I.
INTRODUCTION
Statutory Construction, defined.
- Art
- Legislative intent
- in enacting a statute
- and applying it to a certain set of facts
- 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 the ambiguity in
is language or the fact that given case is not explicitly
provided for in the law.
Scope of construction.
- Intention is doubtful
- Ambiguity in language
- Ambiguity is thus a condition precedent to statutory
construction
Remedy for courts in case of ambiguity.
- Construe statute
- give it meaning
- in accord with legislative intent
- we construe only when there is ambiguity.
Purpose of construction.
- ascertain
- give it meaning
- in accord with legislative intent
-in the interpretation of all laws, it is to ascertain, give effect
to, the intent of the law
-determine legislative intent, what intention is conveyed,
either expressly or impliedly, by the language used
Construction, distinguished from interpretation.
- Interpretation - meaning of words; finding the true meaning
and sense of any form of words.
- Construction- reads between the lines; drawing warranted
conclusions not always included in direct expressions, or
determining the application of words to facts in litigation.
Legislative intent, defined.
- History of enactment
- evil sought to be prevented or cured
- essence of the law
- no need to collect the subjective wishes of each member
- but the objective footprints left in the trail of legislative
enactment
-where a statute is susceptible of more than one construction,
that construction should be adopted which will most tend to
give effect to the manifest intent of the legislature.
Legislative purpose, defined.
- Reason why the law was passed
Intent, distinguished from purpose
- Combined application of purpose and meaning is
legislative intent
- Example: a statute prohibits operation of a motor vehicle in
a public highway while the driver is intoxicated
- Does motor vehicle include motorcycle?
- Does intoxication include influence of narcotics?
Legislative meaning, defined.
- What the law means, by its language
- It comprehends, covers or embrace, limits or confines.
Illustrative case: Federation of Free Farmers vs CA, G.R.
No. 41161, September 10, 1981
- Sec.1 or RA 809, Sugar Act of 1952 provides:
* “In the absence of written milling agreements
between the majority of planters and the millers of sugarcane
in any milling district in the Philippines xxx shall be divided
between them”
- Section 9 provides:
* “the proceeds of any increase in participation granted
the planters under this Act and above their present share shall
be divided between the planter and his laborer of the
plantation”
- Issues:
* What is the meaning of “in the absence of written milling
agreements”?
* Does RA809 apply even if there is a written milling
agreement different from the sharing proportion provided by
it?
* Does the phrase “ any increase in participation granted
under this Act” exclude written agreement?
- Held:
* RA 809 applies with or without written milling agreements
between the planter and the miller, even if its literal
interpretation says otherwise.
Legislative intent in enacting RA 809.
- In the 1950s, planters staged a strike and threatened not to
plant sugar cane unless they were given bigger share in the
sugar industry and sugar quota commitment.
- To remedy the problem, Congress enacted RA 809 to force
planters to plant, centrals to mill and even allowing the
government to take over planting and milling.
- The evil sought to be avoided by Congress is the
exploitation of laborers or “sacada” in terms of wages and
benefits.
Legislative purpose in enacting RA 809.
- To compel continuous sugar production and grant laborer’s
share in the increased planters’ participation in the sugar
produce.
Legislative meaning in enacting RA 809.
- Although not clearly disclosed in the language of the Act, it
however indicates that the laborers should receive their share
for as long as sugar is produced and planters receive
increased participation.
- Thus, to literally interpret these phrases is to defeat
legislative intent and purpose, which is to grant laborers fair
share in sugar produce.
Legal hermeneutics, defined.
- Branch of science establishes principles and rules of
statutory construction
- Exergesis- application
Different kinds of interpretation.
* Close - literal
* Extensive - liberal
* Extravagant - departs from true meaning
* Free or unrestricted - based on general principles of
interpretation in good faith
* Limited or restricted - influenced by other principles
* Predestined - biased
Who construe law.
- Judiciary
Limitations on power to construe.
- Judicial legislation - when a court, under the guise of
interpretation, modifies, amends, remodels or rewrites a
statute
- Illustrative case: Canet v Decena, G.R. No. 155344,
January 20, 2004.
- Facts:
* A businessman applied for permit to operate and maintain
a cockpit. But the mayor refused because there is no
ordinance empowering her to do so.
 it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and
Contention of the businessman: justice to prevail.
