Legal Memorandum

TO: Atty. Luis Jose F. Geronimo

FROM: Luis Antonio M. De Leon

RE: Rules of Statutory Construction

DATE: September 23, 2018

FACTS

The first case that is taken a look at is the case of J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. v. Land Tenure
Administration. The issue revolved around the constitutionality R.A. 2616 which states that the
land, Tatalon Estate, owned by J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. is authorized to be expropriated. The said
act in question is taken a look at against the constitutional provision of expropriation of Congress
and the State’s power of Eminent Domain. In the pursuit of the case to the constitutionality or
unconstitutionality of the act in question, the principles of statutory construction are discussed
which sets up a framework for interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.

The second case, Francisco v. House of Representatives, also talks about this framework
and applied it to the case at bar, and further discusses the principles of the interpretation of our
Constitution. The case revolved around the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Hilario Davide. It was filed months after the first dismissal of the case and is argued to be in
violation of Article XI of the constitution which states that a second impeachment complaint
can’t be filed within 1 year after the previous impeachment complaint. It was argued that the
Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and that the legislature has the authority to decide
on issues with regard to impeachment cases. In lieu of the Court’s answer, they took a look into
the principles of statutory construction to base their decision on the interpretation of Article XI
of the 1987 Constitution.

in the case of David v SET, the citizenship status of then presidential candidate Grace
Poe-Llamanzares. The court once again took a look and discussed how the provisions of the
Constitution is interpreted. It set-up a seemingly different framework than those in the previous
cases but in reality is a complement to the principles of statutory interpretation discussed on the
previous cases. The case specifically questions the validity of Poe's candidacy in relation to her
being a foundling. The question of whether she is a natural-born citizen or not was answered by
the analysis of Article 4, section 1 and 2 of the 1987 constitution using the principles of statutory
interpretation discussed beforehand.

ISSUES

1.) What were the rules of constitutional interpretation discussed by the Supreme Court in
J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration.

2.) Explain how this framework was discussed / presented and / or possibly calibrated by
the Supreme Court in Francisco v House of Representatives

3.) What was the framework of constitutional interpretation discussed by the Supreme
Court in David v Senate Electoral Tribunal

4.) Explain what is meant by the ‘primacy of the text’ under current rules / principles of
constitutional interpretation

5.) Under current rules / principles, what is the place of the so-called ‘intent of the
framers’ in constitutional construction
DISCUSSION

1. The Supreme Court, as noted earlier, discussed the principles of interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution to arrive at the answer whether the act to expropriate the
land estate owned by JM Tuason Co Inc. is constitutional or not.

The interpretation of the provisions of the constitution is said to begin at the

language of the text itself. In addition, even though the language or the "letter" of the
provisions are the starting point in interpretation, it doesn't necessarily end there,
especially if the provision is ambiguous. The words and language used in the constitution
are said to be accepted and understood with its ordinary meaning as the Constitution is
said to be not a lawyer's document, but is rather a document to be read and easily
understood by the people. Thus, since the target audience of the Constitution is the
majority of the people, the common use of the words employed should be used when
trying to understand the text. In addition, the framers or the people of the Constitution is
said to 'mean what they say' to further emphasize on the interpretation of words in its text
as having simple and ordinary meaning. Exception to this is when the terms used are
technical, at that point, the significance of the word is analyzed as to determine its
meaning.

As stated earlier, the text is where it begins but doesn't necessarily ends. The Court
further discussed that the historical background of the provisions could be taken a look at
in aid for understanding its meaning. It was also discussed that in reading the provisions
of the Constitution, one should have a contemporaneous understanding of the text and
have a thought on the considerations of consequences on the interpretation of a certain
provision.

Lastly, the Court discussed that in reading the Constitution, one has to keep in mind that
the text of it should be viewed as dynamic and permanent; that the interpretation of its
text should be viewed as being responsive to the future.

2. In the case of Francisco v House of Representatives, the Court in its quest to get
to the answer of the Constitutionality of the second impeachment complaint months after
the first one, analyses Article XI of the Constitution which states the1year ban on the 2nd
impeachment. In doing so, they applied the same principles as those discussed in JM
Tuason v LTA and further elaborated on the interpretation of provisions of the
constitution.

In agreement with the first case, it has been noted that the first step in interpreting the
text is verba legis or to understand the words in their plain, ordinary meaning with the
exception of technical terms. This understanding the text in common use of the words has
been noted in the preceding paragraphs.

The second step is to look at the intent of the framers or people when the provision was
created or legis est anima. Its contrast with what was discussed in the first case is that in
the first case, the historical background of the provision is viewed in aid or supplement to
the plain interpretation of the words whereas here, it is used to fully understand and
realise the intent of the framers in the provision if the plain interpretation fails. That is, if
the plain interpretation is ambiguous, the interpretation falls to the analysis of the intent
to fully comprehend what the true meaning is and realise the intent of the framers in the
provision. In addition, in looking at the intent of the framers to realise what they wanted
to implement, the object of the provision is at focus and the answer to what the law wants
to remedy or prevent should be understood.

Lastly, if the plain meaning of the text is ambiguous, then the final step is ut magis valeat
quam pereat. The constitution should be interpreted as a whole. It is noted that no
provision should be analysed in isolation but rather viewed in relation to provisions of the
same object and in relation to the broade4 view of the whole constitution.

It also has been stated that when looking at the constitutional commission’s deliberations
and debates to get the true intent and meaning of a text, that this method is not very
 reliable as it does not cover all the sentiments of the commission during the construction
of the provisions.

3. In the last case of David v Senate Electoral Tribunal, statutory interpretation was
further discussed to answer the question of Poe's citizenship.

First, the Court complements the principle discussed in the previous cases of verba legis,
that when reading a provision, one has to look first in the words of the text and how they
are situated in the whole. Further, when this fails, then that is the time that
contemporaneous construction comes into play to see which meaning is more plausible.
The court also mentions that even if the plain text interpretation does not fail, one cam
still take a look at the intent behind it as a supplement and reinforce the plain meaning
understanding.

The Court then discussed that in interpreting the plain meaning of the text, it should be
understood as to how people in the majority would understand it as it is described as
popular rather than technical. It was also discussed; parallel to the previous discussions
that the place of the text in the whole document should be significantly considered as it
should bring about the essential principles embodied in other parts of the constitution
and its provisions.

4. Primacy of the text means the evolution or history of the provision at hand.
Textual primacy is also part of the interpretation of statutory provisions if the text is
ambiguous in its plain meaning understanding. It's an addition to studying the intent and
historical background of a provision. It aims to take a look at the revisions the text has
undergone to understand what the text is trying to address.

Discussing further, the Court added that the current version of the text should be looked
at compared to its previous versions to see its difference of words, syntax and subjects as
this provides further understanding of what the provision is really trying to say.

5. First, the place of the so-called intent of the framers is as a supplement to the
plain meaning understanding of the text. Even of the words already clearly convey what
the provision is meaning, taking a look at the intent a way to reinforce this meaning.

Second is that if the words, in its ordinary meaning, is not clear or give different plausible
meaning, the intent of the framers serves as further guides in acquiring its true meaning.
In further looking at the intent of the framers in relation to the not very clear words of the
text, one can deduce the most plausible meaning as the intent helps understand what the
framers wants to be realized.

CONCLUSION

Statutory interpretation and construction plays a significant role not only in deciding cases, but
also understanding each and every provision in the constitution. The steps discussed in the cases
serves as guides and frameworks in interpreting texts to fully comprehend what the law is saying
and help the people, the attorneys, and the justices to act in accordance with it.