Casus omissus. Lat. A case omitted.

Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. Lat. A case omitted is to be held as intentionally
omitted.”
It is a rule of statutory construction. If a person, object, or thing is omitted from being
enumerated in a statute, it must be held or considered to have been omitted
intentionally.

Definition
A person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration in a statute must be held to have
been omitted intentionally.[1]

Discussion

This rule of statutory construction was applied in the case of COA vs. Province of
Cebu (see below). One of the issues raised in that case is whether the expenses for
college scholarship grants be charged to the Special Education Fund (SEF) of the local
government unit concerned. Under Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 5447, the SEF may be
expended exclusively for the following activities of the then Department of Education
Culture and Sports (DECS):
(a) the organization and operation of such number of extension classes as may be
needed to accommodate all children of school age desiring to enter Grade I, including
the creation of positions of classroom teachers, head teachers and principals for such
extension classes x x x;
(b) the programming of the construction and repair of elementary school buildings,
acquisition of sites, and the construction and repair of workshops and similar buildings
and accessories thereof to house laboratory, technical and similar equipment and
apparatus needed by public schools offering practical arts, home economics and
vocational courses, giving priority to elementary schools on the basis of the actual needs
and total requirements of the country x x x;
(c) the payment and adjustment of salaries of public school teachers under and by virtue
of Republic Act Numbered Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Eight and all the benefits
in favor of public school teachers provided under Republic Act Numbered Four
Thousand Six Hundred Seventy;
(d) preparation, printing and/or purchase of textbooks, teacher’s guides, forms and
pamphlets x x x;
(e) the purchase and/or improvement, repair and refurbishing of machinery, laboratory,
technical and similar equipment and apparatus, including spare parts needed by the
Bureau of Vocational Education and secondary schools offering vocational courses;
 (f) the establishment of printing plant to be used exclusively for the printing needs of the
Department of Education and the improvement of regional printing plants in the
vocational schools;
(g) the purchase of teaching materials such as work books, atlases, flip charts, science
and mathematics teaching aids, and simple laboratory devices for elementary and
secondary classes;
(h) the implementation of the existing program for citizenship development in barrio high
schools, folk schools and adult education classes;
(i) the undertaking of education research, including that of the Board of National
Education;
(j) the granting of government scholarships to poor but deserving students under
Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Ninety; and
(k) the promotion of physical education, such as athletic meets.

The Local Government Code of 1991 was subsequently enacted. The pertinent portions
of this law provides:

SEC. 100. Meeting and Quorum; Budget

xxxxxxxxx
(c) The annual school board budget shall give priority to the following:
(1) Construction, repair, and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of
public elementary and secondary schools;
(2) Establishment and maintenance of extension classes where necessary; and
(3) Sports activities at the division, district, municipal, and barangay levels.
SEC. 272. Application of Proceeds of the Additional One Percent SEF Tax. – The proceeds
from the additional one percent (1%) tax on real property accruing to the SEF shall be
automatically released to the local school boards: Provided, That, in case of provinces,
the proceeds shall be divided equally between the provincial and municipal school
boards: Provided, however, That the proceeds shall be allocated for the operation and
maintenance of public schools, construction and repair of school buildings, facilities and
equipment, educational research, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports
development as determined and approved by the local school board.

Sections 100 (c) and 272 of the Local Government Code substantially reproduced
Section 1, of R.A. No. 5447. But, unlike payment of salaries of teachers which falls
within the ambit of “establishment and maintenance of extension classes” and
“operation and maintenance of public schools,” the “granting of government scholarship
to poor but deserving students” was omitted in Sections 100 (c) and 272 of the Local
Government Code. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. Therefore, college scholarship
grants are not among the projects for which the proceeds of the SEF may be
appropriated.
Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been
omitted intentionally.89

In the case of People v. Manantan,90 the Court ruled that the maxim "casus omisus" can operate and
apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. In the case under consideration, it has
already been shown that the legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the peace from the
enumeration of officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. Rather, they were
merely called by another term. In the new law, or Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, justices of the
peace were just called "judges."

