STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES AND CANONS
Presumption of Nonexclusive “Include”- The verb to
LAW – rule of conduct formulated and made obligatory by a legitimate
power of the state.
STATUTE – an act of legislature as an organized body, expressed in the
form, and passed according to the procedure, required to constitute it as
part of the law of the land.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – is the art or process of discovering
and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of the law,
where that intention is rendered doubtful by reason of ambiguity in its
language or of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in
the law.
NOTE: Construction vs Interpretation. Interpretation is limited within the
four corners of the written text, while Construction draws warranted
conclusions beyond the language of the written text.
NOTE FURTHER: Rules of construction are not rules of law but merely
axioms of experience or general principles.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT – essence of the law; composing of the purpose
and meaning of the law
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE – the objective why the law was created
LEGISLATIVE MEANING – the scope of the law determined by the
language used in the law
ELEMENTS OF A LEGAL ACT
1. INTERNAL – intention of legislature
2. EXTERNAL – expression used by legislature
NOTE: The primary source of legislative intent is in the statute itself –
pertaining to the WHOLE written text. Where the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, there is no room for interpretation / Where there is
no ambiguity, there is no room for construction.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
1. Interpretation Principles- Every application of a text to
particular circumstances necessarily entails interpretation
2. Supremacy-of-Text Principle- The word of a governin text
are of paramount concern, what they convey, in their context,
is what the text mean.
3. Principle of Interrelating Canons- Nocanon of interpretation
is absolute. Each may be overcome by the strength of differing
princples that point in other directions
4. Presumption Against Ineffectivenes- A textually permissible
interpretation that further rathen obstructs the document’s
purpose should be favoured
5. Presumption of Validity- An interpretation that validates
outweighs one that invalidates (ut res magis valeat quam
pereat)
SEMANTIC CANONS
1. Ordinary-Meaning Canon- Words are to be understood in
their ordinary, everyday meanings- unless the context
indicates that they bear a technical sense.
2. Fixed-Meaning Canon- Words must be given the meaning
they had when the text was adopted.
3. Ommitted-Case Canon- Nothing is to be added to what the
text states or reasonable implies (casus omissus pro omisso
habendus est) That is, a matter not covered is to ve treated as
not covered
4. General-Terms Canon- General terms are to be given their
general meaning (generalia verba sunct generaliter
intelligenda)
5. Negative-Implication Canon- The expression of one thing
implies the exclusion of others (expression unius est exclusion
alterius)
6. Mandatory/Permissive Canon- Mandatory words impose
duty; permissive words grant discretion
7. Conjunctive/Disjunctive Canon
And joint a conjunctive list
or a disjunctive list- but with negatives, plurals, and
various specific wording there are nuances
8. Subordinating/Superordinating Canon- Subordinating
language, signalled by subjet to, or superordinating language,
signalled by nothwithstanding or despite, merely shows which
provision prevails in the event of a clash- but not necessarily
denote a clash of provisions.
9. Gender/Number Canon- In the absence of a contrary
indication, the masculine includes the feminine (and vice
versa) and the singular includes the plurat (and vice versa)
10.
include introduces examples, not an exhaustive list
11. Untintellibility Canon- An unintelligible text is inoperative.
12. Grammar Canon- Words are to be given the meaning that
proper grammer and usage would assign to them
13. Proviso Canon- A proviso cnditions the principal matter that it
qualifies- almost always the matter immediately preceeding it
14. Punctuation Canon- Punctuation is a permissible indicator of
meaning
CONTEXTUAL CANONS
1. Whole-Text Canon- The text must be construed as a whole
2. Presumption of Consistent Usage- A word or phrase is
presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a
material variation in terms suggest a variation in meaning
3. Surplusage Canon- If possible, evry word and every
provision is to be given effect (verba cum effectu sunt
accipienda) None should be ignored. None should needlessly
be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another
provision or to have no consequence.
4. Harmonious-Reading Canon- The provision of a text should
be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not
contradictory.
5. General/Specific Canon- If there is a conflict between a
general provision and a specific provision, the specific
provision prevails (generalie specialibus non derogant)
6. Irreconcilable Canon- If a tect contains truly irreconcilable
provision at the same level of generality, and they have been
simultaneoudly adopted, neither provision should be given
effect.