- He invokes a resolution authorizing him to operate a
cockpit and a municipal tax ordinance providing for issuance - Section 4, Labor Code:
of a mayor’s permit to operate business. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
Contention of the mayor: regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
- The mayor refused. Under the Local Government Code of
1991, the authority to give licenses for the establishment,
maintenance and operation of cockpits pertains to the II. SUBJECTS TO CONSTRUCTION
Sanggunian.
 Subjects of Construction
- Issue: o Statutes
* Can the municipal mayor be compelled to issue business o Constitution
permit in the absence of ordinance empowering her to do so?
o Ordinances
- Held: o Resolutions
* No. While there is a resolution allowing her to operate a o Executive Orders
cockpit, there is no ordinance giving her similar authority. o Department Circulars
* The municipal tax ordinance contains general provisions  Constitution, defined.
for issuance of business permits but it is short on specifics o Fundamental law of the land
prescribing reasonable fees for cockpit operation.
o Body of rules and maxims
* The ordinance providing these specifics was withdrawn
by the Sanggunian. o Where powers of sovereignty are
* Otherwise, to compel the mayor to issue permit not only habitually exercised
violates Section 447 of the Local Government Code but also  Philippine Constitution, defined.
enroaches on the mayor’s administrative prerogatives. o Written instrument
* Since cockpit operation was not enumerated in the o Fundamental powers of the government
ordinance, it is excluded.
are established, limited and defined.
* The legislature would not have enumerated those covered
if it did not intend to limit. o By which these powers are distributed
* Express mention of one thing, person, act or consequence among several departments
excludes the others. Expressio unius est exlusio alterius. o For their save and useful exercise
o For the benefit of the body politic
What is expressed puts an ends to what is implied.  Nature of Constitution
- Expressium facit cessare tacitum. o Recognized and declared inherent rights
- An omission at the time of enactment, whether careless or
and prerogatives of a free people
calculated, cannot be judicially supplied even if wisdom
recommends it. o Sets up framework of government
- If there is a legislative gap caused by omission, the machinery
judiciary cannot fill the gap. Otherwise, it results in judicial  Constitution, distinguished from statute
legislation. o Constitution – general principles and
foundation of government
Question of legislative wisdom.
o Statute – more detailed
- Courts cannot pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
expediency of legislation. o Constitution – relatively permanent in
- For as long as laws do not violate constitution, the courts character
are limited to interpret and apply them, whether or not they o Statute – tentative
are wise or salutary.  Common parts of the Constitution.
o Constitution of Liberty – bill of rights
When does a court construe a law.
o Constitution of government – framework
- Existence of case before it
- Actual case or controversy of government
- Ambiguity o Constitution of sovereignty – procedure for
amending the constitution
Executive construction of statutes  Kinds of Constitution
- Persuasive but not binding upon the courts. o Written – embodied in a single formal
document
Construction of a partly void statute.
- Valid portion may stand and be enforced if: o Unwritten – not reduced in writing and
Separable. not formally embodied in a single
Independent. document
Sufficient to make a complete, intelligible and o Cumulative – product of evolution and
valid statute which carries out the legislative intent. growth of customs, common law, judicial
decisions and the like
Effects of rules of construction upon the courts.
o Conventional – product of constitutional
- Not mandatory
- Unless expressly provided by statutes. convention or royal proclamation
- But judicial decisions interpreting laws form part of our o Flexible – amended anytime through
legal system. ordinary legislative proceedings
o Rigid – amended only through
Unless expressly provided by statutes. proceedings different from ordinary
Examples: legislation
- Art. 10, Civil Code:
In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws,
 o Philippine Constitution – Written,
Conventional, Rigid
 Statute, defined.
o Written will of the legislature
o Public will and people’s mandate
expressed through their representatives
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.
 Is the power to legislate exclusive to Congress?
No.
o Presidential Decrees
o Executive Orders
 Statute, distinguished from statute law.
o Statute law is broader, as it includes not
only the statute, but also judicial
interpretation and application of such
statutes.
o Used interchangeably.
 Statutes, classified.
o Public – affects public at large
o Private – applies only to specific person
 Public statute, classified.
o General law – applies to whole state upon
all the people or all of the class
o Special law – relates to particular persons
or things of a class, community, individual
or thing
o Local law – applies to specific locality.
