CARDINAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION  That’s the reason why an accused enjoys lots of

right.

Statutes prescribing formalities of wills, how construed

Legislative intent, how ascertained
- In the Filipino Culture, we don’t normally rely on last will and
- A concept of context
testament because that’s not in accordance with our culture
- In discovering the intent of congress in enacting a law, we
shouldn’t limit ourselves in one provision or one article - What we do is we die without a last will and testament

- It should be contextualized in its entirety - If that happens, there’s no problem because there’s a law that
- You can’t isolate one provision from the rest of it otherwise will take care of that.
your understanding of the law might not be the same
- By operation of law, the wealth will be distributed that might
- It needs to be interpreted or construed as a whole
commensurate what could have been the last will and

Liberal or strict construction, factors to consider and when applied testament that wasn’t expressly written.
- That is what we call Legitimes and the property will be
1. Former law on the matter
distributed accordingly.
• There are laws that have been probably amended
- However, if a person dies with a last will and testament,
or revised but there are prior laws that are actually
related to the present law and so for you to there’s a problem

understand whether or not to liberally or strictly - There are lots of written formalities that must be complied
construe the law, you might want to refer to the and these are very strict because the person who died with a
former laws on the matter last will and testament are already dead and can’t defend the
position
2. Persons or rights which it deals
- In case of ambiguity in the last will and testament, we can’t
• Who the persons or what are the rights being dealt
refer to a dead person for a dead man tell no tales
with can tell us whether or not to liberally or strictly
construe the law - The last will and testament is the mouthpiece of the dead
- Exactly why the law says it must conform strictly according to
3. Letter or language of the law the written formalities of the last will and testament
• The express language of the law will tell us really - For example:
that we are going to construe it liberally or strictly.
 Normally for a document to be notarized, it needs
Normally, when we talk about labor laws, in case
two witnesses but for a last will and testament, it
of doubt, resolve liberally in favour or the labor
needs no less than three witnesses and they must

4. Purposes and objects of the statute always sign each and every page in the left margin

• If the express language of the law is insufficient and and in the last part where their names appear
might defeat the purpose of the law, we’ll go the  What if the will is ten pages and there’s a one page
intent of the law or its framers whether or not to that wasn’t signed by the witnesses?
construe the law liberally or strictly
 The last will and testament will be nullified by the

Statutes in derogation of common rights, how construed court because it didn’t comply with the written
formalities
- Statutes in derogation of common right normally talks about - If it were statute prescribing the formalities of the will, we
the enormous power of the State: power of taxation, strictly construe that against validity
eminent domain, police power. - Because there’s a premise that the dead person can’t
- If it derogates your common right as a private individual, the verbalize what was the intention
doubt will be resolve in favour of the private individual  What happens if the court nullifies the last will and
- The accused has a lot of rights, enjoys the constitutional testament?
presumption of innocence.  No problem because if it is nullified, there’s a law
- For example: People of the Philippines v. Balandra that will operate in favour of the beneficiaries
 Accused is up against the enormous power of the
state. The office of the President is against you, the
NBI, DOJ, DILG, Courts practically each and every
Naturalization Laws, how construed
law enforcing agency of the government will be
there to prosecute you for the crime you
- It must be strictly construed against the applicant and in
committed
favour of the government
 Because if the enormous power of the state that is
- The reason is because there are already lots of delinquent
against you, here’s a law that tries to take care of
Filipinos and here comes a foreigner who wants to be a
your rights for example, the right to be presumed
Filipino, what if that foreigner is a persona non grata or
innocent until proven otherwise
undesirable alien? The consequence is that the number of
 Because if the enormous power of the state that is
delinquent people in the country will increase if we will relax
against you, who are you? You are powerless and
the strict construction against the applicants for
defenseless, you are only one against the entire
naturalization.
resources of the government
 - When someone applies for naturalization, In case of doubt, it - Again, in case of doubt, rule in favour of the employees or
must be resolved against the application and in favour of the labourers against the employee.
government. - If there’s no doubt, apply the express language of the law
provided that it still serves the purpose of the law.
Common Denominator of the Cardinal Rules of Construction
Tax Laws, how construed
- There has to be a doubt.
In Medicard Phils Inc v CIR
- Only in case of doubt that the Court will say they rule against
the validity of the will or the applicants for naturalization
If you buy an insurance, you pay an amount but normally they
proceedings
would not perform the tests. You’re going to go to the doctor and
- If there is no doubt, apply the law according to the express
the insurance company will pay the doctor.
language.
- Be alert, in the exam a doubt will be created and if you can In this case, the problem involves whether or not the amount

detect apply accordingly, if there’s no doubt, apply the being paid to the insurance company subject to value added tax.

express language of the law. However, it was said that the amount received by the insurance
company for example, 100,000 but that amount is divided into
Statutes conferring the right of eminent domain, how construed two. 20% goes to the insurance company and 80% goes to the
doctor who performed the diagnosis and interpreted the
- The eminent domain is the power of expropriation
laboratory tests.
- So here comes the government saying that “we need your
property for public use…. We’re going to take it upon Here, the law says that the amount being paid to insurance
payment of just compensation...” company is vatable because that is a service. But the Medicard
- There are rules that need to be complied with said that it couldn’t be 100% because the only get 20%. Under the
- In case of doubt, resolve in favour of the private individual law, there was doubt if it was entirely vatable against the insurance
and against the state company.
- The reason is that statute normally derogates common right
which is the right to property. The Supreme Court said that because our rule is in inquirant

- Again, who are you against the State? You are alone, obligation that is going to be imposed as a burden, it must have a

defenseless, helpless. You are nothing against the State clear basis at all. Medicard was right because they only 20% and

- In case of doubt, rule in favour of the private indivual and that is the one that is vatable against them. The 80% should be

against the government vatable against the doctors and not against the insurance

- If there’s no doubt, apply the express language of the law company because there is no express language of the law that
- 1st premise: the imposition of tax is an imposition of an
says that it should be 100% against the insurance company.
obligation or burden
- 2nd premise: it must find clear support in the language of the
law, if you can’t find clear support in the language of the law,
you will be spared from paying taxes or tax liability
- General rule: Tax laws impose a burden and it must be
supported by the express language of law.