7. Associated-Words Canon- Associated words bear on one
another’s meaning (noscitur a solicis)
8. Ejusdem Generis Canon- Where general words follow an
enumeration of two or more things, they apply only to persons
or things of the same general kind of class specifically
menrioned (ejusdem generis)
9. Prefatory-Materials Canon- TA preamble, purpose clause, or
recital is a permissible indicator of meaning
10. Title-and Headings-Canon- The title and headings are
permissible indicators of meaning
11. Absurdity Doctrine- A provision may be either disregarded or
judicially correted as an error (when the correction is textually
simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no
reasonable person could approve.
EXPECTED MEANING CANONS
1. Constitutional-Doubt Canon- A statute should be interpreted
in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt
2. Relate-Statutes Canon- Statues in pari material are to be
interpreted together, as though they were one in law
3. Reenactment Canon- If the legislature amend or re-enacts a
provision other that by way of consolidating statute or restyling
project, a significant change in language is presumed to entail
a change in meaning
4. Presumption Agaisnt Retroactivity- A statute presumptively
has no retroactive application
5. Artificial-Person Canon- The word person includes
corporations and other entities, but not the sovereign.
6. Rule of Lenity- Ambiguity in a statute defining a crime or
imposing a penalty shoul be resolved in the defendant’s favour
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DOCTRINES
CONSTRUCTION, DEFINED
Caltex v. Palomar
 Construction is the art or process of discovering and
expounding the meaning and the 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.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT/RATIO LEGIS – DURA LEX SED LEX
When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for
interpretation/Plain Meaning Rule/Spirit and Purpose of Law
The law is harsh, but it is still the law. It must be applied regardless of
who may be affected, even if it may be harsh or onerous.
When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required.
RCBC v. IAC
 When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity,
there is no room for construction or interpretation. Only when
 the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court
interpret or construe its true intent. A statute is ambiguous if it
is admissible of two or more possible meanings, in which
case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its judicial
functions, which is to interpret the law according to its true
intent.
Regalado v. Yulo
 The intent of the Legislature is to be ascertained and enforced
is the intent expressed in the words of the statute. The courts
cannot assume some purpose in no way expressed and then
construe the statute to accomplish this supposed intention.
Matabuena v. Cervantes
 The principle of statutory construction that what is within the
spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written;
whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely
literal of the language used must be remedial by an adherence
to its avowed objective.
Del Mar v. Pagcor
 In the interpretation of statutes, it is not proper or permissible
to inquire into the motives which influenced the legislative
body, except insofar as such motives are disclosed by the
statute itself.
Cecilleville Realty and Service Corp. v. Court of Appeals
 Where the law is unambiguous and clear, it must be applied
according to its plain and obvious meaning, according to its
express terms.
Ursua v. Court of Appeals
 There exists a valid presumption that undesirable
consequences were never intended by a legislative measure
and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible
is favored which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous,
indefensible, wrongful, evil and injurious consequences.
Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection
 The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines
construction of a provision of law – it is a cardinal rule in
statutory construction that in interpreting the meaning and
scope of a term used in the law, a careful review of the whole
law involved, as well as the intendment of the law, must be
made.
Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga
Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.
 If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort
to other aids is available. The proper interpretation of a
constitutional provision depends more on how it was
understood by the people adopting it than the framers’
understanding thereof.
UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT
That thing may rather have effect than be destroyed
Statute as a Whole
 Statute must be considered as a whole, just as it is necessary
to consider a sentence in its entirety in order to grasp its true
meaning
JMM Promotions and Management Inc., v. NLRC
 In interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part
be given effect. Construction that would render a provision
inoperative should be avoided and inconsistent provisions
should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of the
harmonious whole.
WISDOM/PRACTICALITY OF LAW
Spirit and Purpose of the Law
 Ratio est anima-the reason of law is its soul
 No law is ever enacted that is intended to be meaningless,
much less inutile.
 Between two statutory interpretations, that which better serves
the purpose of the law should prevail.
 Ubi lex non distinguit ne nos distinguere-when the law
does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish
 Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex- when the reason of
the law ceases, the law itself ceases
RCBC v. IAC
 The holding that suspension of actions for claims against a
corporation under rehabilitation takes effect as soon as the
application or a petition for rehabilitation is filed with the SEC –
may, to some, be more logical and wise but unfortunately,
such is incongruent with the clear language of the law. To
insist on such ruling, no matter how practical and noble, would
be to encroach upon legislative prerogative to define the
wisdom of the law – plainly judicial legislation.
