Presumptions

Presumption of Validity
Every statute passed by the legislature is presumed to be valid because

the legislature is supposed to have considered the question of its validity
before approving it. In cases of doubt, the court resolves in favor of its
validity.
Presumption of Constitutionality
The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. However, if the
statute is really unconstitutional, the courts are not only authorized but
must declare its unconstitutionality. The court must see to it that the other
departments have not exceeded their constitutional authority. (Essence of
Separation of Powers and System of Check and Balance)
Presumption of Good Faith

It is presumed that the legislative department had good motives in having
considered and adopted a particular law; that it acted with a desire to
promote an intention not to disregard the civil and political liberties of the
people.
Presumption against Injustice

In case of doubt in the interpretation of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail (Article 10, Civil Code
of the Philippines)
Presumption against Inconsistency/Presumption on Consistency

In case of doubt, such construction as will make all provisions on the
statute consistent with one another and with the entire act should be
adopted. A word or phrase repeated in a statute will have the same
meaning throughout the statute, unless a different intention appears.
Presumption against Absurdity

It is presumed that the legislature does not intend that absurdity will flow
from its enactment. The courts therefore have the duty to interpret the law
in such a way as to avoid absurd results.
Presumption against Ineffectiveness

It is presumed that the legislative body does not intend to adopt laws
which are unnecessary and ineffective. It is presumed that it intends to
impart to its enactment such a meaning as will render them operative and
effective. There are two important rules in statutory construction on this
point, thus:
Where a law is susceptible of two constructions, one will render it

unconstitutional and the other upholds its validity, the latter must be
adopted.
Where the language of the law is susceptible of two or more construction,

one will render the statute ineffective or inefficient and another will tend to
give effect to the object for which the law was adopted, then latter should
prevail.
Presumption against Irrepealable laws

It is presumed that the law making body does not intend its laws shall
be irrepealable because Congress cannot enact irrepealable laws nor limit
its future legislative act. The need of today and the situation obtaining now
will not most likely be the same in the years to come. Laws should adapt
to changing times.
Presumption against Implied Repeal

Repeal by implication is not favored. There are two requirements before a
statute can be considered to have repealed a prior statute by implication,
namely:
That the statute touch on the same subject matter; and
That the latter statute is repugnant to the earlier one.
Note: Rules to remember on the matters of repeal:
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or

nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, custom or practice to the
contrary. (Art. 7, Civil Code of the Philippine)
When a law which expressly repeals a prior one, the first law shall not be
thereby revived, unless expressly provided. However, when a law repeals a
prior law, not expressly but by implication only, its repeal revives the prior
law, unless, the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise.
A general law does not repeal special law unless it is so expressly

provided, or they are incompatible, in which case, the special law prevails
over the general law.
Presumption against Violation of Public Policy

It is presumed that the legislature designed to favor and foster rather
than to contravene the public policy which is based upon the principles of
natural justice, good morals, and the settled wisdom of the law as applied
to the ordinary affairs of life.
Presumption of Knowledge of Existing Laws

In enacting a law, the lawmaking body is presumed to have the full
knowledge of existing laws on the subject. Hence, if there are two laws
on the same subject enacted in different dates, the latter law cannot be
held to have abrogated the former law unless repugnancy is clear,
convincing and irreconcilable.
Presumption of Acquiescence to Judicial Construction

When the court has construed a statute in a particular manner and the
lawmaking body had no move to alter or amend the said statute, it is
presumed that the legislature has acquiesced to that interpretation.
Presumption of Jurisdiction
A statute will not be construed in such a manner as to oust or restrict
the jurisdiction of the superior courts or to vest a new jurisdiction in them,
unless, there are express words or a necessary implication to the effect.
Presumption on Acting within the Scope of Authority

It is presumed that the legislature acted within the scope of its authority. If
a statute admits more than one interpretation, one that places the statute
outside of the legislative competence and one that places the legislative
within the limits of legislative competence, the court should adopt the latter
interpretation.
Presumption against Violation of International Law

It is presumed that a statute is in conformity with the rules and principles
of International Laws, or with treaties duly entered into and accepted by
our government. This is in line with Section 2, Article II of the 1987
Constitution, which provides: “Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as
an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
Doctrine of Incorporation – holds that every state is, by reason of its

membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted
principles of international law.
Doctrine of Transformation – holds that an international agreement would

be binding only upon a state if that state enacts a law specifically making
such international agreement part and parcel of their laws.

Presumptions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presumptions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presumptions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presumption of Validity

Every statute passed by the legislature is presumed to be valid because

Presumption of Good Faith

Presumption against Injustice

Presumption against Inconsistency/Presumption on Consistency

Presumption against Absurdity

Presumption against Ineﬀectiveness

Where a law is susceptible of two constructions, one will render it

Where the language of the law is susceptible of two or more construction,

Presumption against Irrepealable laws

Presumption against Implied Repeal

That the statute touch on the same subject matter; and

That the latter statute is repugnant to the earlier one.

Note: Rules to remember on the matters of repeal:

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or

A general law does not repeal special law unless it is so expressly

Presumption against Violation of Public Policy

Presumption of Knowledge of Existing Laws

Presumption of Acquiescence to Judicial Construction

Presumption on Acting within the Scope of Authority

Presumption against Violation of International Law

Doctrine of Incorporation – holds that every state is, by reason of its

Doctrine of Transformation – holds that an international agreement would

You might also like