INTRODUCTION

This research intends to determine how effective interpretations and constructions of

laws are in the Philippines.
The Constitution has vested the judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.1 In exercise of judicial power, the Supreme Court
interprets statutes and laws when disputes arise.2
Interpretation and Construction are done by the Supreme Court when a certain
provision of the law is ambiguous. Interpretation is the art of finding the true meaning
and sense of any form of words.3 On the other hand, Construction is the art or process
of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law with
respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful,
amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in
the law.4
The rules of statutory interpretation are under attack as being worthless and even
harmful.5 (check joshs research for biblio)
In an interview, President Aquino declared [on October 22] that the only thing that
motivates him to push for amendments to the Constitution is to have the powers of the
judiciary clipped. In late August, Aquino made it clear that he wants the judiciarys
review powers stopped. He said there has to be a limit to the powers of the judiciary.6
**ending sentence

Section 1, Article 8, 1987 Constitution

THELAW.COM, dictionary
3
agpalo
4
Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. L-19650, September 29, 1966
2

5
6

DISCUSSION
Rules of statutory construction help the courts resolve bad laws cases
1.) The constitutionality (law)
2.) In terms of the principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair
play" for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws
or ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the
various types of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice
determine what counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while principles of retributive
or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a society's rules of "fair
play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the
rules. People often frame justice issues in terms of fairness and invoke principles of
justice and fairness to explain their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the organizations
they are part of, as well as their state or government. They want institutions to treat
them fairly and to operate according to fair rules. What constitutes fair treatment and fair
rules is often expressed by a variety of justice principles.
In the case of People v Feliciano Patola, et. al. this is a review of the death penalty
imposed upon Feliciano Patola and Eunillo Sangayon by the Court of First Instance of
Davao, Tagum Branch 8. They were convicted of robbery with rape with the use of
deadly weapons and ordered to pay Roman Coado P4,500 as value of the stolen
goods. Counsel de oficio contends in this appeal that the trial court erred in disregarding
the alibi of the accused, in convicting them of rape in the absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused had carnal intercourse with Mila and Elena against
their will and in relying on Sangayon's confession and on Dalogdog's testimony.
These contentions are devoid of merit. As this is a case involving credibility of the
witnesses, the findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight. Even if Dalogdog's
testimony is disregarded because he was not present during the robbery, the
testimonies of the offended parties are adequate to prove the special complex crime
charged.

The trial court found that nocturnity, dwelling and abuse of superiority were aggravating.
It imposed the death penalty because it applied article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
on rape rather than its article 294[2] on robbery with rape. The accused were charged
with a crime against property, not a crime against chastity. There was no complaint of
the offended parties in this case. Robbery with rape is punishable with reclusion
temporal medium to reclusion perpetua before article 294[2] was amended by
Presidential Decree No. 767 which took effect on August 15, 1975 and which raised the
penalty from reclusion perpetua to death when the rape is qualified.
It may seem to be a simple matter of common sense that justice is central to any wellfunctioning society. However, the question of what justice is, exactly, and how it is
achieved are more difficult matters. The principles of justice and fairness point to ideas
of fair treatment and "fair play" that should govern all modes of exchange and
interaction in a society. They serve as guidelines for carrying out justice. Not
surprisingly, each of the principles of justice and fairness can be applied in a variety of
contexts.
3.) Public Policy
4.) Rights
5.) Intention of the legislators egislative intent is what a legislature as a whole had in
mind when it passed a particular statute. Normally, any given statute is interpreted by
looking just at the statute's language. But when the language is ambiguous or unclear,
courts try to glean the legislative intent behind words by looking at legislative
interpretations (for instance, reports issued by legislative committees) which were relied
upon by legislators when voting on the statute.

Statutes are often ambiguous enough to support more than one interpretation, and the
material reflecting legislative intent is frequently sparse. This leaves courts free to
interpret statutes according to their own predilections. Once a court interprets the

legislative intent, however, other courts will usually not go through the exercise again,
but rather will enforce the statute as interpreted by the other court.practice. It is defined
to be "the drawing in inference by the act of reason, as to the intent of an instrument,
from given circumstances, upon principles deduced from men's general motives,
conduct and action." This definition may, perbaps, not be sufficiently complete,
inasmuch as the term instrument generally implies something reduced into writing,
whereas construction, is equally necessary to ascertain the meaning of engagements
merely verbal. In other respects it appears to be perfectly accurate. The Treatise of
Equity, defines interpretation to be the collection of the meaning out of signs the most
probable.

There are numerous ways on how to interpret the law. But the major factors in
considering the correct interpretation of laws are: The consti, Justice and fair play,
Public policy, Rights, Intetneion of legislators
Law means a rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by legitimate power of the
state. In determining how effective the interpretations and constructions of laws here in
the Philippines. The various methods and tests used by the courts for determining the
meaning of a law. As the Supreme Court has explained: "[I]n interpreting a statute a
court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must
presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what
it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed,
"[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last:
`judicial inquiry is complete.' " Id."Congress is presumed to act intentionally and
purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another." Estate of
Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).

In a recent case, the Supreme Court

CONCLUSION