 Legislative power, defined.
o Power to make, alter and repeal laws.
 Scope of legislative power.
o Embraces all subjects
o Extends to matters of general concern or
common interest.
o Unless limited by the Constitution
 Constitutional basis for legislative power of
Congress
o Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution. The
legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
 Bill, defined.
o Proposed legislative measure
o Introduced by member/s of Congress
o For enactment into law
o Signed by the author’s
o Filed with the House Secretary
 Origin of Bill
o It may originate from either House.
o Except:
o Appropriation, revenue or tariff bills
o Bills authorizing increase of public debt
o Bill of local application and private bills.
 Illustrative case: Tolentino v Secretary of
Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
 Facts:
o Several bill were introduced in the House
of Representatives to expand the tax base
of the Value Added Tax (VAT) system and
enhance its administration by amending
the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC)
o These were referred to the House and
Ways Committee which consolidated a bill
and recommended its approval.
o After approval, it went to the Senate and
referred to its Committee on Ways and…
o The Senate approved after its Committee
recommended it.
o The House bill and the Senate version
were then referred to the Conference
Committee which recommended that the
House bill, in consolidation with the
Senate bill, be approved in accordance
with the attached copy of the bill as
reconciled and approved by the conferees
o The Conference Committee bill was then
approved by the House and the Senate
 Contention of Tolentino & other petitioners:
o Congress violated the Constitution
although the E-VAT law originated from
the lower house, it was not passed by the
Senate.
o Instead, it was simply consolidated with
the Senate version in the Conference
Committee in violation of Article VI,
Section 24:
o All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
bills of local application, and private bills
shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
o Thus, petitioners argue that it did not
originate exclusively in the lower house
because it merely consolidated 2 distinct
bills from the lower and upper houses.
o This violates the clear mandate of
“originate” which was even qualified by
the word “exclusively”.
 Held:
o It is not the law, but the revenue bill,
which is required by the Constitution to
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives.
o To insist that the revenue statute must be
substantially the same as the house bill
would be to deny the Senate’s power not
only to “concur with amendments” but also
to “propose amendments”
o For indeed, what the Constitution simply
means is that the initiative for filing
revenue bill must come from the House of
Representatives
o This is based on the theory that since they
are elected by their districts, they are
expected to be more sensitive to the locals.
o On the other hand, senators, who are
elected at large, are expected to approach
similar problem from a national
perspective.
o Both views influence legislation
o The Constitution does not prohibit the
filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
 anticipation of its receipt of the bill from
the lower house.
o For as long as the Senate did not act on its
substitute bill prior to the receipt of the bill
from the lower house.
o Thus, while it is true that a revenue bill
must originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives, the Senate can
propose amendments that re-writes the
entire bill or substitute it with an
entirely separate and distinct bill.
 How a bill becomes a law.
 Filing – with the House Secretary
 Secretary reports the bill for First Reading.
 First reading – the reading of the number and title
of the bill
 Composition of the Committee:
o Experts in the subjects under their
jurisdiction
 What happens in the Committee stage.
o It may hold public hearings on the
proposed measure.
o Bill comes under the sharpest scrutiny.
o Committee may approve or reject the bill,
with or without amendments, re-write the
bill entirely, report it favorably or without
recommendation
o Committee reports and recommend for
calendar for second reading.
 Second reading.
o The bill is read in full with the
amendments proposed by the Committee,
if any.
o Unless copies were distributed before and
such reading is dispensed with.
o The bill will be subjected to debates,
motions and amendments.
o After the amendments have been acted
upon, the bill will be voted for second
reading.
 Third reading
o Final vote for yeas and nays shall be taken
and entered in the Journal.
 Constitutional requirements for the bill to pass.
Article VI, Section 26(2):
o No bill passed by either House shall
become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days
before its passage, except when the
President certifies to the necessity of it
immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
o It has passed 3 readings on separate days.
o Printed copies in final form distributed to
its members 3 days before its passage.
o Except: when the President certifies it as
urgent to meet public calamity or
emergency.
o But the factual basis of the presidential
certification of bills may not be subject to
judicial review.
o It merely dispenses with procedural
requirements designed to insure that bills
are duly considered by member.
o If there are irregularities, for example in so
far as the international procedure of
Congress concerned, it does not affect the
constitutionality of a bill. And the Supreme
Court has nothing to do with it. It is
beyond the business of Supreme Court if
whether or not internal procedure was
followed. What the Supreme Court is
concerned is whether or not that particular
bill or particular law offends the
Constitution.
