The People of the Philippines vs.

Purisma
No. L-42050-66. November 20, 1978
Case Doctrine: The preamble or the whereas clause of a statute may be referred
to determine what acts fall within the purview of a penal statute
Facts:
Twenty-six Petition for Review were filed by the People of the Philippines
involving three Courts of First Instance. Before those courts Informations were filed
charging the respective accused with Illegal possession of deadly weapon in
violation of P.D. No. 9. The mentioned courts dismissed the Informations, on the
common ground, that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the
offense penalized by P.D. No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of
the crime which was the possession of bladed weapon charged was for the purpose
of abetting, or in furtherance of the conditions of rampant criminality, organized
lawlessness, public order, etc. The respondent Judges ruled that the only
reasonably, logical and valid construction given to P.D. No. 9 is that carrying of any
weapon described in the Presidential decree only becomes punishable because of
the motivation behind it and not the simple act of carrying the mentioned. The
petitioner contends that P.D. No. 9 (3) covers one and all situations where a person
carries outside his residence any of the weapons mentioned or described in the
decree irrespective of motivation intent, or purpose. These conflicting views arising
from its implementation is then to be settled by searching for and determining the
intent and the spirit of the law through the preamble of the statute introduced
usually by the word whereas. The petitioner, however, opposes that the preamble
or the whereas clause cannot prevail over the text itself nor can it enlarge, confer
power and cure inherent defects in the statute as it is not an essential part of an
act.
Issue:
WON the court should inquire the intent and the spirit of the decree in the
preamble or the whereas clause?
Ruling:
The Court ruled that because of the problem of determining what acts fall
within the purview of P.D. No. 9, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and
spirit of the decree which can be found among others in the preamble or whereas
clause which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the
decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein. With these, the court denies the
petition for review and affirm the dismissal by the respondent judges of the
Information concerned.

Lidasan vs. Comelec

No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
Case Doctrine: The title of a statute must be expressed in the title of the bill that
shall sufficiently notify the legislators, the public and those concerned of the import
of the single subject
Facts:
Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato
and a qualified voter assails the constitutionality of R.A. 4790, which is entitled An
Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the province of Lanao del Sur and
petitioned that Comelecs resolution of implementing the mentioned for electoral
purposes be nullified. As for the transfer of 12 barrios in the two municipalities from
the province of Cotobato to the province of Lanao del Sur, changed the boundaries
of the two provinces which the title of the act obviously did not inform the members
of Congress the full impact of the law and kept the public in dark as to what towns
and provinces were actually affected by the bill. The respondent, however, defend
that the change in the boundaries of the two provinces is merely the incidental legal
results of the definition of the boundaries of the municipality of Dianaton and that,
therefore, reference to the fact that portions in Cotabato are taken away need not
to be expressed in the title of the law.

Issue: WON the R. A. 4790 is unconstitutional?

Ruling:
The Court ruled that R.A. 4790 is unconstitutional for having a misleading title
as the phrase in the title in the Province of Lanao del Sur does not reflect the
transfer of a portion of territory from Cotobato to the mentioned. Thus, preventing
the Congress to identify the full impact of the law and keeping the public in the
dark.