PART III.

CARDINAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

How to Ascertain Legislative Intent

How do you ascertain legislative intent?

- Statute as a whole
- Not isolated part or provision
- Once known, no other choice but to apply it
- If transparent, construction is dispensed with

So, you said that we should interpret the law as a whole, what do you mean by that?

- Statue alone should not be limited to construction.

- In statute alone, you should not limit your interpretation of a law alone on a word or
phrase of a provision.
- Construe in tandem with other parts of the law otherwise known as “Ut Res Magis Valeat
Quam Pereat” or to interpret the statute as a whole and related provisions must be interpreted
altogether.
- In ordinary parlance, when we say “standing alone” it would not interpret that particular
phrase by itself, we must interpret that in tandem with the other provisions.
- When you interpret a particular provision of the law in tandem with the other provisions,
you Contextualize. Because standing alone might mean different things.
- Contextualize – To better understand and articulate what it means.

We either interpret the law liberally or strictly, what is the gage of whether or not we are going to interpret
the law liberally or strictly?

- It depends on the former law, the purpose and the objective of the new law and the
nature of the law itself. (Michelle Rama)
- There are factors to consider of whether or not you are going to use interpret liberally or
strictly.

Requisite Before the Court Would Construe: D O U B T

There are statutes in derogation of common rights, based on your reading what are statutes that
derogates common rights?

- certain rights, which are either inherent or guaranteed by the constitution or protected
by law; rights are not absolute, and the state, in the exercise of its police power, may enact
legislations curtailing or restricting their enjoyment.

How do we construe that?

- There must be a strict construction as to the derogation of common rights and if ever
there is doubt it must be in favor of the common rights and against the law.

Why against the government?

 - The right is constitutionally granted, it must be construed against the abuses of the
government.
- It is to rule in favor of the common rights as to rule against any injustice or any
unreasonable limitation to our common right.
- An individual as opposed to the government is virtually powerless and because of that
defenselessness, the law ruled in favor of the common rights of the private individuals.

Indispensable Requisite Before the Court Would Construe in Favor of Common Rights: D O U B T

“If there is no doubt and the language of the law is clear then by all means follow the language of the law
but when the Supreme Court is somehow saying its 50-50, it could be in favor to the government or the
common rights, that is the time we tilt the balance to the common rights if there is doubt.”

What about statutes prescribing formalities of wills, how do we construe that?

- We should strictly construe against the validity of the will. The reason behind is that the
statute is more powerful than the will. The intent of the legislator is more powerful and should
apply than the desire of the testator; the latter’s intention is frequently defeated by the non-
observation of what the statute requires.

Can we not use the substantial compliance doctrine in construing the intent of the will with lacking
formalities?

- The reason why the written formality formula is strict is that if you miss out one the will
might be not be probated. When you say probated it means not being able to be submitted to
court for approval. It might be invalidated. Reason is because we have to perfect, as much as
possible, the intent of the testator because he is already dead. “Dead Men Tell No Tale”, they
can no longer protect themselves. The last will of the testament the mouthpiece of the dead.
The last will of the testament must conform to the written formalities otherwise the law assumes
what is not the intention of the testator. To protect the heirs and as well as the intent of the
testator. Exactly why we say it could be fatal if we would miss out even just on one formal written
requirement because validity of wills is strictly construed especially if one minor requirement is
missing.

How are we going to construe naturalization laws?

- Strictly against the alien applying for the naturalization and in favor of the government to
ensure that undesirable aliens are not naturalized. Right of an alien to become a citizen by
naturalization is a statutory rather that a natural one, and it does not become vested until he
files a petition and establishes by competent and satisfactory evidence that he has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications specified by law.

*remember if there is doubt, you construe in favor of the government and against the capital if
naturalization laws. *
What about the statutes conferring the right of eminent domain, how is it construed?

- Power of the state to exercise property for public use.

- Construed against the government as it derogates private rights to property and
ownership.
- Every government agency can participate in ensuring that you get convicted because you
have offended the Filipino people. Exactly the reason why

What about the statutes granting rights to laborers, how is it construed?