 Illustrative case: Tolentino vs Secretary of
Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
o Facts:
o The Senate approved its version of the
E-VAT bill during the second and third
reading on the same day, after the
President certified it at urgent.
o Contention of petitioners:
o The certification of the bill is invalid
because there was no emergency.
o The justification of “growing budget
deficit” is not an unusual condition in this
country.
o You cannot go against presidential
prerogative. You cannot modify the
decision of the president.
o Held:
o The presidential certification dispenses not
only printing and distribution of the copy
of the bill but also the reading on separate
days.
o T he phrase “except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment xxx” qualifies the 2 stated
conditions before a bill becomes a law.
o The “unless” clause must be read in
relation to the “except” clause because
they are coordinate clauses of the same
sentence.
o To construe “except” clause as simply
dispensing the printing and distribution not
only offends grammar but also negates the
very premise of the “except” clause.
o The factual basis of presidential
certification of bills is not subject to
judicial review pursuant to the principle
of separation of powers as it merely
involves doing away with procedural
requirements.
o A law may not be declared
unconstitutional when what is violated in
its passage are mere internal rules of
procedure.
o Unlike the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus which threaten
individual rights hence subject to judicial
review.
 What happens if a bill is approved on third
reading by one House?
o Transmitted to the other House for
concurrence, following substantially the
same route.
o If the other House approves the bill
without amendment, it is passed by
Congress and transmitted to the President
for approval.
o If the other house amends and the House of
origin disagrees, the differences wil be
settled by the Conference Committees of
both Houses.
o The reports of both Committees are
approved by both Houses.
 Conference Committee.
o It is the mechanism to harmonize
differences between both Houses in the
passage of the bill into law.
o But it can deal generally with the subject
matter.
o It may produce results beyond its mandate.
o The rules do not limit it to consider
conflicting provisions only.
o It is empowered to include an entirely new
provision not found in either bills.
o Thus, political scientists call the
Conference Committee a third body of the
legislature.
 Illustrative Case: Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
o Facts:
o The Conference Committee consolidated
the House and Senate versions closed
doors which resulted in an entirely
different version.
o Contention of Petitioners:
o The House Committee Report included
provisions not found in either version and
these were secretly inserted into it closed
doors.
 Held:
o There is nothing wrong about closed door
executive sessions.
o Often, when only the conferees are present,
it is the only way to harmonize conflicting
provisions.
o The incomplete sentences in the transcripts
may be attributed to the stenographer’s
own limitations or incoherence of
statements.
o Amendment in the nature of a substitute
by the Conference Committee resulting
in a third version is allowed provided it
is germane to the subject of both
versions.
 Doctrine of enrolled bill
o When both houses approve the Conference
Committee Report adopting third version f
the bill, it is the latter that is the final and
conclusive version submitted to the
president for approval.
o The requirement of 3 readings on separate
days and distribution of copies 3 days prior
does not apply to Conference Committee
Reports.
o An enrolled copy of the bill is conclusive
not only of its provisions but also of its
due enactment.
o Once the Senate President and Speaker 3
 Is the Doctrine of enrolled bill absolute?
o No. In one case, the Senate President
admitted to a mistake and withdrew his
signature.
o Thus, the Supreme Court went behind the
enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to
determine whether certain provisions of
the statute had been approved by the
Senate.
o There was no longer any enrolled bill to
consider when the signature was
withdrawn.
 Authentication of bills.
o Signing by the Speaker and Senate
President
o Printed copy of the approved bill
o Certified by respective House Secretaries
 President’s approval or veto
o When a bill is presented to the President
for action, he may:
 Sign it, if he approves.
 Veto it, and return with objections
to the House of origin
o The objections are entered in its Journal
and proceed to consider it.
o President communicates veto within 30
(calendar days) after receipt, otherwise it
becomes a law as if he signed it.
o Override of presidential veto:
 2/3 of all members of each House.
 3 ways by which a Bill becomes a law:
o President signs it.
o He does not sign nor communicate his veto
within 30 days from receipt
o Congress overrides veto.
 Parts of statute.
