managerial employees from forming or
joining labor organization. Thi s i nhi bi ti on has been stated to be, because i f these
managerial employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured
of their loyalty to the Union in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become
company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in Union membership.

5. TOLENTINO vs SECRETARY OF FINANCE

- RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by
amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

- Its constitutionality was challenged on the ground that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives as required by Art 6, Sec 24 of the Constitution, because it is in fact the
result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. There is also a contention
that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by the Constitution.
- ISSUE: WON RA 7716 is constitutional
- SC: Yes. It is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to originate
exclusively in the HOR. The Senate has the power not only to concur with amendments but also to
propose amendments. Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing
revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local
application must come from the HOR on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor
does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt
of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of
the House bill.
- S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by the Constitution because the
second and third readings were done on the same day. The President had certified S. No. 1630 as
urgent. The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also
that of reading the bill on separate days. That upon the certification of a bill by the President the
requirement of 3 readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is
supported by the weight of legislative practice.
- Sections in the constitution with a particular subject should be interpreted together to effectuate
the whole purpose of the constitution.

6. MAGTOTO vs MANGUERA

- Art 4 Sec 20 of 1973 Constitution: ...Any person under investigation... shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right... no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself...Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
evidence...
- Petitioner was accused of murder in two informations. During trial, his extrajudicial confession dated
November 1972 (before 1973 Constitution was promulgated) was admitted in evidence over the
objection that it was taken while the accused was in preventive custody of the PC without having
been informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel.
- ISSUE: WON Art 4 Sec 20 of the 1973 Constitution be applied retroactively
- SC: It should be given a prospective application. The constitutional guarantee of right to counsel only
has prospective effect. Giving such provision a retroactive effect would invite unwarranted hardship
on the part of the prosecutor. However, his confession is admissible given that the same had been
obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, since no law gave the accused the right to be
so informed before that date.
- Why prospective effect for this case? (1) said provision of the New Constitution granted, for the first
time, to a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be
informed of such right; (2) the history behind this new right shows the intention to give this
constitutional guaranty not a retroactive, but a prospective effect, so as to cover only confessions
taken after the effectivity of the New Constitution; and (3) to give a retroactive effect to this
constitutional guarantee to counsel would have a great unsettling effect on the administration of
justice in this country. It may lead to the acquittal of guilty individuals and thus cause injustice to the
People and to offended parties in many criminal cases where confessions were obtained before the
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

effectivity of the New Constitution and in accordance with the rules then in force although without
assistance of counsel.
- Constitution operated prospectively only unless the words employed are clear that it applies
retroactively.

7. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs GSIS

- GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila Hotel Corporation pursuant to the privatization program of
the government. Two bidders participated, Manila Prince Hotel (MPH) and Malaysian Firm Renong
Berhad (RB). MPHs bid was at P41.58/per share while RBs bid was at P44.00/share. RB was the
highest bidder hence it was logically considered as the winning bidder but is yet to be declared so.
Pending declaration, MPH matches RBs bid and invoked the Filipino First Policy enshrined under
Art 12, Sec 10 of the 1987 Constitution but GSIS refused to accept. In turn MPH filed a TRO to avoid
the perfection/consummation of the sale to RB.
- RB assailed the TRO issued in favor of MPH arguing among others that Art 12, Sec 10 needs an
implementing law because it is merely a statement of principle and policy (not self-executing) and
even if said passage is self-executing, Manila Hotel does not fall under national patrimony.
- ISSUE: WON Art 12, Sec 10 needs an implementing law and RB should be admitted as the highest
bidder and hence be proclaimed as the legit buyer of shares
- SC: No. The qualified Filipino entity must be given preference by granting it the option to match the
winning bid because the provision is self-executing. Art 12, Sec 10 of the 1987 Constitution is self
executing. The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract.
- In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be made
between a qualified foreigner and a qualified Filipino, the latter shall be chosen over the former.
- 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.

8. IBP vs ZAMORA

- President Estrada directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the
proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing
criminal or lawless violence, invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Art 7, Sec 18 of the
Constitution
- The President declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely
temporary in nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time when the situation shall have
improved. The IBP filed a petition seeking to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines null
and void and unconstitutional.
- ISSUE: WON the calling out to the AFP and PNP was constitutional
- SC: Yes. When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. Under Art 7,
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

Sec 18, Congress may revoke such proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof.
- However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the
Presidents action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places the calling out power in a
different category from the power to declare martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together
the 3 powers and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification.

9. MACALINTAL vs COMELEC

- Petitioner, a lawyer and a taxpayer, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking a declaration
that certain provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are unconstitutional.
- ISSUES: (1) WON Sec 5 of RA 9189 allowing the registration of voters who are immigrants or
permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of executing an affidavit expressing their
intention to return to the Philippines violate the residency requirement in Art 5 Sec 1 of the
Constitution. (2) WON Sec 18.5 of RA 9189 empowering the COMELEC to proclaim winning
candidates for national offices and party-list representatives including the President and the VP
violate Art 7, Sec 4 of the Constitution that winning candidates for President and VP shall be
proclaimed by Congress. (3) WON under Sec 25 of RA 9189, the Congress may review, revise, amend
and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations that the COMELEC shall promulgate without
violating the independence of the COMELEC under Art 9-A, Sec 1 of the Constitution
- SC: (1) All laws are presumed to be constitutional Sec 5 of RA 9189 allows an immigrant and
permanent resident abroad to register as voter for as long as h executes an affidavit to show that he
has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of the constitutional intent expressed in Art 5, Sec 1 and
Sec 2 that all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law must be entitled to exercise
the right of suffrage and, that Congress must establish a system for absentee voting, for otherwise, if
actual, physical residence in the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the framers of the
Constitution to mandate Congress to establish a system for absentee voting. (2) The constitution
must be construed as a whole Art 7, Sec 4 of the Constitution gives the Congress the duty to canvass
the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and VP. The COMELEC can only proclaim
the winning Senators and party-list representatives but not the President and the VP. Sec 18.5 of RA
9189 is far too sweeping for including the proclamation of the winning candidates for the presidency
and vice-presidency. The provisions of the constitution as the fundamental law of the land should be
read as part of RA 9189 and hence, the canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners for
presidency and vice-presidency must remain in the hands of the Congress. (3) In case of doubt in the
interpretation of the provision of the constitution, such meaning must be deduced from the
discussions of the members of the Constitutional Commission Art 9-A, Sec 1 of the Constitution
provides that The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. RA 9189 is unconstitutional as it violates
the provision, mandating the independence of constitutional commissions. The phrase subject to the
approval of the Congressional Oversight Committee in the first sentence of Sec 17.1 empowers the
Commission to authorize voting by mail in not more than 3 countries for the May 2004 elections, and
the phrase only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee found in
the second paragraph of the same section are unconstitutional as they require review and approval
of voting by mail in any country after the May 2004 elections. Congress may not confer upon itself
the authority to approve or disapprove the countries wherein voting by mail shall be allowed, as
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Agpalo 2009, San Beda College of Law aiza ebina/2012

determined by the COMELEC pursuant to the conditions provided for in Sec 17.1 of RA 9189.
Otherwise Congress would overstep the bounds of its constitutional mandate and intrude into the
independence of the COMELEC.
- The petition was partly granted. The above-mentioned portions of RA 9189 were declared void and
unconstitutional.