- Liberally construed in favor of labor since it is a social legislation (to empower the poor,
the marginalized and the defenseless). To avoid the exploitation of laborers.

Ex: for every month, female employees are afforded 3 day absence because of their menstrual bleeding.
Whether or not it included non-working days?

Example you started on a Friday then Saturday and Sunday have no jobs. It was contended by employer
that weekends should be included since the employee may have had rested enough and can assume to
work on Monday.

The doubt specified is that it did not determine whether or not it is a working day or a holiday or a Saturday
or a Sunday. But If the law specified saying that “3 working days of” then there is no choice but to interpret
the law on its express language.

What about the statutes granting tax exemptions, how is it construed?

- Taxation, being the lifeblood of the nation, should be strictly construed against the
taxpayer and in favor of the taxing authority.

*When the law is very clear, you cannot go beyond otherwise that would be known as
“Extravagant Interpretation” you depart from the true meaning of the law. You can only
liberalize if you cannot reach understanding *

If we are going to apply the law, should it be prospectively or retroavctively? And is that an absolute rule?

- We should apply the law prospectively.

- No it is not absolute. We can only apply retroactively when the law expressly provides for
its retroactivity.

When you mean prospective application of the law, what do you mean by that?

Prospective statute – is a statute which operates upon acts and transactions which have not
occurred when the statute takes effect, that is, which regulates the future.
What are the exceptions as to when a law can be applied retroactively?

1. When a law provides for its retroactive application

Except:
a. No ex post facto law shall be allowed.
b. When it impairs the obligation of contracts.

Is it always the case that there must be an express provision of the law that can be retroactively applied?
No.

2. When the law is penal or criminal in nature, provided that it is favorable to the accused.

Except:
a. When the law itself expressly provides that its provisions should not cover existing cases
or pending actions even if favorable to the offender.
b. When the accused is a habitual delinquent.
c. When the accused himself denies the benefits of the new law and insists that he be
prosecuted under the old law.
3. When the law is remedial in nature
Except:
a. When it impairs vested rights.
b. When the decision is final and executory.
4. When the law is curative in nature

Except:
a. When it impairs vested rights.

In case of doubt of whether or not you are going to rule prospectively or retrospectively, how should we
result that? Always prospective.

Now what is the result if the law may be applied retroactively?

- takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates new
obligations and imposes new duties, or attaches new disabilities in respect of transaction
already past.

What are laws that Congress cannot pass?

- Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws.

What is an Ex Post Facto Law?

- Rule: No ex post facto laws shall be enacted Makes an act done before the passage of the
law and which is innocent when done, and punishes such act. Applies only to criminal or penal
matters and not to civil laws.
- Exception to Ex Post Facto Law is if when it is favorable to the accused even if there was
the finality of the punishment.
Gutierrez v. HR, G.R. No. 193459, Feb 15, 2011
Exception to the rule of the retroactive application process

- Gutierrez contended that at the time the Justice Committee decided that the complaint
against her was sufficient in form, there was no rule for impeachment promulgated by Congress.
- She contended that how can the House Committee on Justice file a case against her when
there are no rules at the time they did that.
- that the impeachment complaint against her cannot prosper as there was no rule for
impeachment. However, respondents argued that the implementing rule can be filed against
her.
- SC contended that it was alright to adopt the previous rules of impeachment complaint.
- Gutierrez further alleged that the set of rules were not published by the house committee
and because there was a lack of publication, it did not take effect at that time.
- SC, IRR need not be published as it only applies to the parties to the case.
- SC distinguished between publication and promulgation.
- Publication was not necessary as it was not dictated upon by the Constitution. Whatever
Congress does to promulgate the decision therein, that’s it. We cannot replace the judgement
of Congress.
- House Justice Committee did not promulgate it at the time said impeachment was
rendered sufficient in form.
- Even if on the day, the new impeachment rules have not been promulgated, that can be
applied retroactively because it is procedural in nature (falls under one of the exceptions to
retroactivity).
- Why does Supreme Court allow retroactive application in procedural laws? It does not
impair vested rights except where matters of procedure pertain to matters of evidence where
it changes the quantum of proof necessary for the conviction or acquittal of an accused.