 (1) Title.
o General statement of the subject of the bill
 One title-one subject rule
o A bill embraces only one subject matter
o To prevent logrolling
o Surprise or fraud
 Logrolling.
o Combination of multiple propositions in
one proposal.
o Entire proposition is nullified, not only the
subject matter.
 Illustrative case: Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 174153, October 25, 2006.
 Facts:
o In 2006, the group led by Raul Lambino
and Enrico Aumentado gathered signatures
nationwide as people’s initiative to amend
the Constitution by shifting from
Bicameral- Presidential to Unicameral-
Parliamentary form of government.
o It asked the people this proposition:
 o DO YOU APPROVE THE
AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND
VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION,
CHANGING THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT
BICAMERAL- PRESIDENTIAL TO A
UNICAMERAL- PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE
XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM
ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
 Held:
o For sure, the great majority of the 6.3
million Filipinos who signed the signature
sheets did not see the full text of the
proposition.
o They could have known the nature and
effect of the proposed changes:
 The term limits will be lifted and
thus members of Parliament can
be re-elected indefinitely.
 The interim Parliament can
continue to function indefinitely
until its members, who are almost
all the present members of
Congress, decide to call for new
parliamentary elections.
 Within 45 days from ratification
of the proposed changes, the
interim Parliament shall convene
to propose further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution.
o The subject matter of this proposed
transitory provision is totally unrelated to
the shift from presidential-bicameral to
unicameral-parliamentary system.
o This is logrolling. It places the people in a
dilemma since they can answer only either
yes or no to the entire proposition, which
contains 2 subjects, one of which they may
find unacceptable.
 Article VI, Section 26(1)
o Every bill passed by Congress shall
embrace only on subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.
 Illustrative case: Tolentino vs Secretary of
Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994).
o Facts:
o The Philippine Airlines (PAL) is exempt
from value added tax per Section 103 of
the NIRC.
o P.D. 1590 exempts PAL under its franchise
from payment of all other taxes now or in
the near future.
o Since E-VAT amends Section 103. PAL is
no longer VAT-exempt.
o Contention of PAL:
o The E-VAT law violates Article VI,
Section 26(1) of the Constitution since
neither the House nor Senate bill exempted
Pal transactions from payment of VAT.
o This was made only in the Conference
Committee which became the E-VAT law
without reflecting this fact in the title.
o Thus, there was no way for PAL to know
whether its tax exemption is affected or
not.
o Issue:
o Whether the amendment of Section 103 of
the National Internal Revenue Code is
fairly embraced in the title of the E-VAT
law?
o AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE
VALUE- ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM,
WIDENING ITS TAX BASE AND
ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTRATION,
AND FOR THESE PURPOSES
AMENDING AND REPEALING THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
o Held:
o To insist that the tax exemption be
specified in the title is to require the title of
the bill to be a complete index of its
content.
o Every bill is required to embrace only one
subject expressed in its title to prevent
surprise expressed in its title to prevent
surprise upon members of the Congress
and inform the people about it.
o If PAL did not know that its exemption
was withdrawn, it is not due to the defect
in the title, but because just like other
statutes, they pass unnoticed even if
published.
o The title is sufficient if it expresses the
general subject of the statute and all its
provisions are germane to the general
subject thus expressed.
 Effect if title is insufficient.
o Bill is void
o Insofar as the subject matter not expressed
in the title is concerned
o But if void and valid are inseparable, the
nullity of one vitiates the other.
 (2) Preamble.
o Part which follows the title and precedes
the enacting clause
o Reasons and purpose of enactment
o Neither creates nor grants rights
o Not a source of government power
o “Not a source of right but a source of
light”
 Enacting clause
o Precedes body of statute
o Identifies the bill as an act of legislation
o Absence does not nullify law unless
required by the Constitution
o Not required by Constitution but used as
a matter of legislative practice or custom
 (3) Body
o Main part of the bill
o Rights or remedies
 (4) Policy section
o Declaration of state policy
 (5) Definition section
o Defines terms
 (6) Administrative section
o Enforcement body
 (7) Standards of conduct
o Do and void
 (8) Sanctions
o Penalties
 (9) Transitory provisions
o Temporary provisions for transition
 (10) Separability clause
o If part of the law is declared invalid, the
rest remains valid.
o Does not bind the courts
o The whole statute may be nullified
o If what is left is not complete or workable.
