Page 1 of 2

AIDS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

a. Public Policy sought to be implemented
CASES: Tinio vs. Francis, 98 Phil. 32 (1955)
Cajiuat vs. Mathay, 124 SCRA 710 (1983)
b. Presumptions
i. Of Constitutionality/Validity of Statutes
CASES: NHA vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)
Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
ii. Of the Beneficial Operation of Statutes
CASES: CIR vs. S.C. Johnson and Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 (1999)
Sesbreno vs. CBAA, 270 SCRA 360 (1997)
iii. Of Prospective Application
CASES: Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 317 (1997)
Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997)
iv. In favor of right and justice
CASE: Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)
v. Against Absurdity
CASES: Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 (1974)
vi. Against Injustice
CASES: Amatan vs. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995)
Ursua vs. CA, 256 SCRA 147 (1996)
vii. Against Implied Repeals
CASES: NPC vs. Province of Lanao del Sur, 264 SCRA 271 (1996)
Velunta vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, 157 SCRA 147 (1988)
c. Intrinsic Aids
i. Title
CASES: City of Baguio vs. Marcos, 27 SCRA 342 (1969)
Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 (1987)
ii. Preamble
CASES: Pp. vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)
Pp. vs. Echavez, 95 SCRA 663 (1980)
iii. Body of the statute
1. Context of the whole text
CASE: CIR vs. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992)
2. Punctuation marks
CASES: Agcaoili vs. Sunguitan, 48 Phil 678 (1926)
Pp. vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545 (1975)
iv. Head notes and epigraphs of sections
CASE: Pp. vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933)
d. Extrinsic Aids
i. Legislative History
1. Presidents message to the Legislature
CASE: Camacho vs. CIR, 80 Phil 848 (1948)
2. Explanatory Note of the author/s
CASE: Nepomuceno vs. Ocampo, 95 Phil 292 (1954)
3. Committee Reports on the legislative investigations and public hearings
4. Sponsorship Speech
5. Debates and Deliberations
CASES: Palanca vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 (1920)
Phil. Assn. of Govt Retirees, Inc. vs. GSIS, 121 Phil 1402 (1965)
6. Changes in the phraseology before final approval
CASES: Akbayan vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147066, March 26, 2001
CIR vs. CTA, 224 SCRA 665 (1993)
7. Amendment by deletion
CASE: Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287 (1999)
8. Prior laws from which the statute is based
CASES: Director of Lands vs. Abaya, 63 Phil 559 (1936)
Salaysay vs. Castro, 98 Phil 364 (1956)
9. Origin of Adopted Statute
CASE: Pp. vs. Pagpaguitan, 315 SCRA 226 (1999)
a. Limitations
CASE: Procter & Gamble vs. Commissioner of Customs, 23 SCRA 691 (1968)
ii. Contemporary Construction
1. Executive Construction
a. Kinds
i. construction by an executive/administrative officer called to implement the law
CASE: San Miguel Corp. vs. Inciong, 103 SCRA 139 (1981)
ii. by the DOJ Secretary in his capacity as Chief legal adviser of the government
(See Sec. 83, Revised Administrative Code)
CASE: Maceda vs. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771 (1991)
iii. by an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial function
b. Weight: entitled to great weight
CASES: Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. CA, 203 SCRA 504 (1991)
Phil. Sugar Central vs. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil 143 (1927)
i. erroneous construction: does not bind the courts; does not preclude judicial correction
nor does it create rights; exception
CASES:Legaspi vs. Mathay, 68 SCRA 253 (1975)
ABS-CBN vs. CTA, 108 SCRA 142 (1981)
Page 2 of 2

2. Legislative Interpretation
CASE: Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696 (1953)
iii. Stare decisis
CASES: Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 (1993)
Pp. vs. Macadaeg, 91 Phil 410 (1952)
1. Ratio decidendi vs. obiter dictum
CASE: Delta Motors vs. CA, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)
2. Limitations of stare decisis
CASE: Koppel (Phils.), Inc. vs. Yatco, 77 Phil 496 (1946)



CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

e. Primary purpose: to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framers
CASES: JM Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
Co vs. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
f. Rules of Constitutional Construction
i. Applicability of the rules of Statutory Construction
CASE: Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
ii. No ambiguity: Verba legis
1. Give ordinary meaning to the words
CASES: Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
Ordillo vs. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1992)
a. Exception: where technical terms are employed
2. Words are used in a broad sense to cover all possible contingencies
iii. Ambiguity exists
1. Rules
a. Ratio Legis Est Anima: Consider intent of the framers/object to be accomplished
CASE: Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance, 115 SCRA 418 (1982)
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
b. ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe the constitution as a whole
CASE: Daro Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Phils., G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
c. Self-executing rather than needs an implementing statute
CASE: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)
d. Mandatory rather than directory
CASE: Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)
e. Prospective rather than retroactive
CASES: Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil 285 (1945)
Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996)
2. Aids in Constitutional Construction
a. Intrinsic Aid
i. Language of the constitution itself
ii. Interpret Constitution as whole
CASES: Peralta vs. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 (1978)
Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra (construction of Sec. 24, Art. VI,
Constitution)
b. Extrinsic Aids
i. History or realities at the time of the adoption
ii. Object sought to be accomplished
iii. Proceedings/debates of the Convention
CASES: Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
Montejo vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)
iv. Changes in the phraseology
CASE: Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
v. Previous laws and judicial decisions
CASE: Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 567 (1950), particularly the dissent of Justice
Ozaeta
vi. Consequences of alternative (more than one) constructions
CASE: Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)
vii. Contemporaneous construction and writings
CASES: De Los Santos vs. Mallari, 87 Phil 289 (1950)
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946)