But in the case of Rufino Lopez & Sons Inc. v. CTA,91 the Court ruled that it is more reasonable and
logical to hold that in Section 11 of the Act, the Legislature meant and intended to say, the
Commissioner of Customs, instead of Collector of Customs in the first paragraph and the first part of the
second paragraph of said section. By doing so, Sec. 7 and Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 1125 will be in harmony.

However, the Court still dismissed the petition on the ground that the decision of Collector of Customs
should be further elevated to the Commissioner of Customs before applying for a judicial relief based on
the sound rule that before one resorts to the Courts, the administrative remedy provided by law should
first be exhausted.

Cassus omissus
pro omisso
habendus est
A person, object or
thing omitted from
an enumeration must
be held to have been
omitted intentionally
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
GUILLERMO
MANANTAN
G.R. No. 14129, July
31, 1962
Facts:
Guillermo Manantan
is a justice of peace
who violated
Section 54 of the
Revised Election
Code which isabout
aiding of an election
candidate on the
election. Manantan
argued that the
words justice of
peace is notincluded
on the enumeration
on Section 54 not
like on the section
449of the Revised
Administrative
Code. The ruleof
"casus omisus pro
omisso habendus
est" is likewise
invoked by the
defendant-appellee.
Under the said rule,
aperson, object or
thing omitted from
an enumeration
must be held to
have been omitted
intentionally. If
that ruleis
applicable to the
present, then
indeed, justices of
the peace must be
held to have been
intentionally
anddeliberately
exempted from the
operation of
Section 54 of the
Revised Election
Code.
Issue:
Whether a justice
of peace included in
the prohibition of
Section 54 of the
Revised Election
Code?
Ruling:
Yes. The rule "casus
omisus pro omisso
habendus est" has
no applicability to
the case at bar.
The maxim
"casusomisus" can
operate and apply
only if and when the
omission has been
clearly established.
In the case
underconsideration,
it has already been
shown that the
legislature did not
exclude or omit
justices of the
peace from
theenumeration of
officers precluded
from engaging in
partisan political
activities. Rather,
they were merely
called byanother
term. In the new
law, or Section 54
of the Revised
Election Code,
justices of the
peace were just
called"judges."
Cassus omissus pro omisso habendus est

A person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962

Facts:

Guillermo Manantan is a justice of peace who violated Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which is
about aiding of an election candidate on the election. Manantan argued that the words justice of peace
is not included on the enumeration on Section 54 not like on the section 449of the Revised
Administrative Code. The rule of "casus omisus pro omisso habendus est" is likewise invoked by the
defendant-appellee. Under the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must
be held to have been omitted intentionally. If that rule is applicable to the present, then indeed, justices
of the peace must be held to have been intentionally and deliberately exempted from the operation of
Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.

Issue:

Whether a justice of peace included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code?

Ruling:

Yes. The rule "casus omisus pro omisso habendus est" has no applicability to the case at bar. The maxim
"casus omisus" can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. In the
case under consideration, it has already been shown that the legislature did not exclude or omit justices
of the peace from the enumeration of officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities.
Rather, they were merely called by another term. In the new law, or Section 54 of the Revised Election
Code, justices of the peace were just called "judges."

A `casus omissus' is a case omitted from language of statute which

appears to have been omitted by inadvertence or because it was
overlooked or unforeseen, and a case is omitted from language of
statute when it is not contained within literal or contextual meaning of
such language or cannot be fairly implied therefrom." Words and
Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 6 (1963) Cumulative Annual Pocket
Part, p. 117; Crewsev. Beeler, 212 S.W.2d 39, 51, 186 Tenn.
475; Putnam County v. State, 186 N.Y.S.2d 944, 948, 17 Misc.2d 541.