What is a Bill of Attainder

- Bill passed by the legislature which inflicts punishment even if there is no benefit judicial
trial.

Can a law be passed to that effect?

- No, otherwise it would (first) violate the separation of powers and on part of an accused,
it applies as an Ex Post Facto Law.

So, are your right to due process not violated if that happens?
- Yes. Exactly! When you are being punished with a Bill of Attainder without the benefit of
due process, what is being violated is your basic right to due process.

What About Bills of Pains and Penalties? Is it part of Bill of Attainder? Are they related?

- Bill of Attainder, punishment is death without the benefit of judicial trial.

- Bill of Pains and Penalties is a punishment lesser than death.
 Article III, Section 22, 1987 Constitution. “No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted”
An ex post facto law is any of the following:
- - A law which makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such act;
- - A law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed.
- - A law which changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than that
annexed to the crime when committed.
- - A law which alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon
less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense;
- - A law which assumes to regulate civil rights or remedies only, but in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful;
- - A law which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled, such as protection of a former conviction or acquittal,
or a proclamation of amnesty.

Legaspi vs. Cebu City & Jaban vs. CA, December 10, 2013
- The facts arose from the incident in 1997 when Jaban Sr, Jr. ‘s and Legaspi’s cars were
clamped by the CITOM.
- Assailed the ordinance that it violated their right to due process. (reasoning of the RTC as
to why they decided in favor of Jaban and Legaspi)
- Whether or not the ordinance 1664 was valid.
- Already established earlier on that the ordinance, insofar as the formal requisites are
concerned, the ordinance 1664 is a valid ordinance
- Issue that is incidental to the Bill of Attainder is whether or not the substantive requisites
of the valid ordinance have been substantially complied with.
- Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative as the regulation of traffic was part of the
delegated powers under the LGC section 458 it was a means to answer on going problem of
traffic which was the result of the retarding economic program that time.
- In so far as due process was concerned, the Supreme Court stated that there are certain
instances recognized by law where the two-fold process of due process may be dispensed with.
Such as the classification of passports, accused is caught in flagrante delicto
- here are among the instances that due process may be dispensed with. The supreme
court says in effect where there is a necessary element such as in this case, where it needs
urgent action, due process may be dispensed with.
- The case at hand did not entirely dispense due process as the accused were given the
opportunity to approach individuals with certain authority recognized by the ordinance 1664.
Where does the bill of attainder come in the case?

- It comes in to the effect where the necessary implication of punishment is to be given

where due process has not been dispensed with.

How did the Supreme Court resolve this?

- There are certain instances recognized by the court where due process is dispensed with
and when you read the ordinance itself it is not completely oppressive and arbitrary. There are
still certain happening by which the owner of the vehicle can still find other due courses by
which they see credit.

Can you identify the word in the definition of Bill of Attainder that will unlock the mystery as to why I
assigned to you this case under the topic of Bill of Attainder even if the entire case does not mention the
Bill of Attainder?

- According to the petitioners, there is already punishment as the owner is deprived to use
his property which is the vehicle.
- According to the Supreme Court, the ordinance was not completely oppressive. It was
simply part of the police power of the state.

When the respondents said they were already punished, did the Supreme Court say “yes, you were” or
“no, you were not”?

- Results sprung from the negligence of the owners as they were not following traffic rules.
The traffic rules at that time, particularly Ordinance 1664, was passed in order to answer an on-
going public necessity.

If your vehicle is being clamped, are you being punished?

- Yes, it results to punishment.

- Although it is a punishment, it is justified.
- The moment a traffic enforcer clamps your vehicle is to immobilize or to disable the driver
to escape.
- In other words, clamping of a vehicle is not a penalty rather it is a precautionary measure
to prevent the driver from running away from one’s penalty.
- What the Supreme Court is trying to tell us is that it is not yet a Bill of Attainder as it is not
yet a penalty. Remember the definition “inflictment of punishment without the benefit of
judicial trial”.
- if it is not yet a punishment, it is not yet a Bill of Attainder.