People v. Manantan Grno.14129
People v. Manantan Grno.14129
People v. Manantan Grno.14129
FACTS:
1. Guillermo Manantan, the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan in the Court of First Instance of that province, was charged with a
violation of the Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
2. The defendant pleaded not guilty on the premise that as “justice of the peace”, he was not one of the officers enumerated
in the mentioned section [Sec. 54,REC].
3. The motion to dismiss was denied by the lower court holding that a “justice of the peace” is within the scope of Section 54.
4. A second motion was then filed by the defense counsel stating that the aforementioned section was taken from the Section
449 of the Revised Administrative Code wherein the words “justice of the peace” was omitted in Section 54.
5. He then claims that the omission of the words “justice of the peace” revealed the intention of the Legislature to exclude
justices of peace from the mentioned section as supported by the decision of the Court of Appeals in People vs. Macaraeg.
6. The lower court dismissed the information against the accused upon the authority of the ruling of the case previously cited.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the plaintiff-appellant Guillermo Manantan, as a “justice of the peace”, is included in the prohibition of
Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
RULING:
Justices of the peace are included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Thus, Guillermo Manantan,
as a “justice of peace”, is subject to the mentioned section.
In Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, “justices of the peace” were expressly mentioned because the kinds of
judges were specified, as well as in the preceding amendments of the statute (Commonwealth Act No. 357 and Republic Act
No. 180).
In Section 54 of the Revised Election Code however, the legislature used the more generic and broader term “judge” with
the intention to comprehend all kinds of judges including “justices of the peace”.
In the history of the Revised Election Code, the first omission of the word “justice of the peace” was effected in Section 48
of the Commonwealth Act No. 357. This omission was the legislation from which Section 54 of the Revised Election Code
was taken contrary to the claim of the defendant-appellee that is was taken from Section 449 of the Revised Administrative
Code.
The defendant-appellee also invoked the rule “casus omisus pro omisso habendus est”. Under the said rule, the omission of
a person, object or thing from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. However, the rule has no
applicability to the case at bar for the legislature did not omit justices of the peace but rather, they were called by a more
general and broader term. The purpose of the use of “judges” in the statute is to include all various judges who were not
included in the prohibition under the old statute.
Lastly, the Court of Appeals and the trial court erroneously applied the rule of “expression unius, est exclusion alterius” (rule
of exclusion). Both courts failed to give the reason for the exclusion of justices of the peace in Section 54 of the Revised
Election Code.
The order of dismissal entered by the trail court should be set aside and this is remanded for trail on the merits.
Statutory Construction Topic: I. Revision and Codification
August 19, 2019 3. Effect of Change in Phraseology
By: Jensen Q. Floren
Topic
The case fell under the topic, “Effect of Change in Phraseology”. Phraseology, as defined by the Cambridge English
Dictionary, is the way in which language is used, especially in the choice of words and expressions. The change in
phraseology by amendment of a provision of the law indicates a legislative intent to change the meaning of the
provision from that it originally had. In construing the amended provision, courts may investigate the history of the
provision to determine legislative intent as to the meaning or scope of the amended law. Thus, where the legislative
history shows that a statute has undergone several amendments, each amendment using different phraseology, the
deliberate selection of language differing from that of the earlier act on the subject indicates that a change in meaning
of the law was intended, and courts should so construe that statute as to reflect such change in meaning.