CENTENO v VILLALON-PORNILLOS

FACTS:
Sometime in 1985, the officers of a civic organization launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating
the chapel at Malolos, Bulacan.
Petitioner Centeno, chairman, together with Yco, approached Judge Angeles and solicited from her 1.5k.
The solicitation was made without a permit from DSWD.
As a consequence, Judge Angeles filed an information against Centeno and others for violation of PD
1564 or the Soliciation Permit Law before MTC Malolos.
Petitioner contends that PD 1564 only covers solicitation made for charitable or public welfare purpose but
not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel.
MTC decided against petitioner but recommended that accused be pardoned based on good faith.
Petitioner appealed to RTC. RTC affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
WON the phrase "charitable purposes" in PD 1564 should be construed as to include a religious purpose.

RULING:
NO.
it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that the express
mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others. This rule is
expressed in the familiar maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." Where a statute, by
its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the
legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention
been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.
Even the 1987 Constitution and other statutes treat charitable and religious separately and independently
of each other.
PD 1564 merely stated charitable and public welfare purposes, only goes to show that the framers never
intended to include solicitations for religious purposes. Otherwise, there is no reason why it would not have
so stated expressly.