Berguia, Paul Jordan T. Lumanag, Janine Rose G. LLB 1- Wigmore Statutory Construction Friday 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.

. December 14, 2012 1. Cite three (3) statutory construction rules. Explain each statutory construction rule as applied in the case. a. Among other things In this case of La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos, the phrase among other things was included in the second paragraph of Section 81 of R.A. No. 7941. Its inclusion in the said provision lit up various definitions which the law and the Congress never gave. The Government through the DENR and MGB formulated their own definition and interpreted it as an additional government share when in truth and in fact, there is no law defining such phrase and the Congress never gave a definite meaning for such. The reason is to avoid setting unnecessary limitations as to what may constitute compensation to the State for the exploitation and use of mineral resources. The purpose of the inclusion of subject proviso, as intended by the Legislature, is to have the State collect more than just the usual taxes, duties and fees (La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos 445 SCRA 22). In the case at bar, the Supreme Court has ruled over the case without the Legislature defining the term. Instead, the latter left to the agencies concerned the ways on how to arrive at a reasonable and fair amount for the additional government share. By doing so, government agencies were able to formulate not just one but three formulae for arriving at the said share. The Legislature neither enclosed nor limited the definition of the said phrase. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature acted judiciously in not defining the phrase. Not locking the term into a fixed definition will be more beneficial to the government as it will have flexibility to adjust with the fast changing circumstances. In conclusion, the phrase among other things in this case was applied or used as in addition to and that the governments share is not limited to taxes, fees and duties. b. Involving One of the issues identified by the Court was the proper interpretation of the phrase Agreements Involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance which is contained in paragraph 4 of Section II of the Constitution. In order to interpret the assailed provision, herein petitioners asserted that the language of the Constitution should prevail and that the primary method of interpreting it is to seek the ordinary
1

meaning of the words used in the said provision or subject phrase. Petitioners claim that the phrase simply means technical assistance or financial assistance requirements, no more no less. They argued that there is nothing vague about the phrase and a plain reading of the subject phrase would lead to the conclusion that it is restrictive. However, the respondents do not agree. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the word involving is not restrictive. It signifies the possibility of the inclusion of other forms of assistance or activities having to do with, otherwise related to or compatible with financial or technical assistance (La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos 445 SCRA 7). The word implies or allows the inclusion of matters other than those explicitly mentioned. Moreover, if the intention of the drafters was to restrict or limit foreign corporations to financial or technical assistance, it should have used more restrictive and stringent words as to leave no doubt to the minds of the people. In conclusion, the use of the word involving implies that these agreements with foreign corporations are not limited to mere financial or technical assistance ( La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos 445 SCRA 8). c. Doctrine of Separation of Powers The doctrine of separation of powers is the grouping of the powers of the government into three classes. It refers to the apportionment of these powers into three coordinating departments, separate and distinct from each other. This doctrine operates to maintain the legislative powers to the legislative department, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. Through this allocation of powers, the person entrusted shall not be permitted to encroach upon the power confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. There must be independence and equity of the several departments (Kilbourne vs. Thompson, 103 US 168, 190, 25L.ed. 377). The development of the mining industry, as what the statute in this case wishes to achieve, cannot be the sole responsibility of the political branches of the government. The court cannot be prevented from interfering over such material issue. The petitioners, the State, the contractor and the Filipino people equally deserve the attention of this Court. Furthermore, the benefits that could be derived from the mining activities could serve the whole population. The mineral wealth and natural resources of this country should benefit not only a certain group of people located in areas affected by mining activities but the entire Filipino nation.

2. State two legal maxims found in the case. How were these maxims applied in order to understand the legal issues? In the case of La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. versus Victor O. Ramos, Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the court as well as the petitioners applied legal maxims to further elaborate and explain the true essence of the provision in controversy based on their own interpretations. Paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides that: The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The present case posits three issues to be resolved. In relation to statutory construction, the main issue that needs prompt resolution by the court is to determine what is the proper interpretation of the phrase Agreements Involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance contained in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution. Herein petitioners aver that such provision shall be interpreted in its own simple meaning applying Verba Legis interpretation or also known as the plain-meaning rule. According to the plain meaning rule, statutes are to be interpreted using its ordinary meaning, if a statute explicitly defines some of its terms then it shall be followed. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning. Stressing that where the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its literal application and applied without interpretation. In the present case, they claim that the language and words used by the drafters of the constitution is clear and by no means be considered as ambiguous. Their argument gives rise to a restriction and exclusivity in terms of the agreements that the President may enter and in turn, what agreements may a foreign-owned corporation may enter with the Republic of the Philippines. For the petitioners, this interpretation may be viewed as exclusive and restrictive but they believe that it is in consonance with the constitutional right bestowed upon us by the Constitution which gives the Filipino citizens as well as corporations the benefit and right to use and enjoy the countrys natural resources. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the petitioners strict interpretation. They thought that the petitioners argument is misplaced and lacks merit. As a matter of fact, the court has its own approach in interpreting the above quoted provision. The court, relied on the words used by the drafters of the constitution, putting emphasis on the word Involving would show the original intent of the framers not to bar other known modes of assistance (other than technical and financial ). The drafters use of such word would simply imply that there is a likelihood that other forms of assistance and

activities may be possibly included other than that mentioned in paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 constitution. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat is another legal maxim applied in the present case. Such maxim connotes that every part of the Constitution is to be given effect, and the Constitution is to be read and understood as a harmonious whole. It further suggests that if a law seems to be unclear, it should be understood in a way that makes sense of it. The essential idea is that all laws make sense as it has its own purpose. On the other hand, if a law seems inconceivable, one should comprehend it in a way that makes sense of it. Section 2 paragraph 1 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, states: Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The court, in its attempt to scrutinize the above quoted provision, applied the legal maxim Ut Magis Valeat Quam Perea. An application of said maxim to the provision would propose that the sentence full control and supervision should not be interpreted that the state controls and supervises all that exists in the mining industry. This interpretation the state supervising and controlling without limits all that includes in the above subject matter - if tolerated would discourage foreign investors from entering our country to engage in businesses. This, nevertheless, would hinder our nations development and grow th. Additionally, the use of the sentence full control and supervision as it is bestowed upon the state only signifies how supreme and ultimate the latter is. The sovereign state has been given the authority to take full control and supervision of the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is convinced that the term control, which was used on the same provision, shall be used and interpreted in accordance to its plain meaning without losing its true purpose. The states control over the subject matter shall be used on a larger scale without however being detrimental to the economic development and general welfare of the country. In addition thereto, the sentence full control and supervision shall be read in consonance with the whole paragraph, it should
4

not be singly interpreted as interpreting it without considering the other sentence would run afoul to the true intent of the framers and it would be prone to different interpretations which people chose to be as it would be favorable to them.