Exception to how tax laws are construed o

In Tolentino v Secretary of Finance

In this case, there was a doubt of whether or not Philippine

Airlines should be exempted from paying taxes. Because
there was doubt, the Supreme Court resolved in favour of
the government and collection of taxes and against the

Statutes granting rights to laborers, how construed exemption.

The Philippine Airlines said that their exemption is still intact

In Federation of Free Farmers v CA, it was a piece of social
because their company wasn’t found in the title of the law
legislation. In that case, there was no doubt, the express
and the Supreme Court said if it can be discerned from the
language of the law was very clear However, the Supreme
title that tax exemption is going to be revoked by virtue of
Court said that we’re going to set aside the express
widening the tax based of VAT, then you are exempted
language of the law because it doesn’t serve the purpose of
eceven if there was doubt.
the law. That being said, if we set aside the express language
of the law, we go to the intent.
- However, if we talk about the tax exemption and there is a

- However, there might pieces of social legislation that might doubt, it will be resolve in favour of the government and not

be doubtful. to the taxpayer claiming tax exemptions.

 - In case of doubt of whether you are exempted, it will be - Frivaldo doctrine can only be applied in so far as the general
resolve against the exemption and in favour of collection of rule of technicalities are concerned but not to qualifications
taxes because of lifeblood theory to public office like citizenship.
- This is because of the lifeblood theory wherein the taxes that
In the case of Maquiling, the Supreme Court said that you must be
are paid are the lifeblood of the government.
a Filipino at the time you file your certificate of candidacy. There
must be no doubt in your citizenship.

While it’s true that citizenship is just a matter of technicality and

Election Laws might be cured if you won overwhelmingly. That can’t hold true
anymore because disqualifications are not out of reason, exactly

In Frivaldo v. Comelec, Frivaldo was an anti- Marcos activist why congress prescribed qualification is to compel the candidates

and at the height of Martial law, he thought Philippines is for public office to comply with the qualifications. If you’re not a

helpless. He went to United States, gave up his PH candidate to begin with, you can never be proclaimed no matter if

Citizenship and became naturalized American. you won. Those votes casted on your favour are actually strange
because “salingpusa ka lang” because an alien can’t claim that he
When Marcos Regime fell down, he returned to the
understood the problem of that particular locality if he wasn’t
Philippines. He wanted to run for public office but he was
there as a resident to begin with. In other words, qualifications
already an American Citizen, and one requisite for a person
can’t be treated as mere technicality.
to run for public office is that you must be a Filipino. He won
twice as a governor even though there were challenges to You have to be a Filipino before you can serve the Filipinos. We

his his status as a Filipino. In his third term, the inquiry on his can’t allow an alien to rule us. Citizenship is not a mere technicality

citizenship and his disqualification became serious. anymore.

On the day that he filed COC, he wasn’t a Filipino because

his application for naturalization was still pending… He went
to Bureau of Immigration and Deportation where he was
- In case of doubt, and that doubt arises from the technicality,
able to be Filipino again by virtue of administrative
election laws should be construed in favour of the
proceedings. On the election date, he wasn’t a Filipino yet
sovereignty.
but he won again overwhelmingly.
- “The people have spoken”

He was proclaimed as governor but he wasn’t still a Filipino.

Prospective and retrospective interpretation, distinguished
However, the application for naturalization was approved
hours before he assumed office. - When you interpret the law, it must be construed
prospectively because you can’t interpret the facts
The Supreme Court said that “Despite the fact that the law
antecedent to the passage of law.
says you need to be Filipino, it doesn’t specify when should
you be Filipino so that you will be qualified to run for public Retrospective application of law, effect of
office As opposed to age and residence, the Local
Government Code was very specific when it said that you - Retrospective application takes away or impairs vested
must be a resident for atleast 10 years depends upon the rights exactly why there is Doctrine of Operative Fact.
position or you must be this age on the day of the election. - Vested rights mean it was given already and must not
In so far as the citizenship is concerned, the law was silent
be taken away otherwise it injures the right and will
whether or not when should someone be a Filipino will it be
violate due process.
at the time of filling certificate of candidacy, at the time of
election or at the time of proclamation or assumption” . Prospective application of law, effect of

In other words, there was a doubt because there was doubt,

- Normally, there are indicators that law is going to be
The Supreme Court said that “Anyway, it is a matter of
applied prospectively.
technicality and technicalities aside, we should listen to the
- If it uses the words “heretofore, theretofore” it is
will of the people.
retrospective application
If the people have spoken, regardless if there might be - But, if it uses the words “hereafter, thereafter” it is
technicality of the citizenship and in case there is a doubt in
prospective application
However,it must
the- technicality, the doctrine in Frivaldo
be resolved might
against the not be entirely
technicality
- If there are indicators, there is no problem
correctoftoday
and in favour but it was included
the sovereignty and theasclear
an assigned
mandatecase
of to read
is because it is necessary to emphasize that in so far as the - In the absence of indicator and in case of doubt, we
the people.
technicalities are concerned, it must be set aside and in resolve in favour of the prospective application of law
favour of the sovereign will and that’s how election laws not retrospective
should be construed - Except when it involves remedial statutes
Remedial statutes

- It talks only about procedural matters

- Procedural matters, retrospective application is allowed
because it do not injure or impair vested rights