Lacson v. Roque, et al.
 Mere silence of the statute with respect to notice and hearing
will not justify the removal of such an officer without
knowledge of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.
Quintos v. Lacson, et al.
 As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, it
is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply them regardless
of whether or not they are wise and salutary. If the law is
deemed unwise and detrimental to the discipline and
efficiency of public officers, proper representations and
requests may be made to the Legislature.
EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
Presidential Issuances – exercise of the President’s ordinance power
Classification Of Presidential Issuances
1. Executive Orders – rules of general or permanent in
character to implement or execute a constitutional or statutory
provision
2. Administrative Orders – relates to a particular government
operation in his capacity as administrative head
3. Proclamations – fixes a date or declares a status or condition
of public moment or interest
4. Memorandum Orders – settles matters of administrative
detail specific to a particular office or officer
5. Memorandum Circulars – provides points of interest relating
to internal administration calling the attention of all or some
government agencies
6. General or Special Orders – commands to the Armed Forces
as Commander in Chief
Administrative Rules And Regulations – rules and regulations issued
by administrative or executive officers
Tests Of Validity Of Administrative Issuances
1. Promulgation must be authorized by the legislature
2. Promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure
3. Within the scope of authority given by the legislature
4. Must be reasonable
NOTE: Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of
law, while Administrative interpretation is, at best, advisory in nature.
UP v. Court of Appeals
 The previous uncontested acts of the Civil Service authorities
in endorsing to the University for action the administrative
cases of Hospital employees Fernandez and Gorospe, and
declaring that “the Bureau had no disciplinary jurisdiction over
said employees in view of the provisions of the University
charter,” constitutes contemporary interpretation of highly
persuasive character.
Enrique v. Court of Appeals
 Great weight accorded to interpretation or construction of a
statute by the government agency called upon to implement
the same.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION
Bello v. CA
 This Court has cautioned against narrowly interpreting a
statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed
that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so
as to avoid such deplorable result (of injustice or absurdity)
and that therefore a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it
would be unjust or lead to absurd results. In the construction
of its own Rules of Court, this Court is all the more so bound
to liberally construe them to avoid injustice, discrimination and
unfairness and to supply the void – that is certainly within the
spirit and purpose of the Rule to eliminate repugnancy and
inconsistency.
Salaria v. Buenviaje
 Construction by Executive Branch of government of a
particular law although not binding upon courts must be given
weight as the construction comes from that branch of
government called upon to implement the law.
 VALID IN PART, VOID IN PART
Barrameda v. Moir
 The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as
repugnant to the Organic Law, while another part is valid, the
valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be
enforced.
Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy
 A separability clause states that if for any reason, any section
or provision of the statute is held to be unconstitutional or
(invalid), the other section(s) or provision(s) of the law shall
not be affected thereby. It is a legislative expression of intent
that the nullity of one provision shall not invalidate the other
provisions of the act. Such a clause is not, however,
controlling and the courts may, in spite of it, invalidate the
whole statute where what is left, after the void part, is
complete and workable.
AMBIGUITY, CONSTRUED AGAINST PARTY WHO CAUSED IT
Reyes v. dela Cruz
 If there is any ambiguity or obscurity in the interpretation and
meaning of a contract, the same shall not favour the party who
cause such ambiguity or obscurity.
Ildefonso v. Sibal
 Agreements must be construed according to the intention of
the parties.
Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Ltd.
 The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith not for
the insured alone, but equally so for the insurer; in fact, it is
more so for the latter, since its dominant bargaining position
carries with it stricter responsibility, By reason of the exclusive
control of the insurance company over the terms and
phraseology of the insurance contract, the ambiguity must be
strictly interpreted against the insurer and liberally in favour of
the injured, especially to avoid a forfeiture.
Baylon v. Court of Appeals
 If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to
the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of
its stipulation shall control.
LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH, COURTS SHOULD NOT
DISTINGUISH
Colgate Palmolive Phil., Inc. v. Gimenez
 General terms may be restricted by specific words, with the
result that the general language will be limited by specific
language which indicates the statute’s object and purpose.
The rule is applicable only to cases where, except for one
general term, all the items in an enumeration belong to or fall
under one specific class.