 (11) Repealing clause
o Repeal is not legislative finding that the
earlier law is unconstitutional.
 Date of effectivity.
o Time when law takes effect
o Usually after 15 days following
completion of publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation.
 Article 2, Civil Code.
 Laws take effect after 15 days following completion
of publication in the Official Gazette, unless
otherwise provided.
 Sec. 18, Chap. 5, Book I, Administrative Code.
 Laws take effect after 15 days following completion
of publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation, unless it is
otherwise provided.
 Completion of publication.
o Refers to the date of release
o Not the date of issue, unless simultaneous
o Publication is a condition precedent for
effectivity
 Tanada vs Tuvera
o Contention of petitioners:
o They should be published before they
become valid and enforceable pursuant to
the constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern.
o Contention of respondents:
o Publication in the Official Gazette is not a
condition precedent for laws to be effective
where the law provides for its effectivity
date.
o This is pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil
Code which says all laws shall take effect
after 15 days following completion of
publication in the Official Gazette, unless
it is otherwise provided.
o Held:
o In a long line of cases, this Court has
ruled that publication in the Official
Gazette is necessary where the law does
not provide for its effectivity date, and no
longer necessary where the law does
provide for its effectivity date, and no
longer necessary where the law does
provide.
o Because by then the date of publication is
material to determine the date of
effectivity.
o But this argument is logical only insofar as
it equates the effectivity of the laws with
the fact of publication.
o But considered the light of other related
o Statutes, Article 2 does not preclude
publication even if the law itself provides
for date of effectivity.
o The purpose of publication is to give
the general public adequate notice of
laws regulating their actions and
conduct as citizens hence it cannot be
dispensed with as a requirement for its
validity and enforceability otherwise it
violates due process.
 Effectivity of presidential issuances, rules and
regulations.
 Publication is requires before they take effect
 Except:
 Interpretative or internal in nature not concerning
the general public.
 Presidential issuances, basis.
 Ordinance power of the president
 Effectivity of Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR).
o Penal or non-penal
o Publication
o Filing with the UP Law Center
o Except: when the law dispenses with
filing
o but it cannot dispense with publication.
 Nature of administrative rules and regulations.
o They have the force and effect of a law
o Partake the nature of a statute
 Rule- making power of a public administrative
agency.
o Delegated legislative power
 Test of validity of delegation or rule-making
power.
 The law must be: Complete in itself
 Fix a standard, the limits are sufficiently
determinate or determinable
 In case of discrepancy between statute and IRR, the
statute prevails
 Types of administrative rules and regulations
o Enforces the law- IRR
o Interprets the rule – LOI
 Test of validity of administrative rules and
regulations.
o Germane to the object of the law
o Conforms to standards prescribed by law
o Sole purpose of carrying into effect
general provisions of the law
 Effectivity of local ordinances.
o 10 days from date of posting
o In bulletin board and 2 other conspicuous
places
o If ordinance is penal, published in a
newspaper of general circulation
o Highly urbanized and independent
component cities - posted and published.
 Manner of computing time.
 o Exclude the first day
o Include the last day
o Year- 365 days
o Month- 30 days
o Day- 24 hours
o Night- Sunset to sunrise
o Week - 7 consecutive days
o Civil Code adopts the 365- day year and
the 30-day month, not the calendar year,
nor solar or civil month.
o What if it is the leap year? Still 365 days.
 Illustrative case: Garvida vs. Sales
o Facts: Proclamation of a duly elected SK
Chair was suspended by the Comelec
because she is overaged. The law says
candidates should “not be more than 21
years old on the day of election.
o The SK Chair however argued she is still
qualified because by then she is only 21
years, 10 months and 25 days old, not 22
years old.
o Held: The LGC speaks of years, not
months or days and a year consists of 365
days. In computing years, first year is
reached after completing first 365 days.
So, 21 is 21 cycles of 365 days.
 Validity of statute.
o Presumption of constitutionality
o In deference to the wisdom, integrity and
patriotism of the legislature.
o All reasonable doubts are ruled in favour
of constitutionality
o To doubt is to sustain
 Authority to declare law unconstitutional.
o Article VIII, Section 4(2), 1987
Constitution Supreme Court en banc
o Concurrence of majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations
(VOTED)
 Essential requisites for judicial review.
o Actual case or controversy (there must be a
set of facts to test the law)
o Legal standing
o Raised at the earliest opportunity
(otherwise, law will be enforced already,
and might pose problems)
o Issues of constitutionality must be the very
LIS MOTA of the case
 Lis mota
o Courts will deal with constitutionality only
if:
 It is unavoidable (as much as
possible, the SC is trying to avoid
confronting the constitutionality)
 Very crux of the controversy (the
thing is... what you’re saying is...
the crux of the matter is...)
 Illustrative case: Francisco Jr. Vs HR, G.R. No.
160261, November 10, 2003.
 Facts
o In June 2003, Joseph Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint against CJ Davide
and 7 other associate justices for culpable
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of
public trust and other high crimes.
o It was endorsed by 3 legislators and
referred to the House Committee on Justice
which ruled that it was sufficient in form
but dismissed it for not being sufficient in
substance.
o But the Committee Repost was not sent to
the House in plenary.
o In October 2004, a second impeachment
complaint was filed against CJ Davide.
 Contention of petitioners:
o The second impeachment complaint was
unconstitutional because it violates Section
5, Article XI of the Constitution which
prohibits filing of impeachment complaint
against the same official twice within a
period of one year.
 Contention of respondents:
o The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction
to hear, much less prohibit or enjoin the
lower house to perform its constitutionally
mandated duty to initiate impeachment
proceedings, it being a co-equal and
independent branch of the government.
o The Senate has the sole power, authority
and jurisdiction to try and decide he
impeachment cases.
o The petitions are premature, no justiciable
issue has been presented before it since its
constitutional duty to constitute itself as
impeachment court commences only upon
receipt of the Articles of impeachment,
which it had not.
 Issue:
o Whether the essential requisites for the
exercise of judicial review have been
fulfilled?
 In answering this issue, the Supreme Court
addressed the following requisites for the exercise
of judicial review:
o Locus standi – What authority do you have
to file against the SC? Are you going to be
directly affected with the law? What
business do you have in petitioning to the
SC to declare a law unconstitutional?
o Ripeness – there must be already be an
actual case of controversy
o Political question/justiciability – Is that a
political question? Does that pertain to the
wisdom and discretion of the President? If
it does, the Court cannot deal with that
because this is a political question.
o Judicial restraint (pinipigilan ang sarili)
 Locus standi, defined.
o Personal or substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury.
 Contention of Soriano:
o Only the Chief Justice has sustained or will
sustain direct personal injury.
 Contention of petitioners:
o They sue in their respective capacities as
taxpayers, citizens, voters, legislator,
association.
o As such, they stand to suffer injury.
 What to show if you petition as a citizen?
o The law or government act is invalid
o Sustains or is in imminent danger to
sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement
o Interest must be direct and personal
o If it is an assertion of a public right, the
mere fact that he or she is a citizen satisfies
the requirement.
 What to show if you petition as a taxpayer:
o Sufficient interest in preventing illegal
expenditure of public funds
o Sustains direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the individual law
o Public funds are either illegally disbursed,
deflected to any improper purpose, wasted
through enforcement of an invalid or
constitutional law.
 What to show if you petition as legislator:
o Infringement of prerogatives as legislator
standing to maintain inviolate prerogatives,
powers and privileges vested by the
Constitution in his office.
 Transcendental importance, defined.
o Transcendental – not in experience, but
unduable.
o The character of the funds or other assets
involved in the case.
o The presence of a clear case of disregard of
a constitutional or statutory prohibition by
the public respondent agency or
instrumentality of the government.
 Held:
o Applying these determinants, the issues
raised in the petitions are indeed of
transcendental importance.
 Ripeness, defined.
o A prerequisite that something had been
done by either branch before the court acts.
 Contention of Salonga:
o There is no urgent need for the Court to act
right away. Anyway, it is the final arbiter
of the questions on constitutionality
o All remedies in the House and Senate
should first be exhausted.
 Position of Dean Pangalangan:
o The Supreme Court should take judicial
notice of on-going attempts to encourage
signatories to withdraw their endorsements
o House Impeachment Rules afford its
members opportunity to raise
constitutionality issues when the Articles
of Impeachment are presented to the
Senate.
o Even if the Articles of Impeachment are
transmitted to the Senate, the Chief Justice
may still move to dismiss on ground of
constitutional infirmity
 Held:
o The withdrawal of signature neither cures
the House of Impeachment Rules of its
constitutional defect nor obliterates the
question second impeachment complaint.
o It is useless to seek remedies from either
that lower or upper house because it has no
jurisdiction to rule o the issue of
constitutionality.