 Where the law does not distinguish, we should not
distinguish.
 The rule of construction, that general and unlimited terms are
restrained and limited by particular recitals, when used in
connection with them, does not require the rejection of the
general term entirely. It is intended merely as an aid in
ascertaining the legislative intent and is to be considered in
connection with other rules of construction.
Phil. British Assurance Co. v. IAC
 There should be no distinction in the application of a statute
where none is indicated. For courts are not authorized to
distinguish where the law makes no distinction. They should
instead administer the law not as they think it ought to be but
as they find it and without regard to consequences.
 A corollary of the principle is the rule that where the law does
not make any exception, courts may not except something
therefrom, unless there is compelling reason apparent in the
law to justify it.
MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY AND PROHIBITURE
Mandatory Statutes – a statute which commands either postively that
something be done orpeformed in a particular way or negatively that
something be not done, leaving the person concerned no choice on the
matter except to obey.
Directory Statutes – a statute which is permissive or discretionary in
nature and merely outlinesthe act to be done in such a way that no injury
can result from ignoring it
NOTE: There is no universal rule by which directory statutes are
classified from mandatory statutes.
Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre
 The provision in the Local Government Code providing for
such release uses the word “shall” and as a rule, the term
“shall” is a word of command that must be given compulsory
meaning.
Marcelino v. Cruz
 Constitutional provisions are directory, and not mandatory,
where they refer to matters merely procedural.
Brehm v. Republic
 Mandatory provisions prevail over directory ones.
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS
Useful only as a guide in determining the probable intention of the
legislature
The express mention of one person, thing orconsequence implies
the exclusion of all others.
Variations Of “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
1. Expressum facit cessare tacitum – What is expressed puts
an end to that which is implied; where a statute, by its terms,
is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters
2. Exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis – a thing
not being excepted must be regarded as coming within the
purview of the general rule
3. “The expression of one or more things of a class implies
the exclusion of all not expressed, even though all would
have been implied had none been expressed.”
NOTE: The rule Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius and its variations
are canons of restrictive interpretation. They proceed on the premise that
the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute
had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to
those expressly mentioned.
When Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius And Its Variations Are
Generally Used
1. Granting powers
2. Creating rights and remedies
3. Restricting common rights
4. Imposing penalties and forfeitures
Limitations Of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius And Its
Variations
1. These principles are mere tools of statutory construction and
cannot defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.
2. These are auxiliary rules of interpretation which can be
ignored when other circumstances indicate that the
enumeration was not intended to be exclusive.
3. These principles do not apply where the enumeration is by
way of example or to remove doubts.
4. These principles do not apply when there is some special
reason for mentioning one thing and none for mentioning
another which is otherwise within the statute, so that the
absense of any mention of such other will not exclude it.
5. These principles do not apply if its application will result in
incongruities or a violation of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
6. These principles do not apply if adherance thereto would
cause inconvenience, hardship, and injury to public interest.
City Government of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes
 It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the express
mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes
all others.
People v. Moro Macarandang
 “Peace officers” are exempted from the requirements relating
to the issuance of license to possess firearms.
Peope v. Mapa
 The fact that a person, found in possession of an unlicensed
firearm, is a secret agent of a provincial governor does not
exempt him from criminal liability. The law does not contain
any exception for a secret agent.
People v. Santayama
 At the accused’s apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is
enunciated in the case of People v. Macarandang, holding that
 the appointment of a civilian as “secret agent to assist in the
maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of
crimes sufficiently puts him within the category of a ‘peace
officer’ equivalent even to a member of the municipal police
expressly covered by Section 879.” The case of People v.
Mapa revoked the doctrine in Macarandang case only on
August 30, 1967. Under the Macarandang rule therefore
obtaining at the time of the accused’s appointment as secret
agent, he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the
pistol.
EJUSDEM GENERIS
Same kind/same specie; to give effect to both the particular and general
words, by treating the particular words as indicating the class and the
general words as indicating all that is embraced in said class, although
not specifically named by the particular words.
Exceptions of Application of Ejusdem Generis
1. The enumeration have no distinguishable common
characteristics and greatly differ from one another
2. The enumeration of the particular and specific words is
exhaustive
3. The enumeration does not thereby restrict the meaning of the
general word, but should include others of the same class
although not enumerated therein
Limitations/ Requisites of Ejusdem Generis
4. A statute contains an enumeration of particlar and specific
words, followed by a general word or phrase;
5. The particular and specific words constitute a class or are of
the same kind;
6. The enumeration of the particular class and specific words is
not exhaustive or is not merely by examples; and
7. There is no indication of legislative intent to give the general
words or phrases a broader meaning.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. SSS
 The rule of ejusdem generis applies only when there is
uncertainty. It is not controlling where the plain purpose and
intent of the lawmaking body would thereby hindered and
defeated.
Mutuc v. COMELEC
 Under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the
general words following any enumeration being applicable
only to things of the same kind or class as those specificially
referred to.
STATEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATOR
Casco Phil. Chemical Co. v. Gimenez
 Individual statements made by Senators on the floor of the
Senate do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much
less do they indicate the intent of the House of
Representatives.
Manila Jockey Club Inc. v. Games and Amusement Board
 In the interpretation of a legal document, especially a statute,
unlike in the interpretation of an ordinary written document, it
is not enough to obtain information as to the intention or
meaning of the author or authors, but also to see whether the
intention or meaning has been expressed in such a way as to
give it legal effect and validity. The legal act, so to speak, is
made up of two elements – an internal and an external one; it
originates in intention and is perfected by expression. Failure
of the latter may defeat the former.
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
Where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally
susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made
clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is
found or with which it is associated
Nagtajas v. Pryce Properties Corp., Inc.
 Under the rule of noscitur a sociis, a word or pharse should be
interpreted in relation to, or given the same meaning of, words
with which it is associated, and, since the word “gambling” is
associated with “and other prohibited games of chance,” under
Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, the word should be
read as referring only to illegal gambling.
AND/OR
Disjunctive vs Conjuctive Words
1. OR as disjunctive – Signifying disassociation and
independence of one thing from each of the other things
enumerated.
2. OR as to mean AND – Only when the spirit or context of the
law so warrants
3. OR as “That is to say”/interpretative/ expository – Giving
that which precedes it the same significance as that which
follows it.
4. OR as to mean successively – To follow the order in which
objects, acts or persons have been named in the statute
5. AND as conjunctive – Used to denote union, binding
together, or relating one to the other
6. AND as to mean OR – Only resorted to when a literal
interpretation would pervert the plain intention of the
legislature as gleaned from the context of the statute or from
external factors
7. AND/OR construed – shall be given to both conjunctive and
disjunctive accordingly as one or the other may best effectuate
the purpose intended by the legislature
Romulo, Mabanta v. Home Development and Mutual Fund
 The term ‘and/or’ means that the effect shall be given to both
the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or;” or that one word
or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will
best effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature as
gathered from the whole statute. The term is used to avoid a
construction which by the use of the disjunctive “or” alone will
exclude the combination of several of the alternatives or by
the use of the conjunctive “and” will exclude the efficacy of any
one of the alternatives standing alone.” It is accordingly
ordinarily held that the intention of the legislature in using the
term “and/or” is that the word “and” and the word “or” are to be
used interchangeably.
RETROACTIVITY
Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit – the law looks forward, not backward
Lex De Futuro, Judex De Praeterito – the law provides for the future,
the judge for the past
Espiritu v. Cipriano
 Statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a
retroactive effect so as to affect pending proceedings unless
such intent is expressly declared or clearly and necessarily
implied from the language of enactment.
CASUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST
A person, object or thing ommitted from an enumeration must be held to
have been omitted intentionally.
NOTE: As a general rule, the courts cannot supply omissions even
though the omission may have resulted from inadvertence or because
the case in question was not foreseen or contemplated. EXCEPT when
legislative intent is clear and supplying the omission will not do violence
to its language.
People v. Manantan
 The rule of casus omissus pro omisso habendus est can
operate and apply only if and when the omission has been
clearly established.
COMPUTATION OF TIME
Manner of Computing Time
(Article 13 of the New Civil Code)
1. Years-365 Days
2. Months –30 days, except if months are identified by their name, then
computed by number of days therein
3. Days–24 hours
4. Nights –Sunset to Sunrise
5. Week –7 days
Viray v. CA
 The rule that excludes the last day of a period, should the
same be a holiday, refers to the performance of the act
prescribed or required. But it does not apply where at the end
of the period no such act is to be done.