 Political question, defined.
o Refers to those question which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the Legislature or
executive branch of the government.
o It is a question of policy, concerned with
wisdom and not legality.
o Except: grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
 Determination of impeachable offense.
o Purely political question left to the sound
discretion of the legislature.
 Lis mota, defined.
o Courts will not touch the issue of
constitutionality unless it is unavoidable or
is the very crux of the controversy.
o Whether Sections 15 and 16 of Rule 5 of
the House Impeachment Rules are
unconstitutional for violating Section 3,
Article XI of the Constitution?
o Whether, as a result, the second
impeachment complaint is barred under
Section 3(5), Article XI of the
Constitution?
o Under Sec. 16 impeachment proceedings
are “deemed initiated” on the day the
House Committee on Justice finds that the
verified complaint is sufficient in
substance.
 Contention of respondents:
o Since the first impeachment complaint was
dismissed for being insufficient in
substance, it was not deemed initiated
hence the second impeachment complaint
is allowed. “Initiate” does not mean “to
file”.
 Held
o “Initiate” means filing of the impeachment
complaint and referral to the House
Committee on Justice or filing by at least
1/3 of the House of Representatives with
the Secretary General of the House.
o Once initiated, no other impeachment
complaint shall be filed against the same
official for a period of one year.
 Judicial restraint.
o Contention of Pimentel: The Supreme
Court should exercise judicial restraint
because the Senate, as an impeachment
court, has the sole power to hear and
decide all impeachment cases.
o Contention of De Venecia: There is a
moral compulsion for the Supreme Court
to not assume jurisdiction because its
members are subject to impeachment.
 Held:
o The power of judicial review includes
the power to review justiciable issues in
impeachment proceedings.
 Held: requirement of inventory and the
o Otherwise, Congress should not pass penal prohibition on predatory pricing.
laws because its members are subject to o They were nullified because they inhibit
them. fair competition, encourage monopoly &
o Where the case is justiciable, judicial interfere w/ free interaction of market
restraint is not an option for the Supreme forces
Court.  Issue:
o Adjudication cannot be declined where the o Whether the 3 provisions can be
Supreme Court is not disqualified. individually struck down without
o Jurisdiction cannot be renounced where invalidating the entire law?
there is n other tribunal to which the  Held:
controversy may be referred. o When the individual provisions so
o “Jurisdiction is not just a power. It is a infirmed the essence of the law that it
solemn duty which may not be infected its entirety, the entire law is
renounced.” nullified, its separability clause
 Test of constitutionality of statutes. notwithstanding.
o Not within the legislative power to enact o The provisions on tariff differential,
o Creates methods or forms that infringe inventory and predatory pricing are among
constitutional principle the principal props of the law.
o Purpose or effect violates Constitution or o Congress would not have regulated the
its basic principles downstream oil industry without them.
o Vague
o Change of situation like emergency laws
 Void for vagueness rule.
o Violates due process
o People are not informed on what conduct
to avoid
o Affords law enforcers unbridled discretion
 Effects of unconstitutionality.
o Orthodox view-not a law, confers no
rights, imposes no duties, affords no
protection, creates no office
o Inoperative, like it never passed or existed.
o Operative fact-existence of statute prior to
nullity is an operative fact that must be
recognized.
o Statute was in force and complied with.
o Parties already acted under it.
o Modern view-if in conflict with the
Constitution, the court does not annul, it
simply refuses to recognize it.
 Partial invalidity.
o General rule-if part is void, the rest stays
provided they are separable.
o the valid part is independent
o standing alone, must be complete and
intelligible to enforce legislative intent
o Except:
o If parts are mutually dependent and
connected with each other.
o Legislature is resumed to have intended the
as a whole
o Nullity of one vitiates the rest.
 Separability clause-intent of separability, rather
than complete nullity
 Illustrative case: Tatad b Secretary of the
Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997)
o Facts: The Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional 3 provisions of RA 8180
or An Act Deregulating the Downstream
Oil Industry.
o The 3 provisions dealt with imposition of
4% tariff defferential on imported cude oil
and refined petroleum products, the