Statutory Construction Agpalo Reviewer
Statutory Construction Agpalo Reviewer
Statutory Construction Agpalo Reviewer
Where the law does not distinguish Phil. British Assurance Co. v. Intermediate Apellate Court
• Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus - where • Statute: A counterbond is to secure the payment of “any
the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. judgment,” when execution is returned unsatisfied
• Corollary principle: General words or phrases in a statute • Held: “any judgment” includes not only final and executory
should ordinarily be accorded their natural and general but also judgment pending appeal whose execution ordered
significance is returned unsatisfied.
• General term or phrase should not be reduced into parts and
Ramirez v. CA
one part distinguished from the other to justify its exclusion
from operation. • Statute: “Act to Prohibit & Penalize Wire Tapping and Other
related Violations of Private Communications and Other
• Corollary principle: where the law does not make any
Purposes”
exception, courts may not except something therefrom,
unless there a compelling reason to justify it. • “It shall be unlawful, not being authorized by all the parties
to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any
• Application: when legislature laid down a rule for one class,
wire or cable, or by using any other device or
no difference to other class.
arrangement…”
Presumption: that the legislature made no qualification in the
general use of a term. • Issue: Whether violation thereof refers to the taping of a
communication other than a participant to the
Robles v. Zambales Chromite Co. communication or even to the taping by a participant who
• Statute: grants a person against whom the possession of “any did not secure the consent of the party to the conversations.
land” is unlawfully withheld the right to bring an action for • Held: Law did not distinguish whether the party sought to be
unlawful detainer. penalized ought to be party other than or different from those
• Held: any land not exclusive to private or not exclusively to involved in the private communication. The intent is to
public; hence, includes all kinds of land. penalize all persons unauthorized to make any such
recording, underscored by “any”
Director of Lands v. Gonzales
• Statute: authorizes the director of lands to file petitions for Ligget & Myers Tobacco Co. v. CIR
cancellation of patents covering public lands on the ground • Statute: imposes a “specific tax” on cigarettes containing
therein provided. Virginia tobacco …. Provided that of the length exceeds 71
• Held: not distinguished whether lands belong to national or millimeters or the weight per thousand exceeds 1¼ kilos, the
local government tax shall be increased by 100%.
• Issue: whether measuring length or weight of cigars, filters
SSS v. City of Bacolod should be excluded therefrom, so that tax would come under
• Issue: exempts the payment of realty taxes to “properties the general provision and not under the proviso?
owned by RP” • Held: Not having distinguished between filter and non-filter
• Held: no distinction between properties held in sovereign, cigars, court should not distinguish.
governmental, or political capacity and those possessed in
proprietary or patrimonial character.
Gomez v. Ventura
Villanueva v. City of Iloilo • Issue: whether the prescription by a physician of opium for a
• Statute: Local Autonomy Act, local governments are given patient whose physical condition did not require the use of
broad powers to tax everything, except those which are such drug constitutes “unprofessional conduct” as to justify
specifically mentioned therein. If a subject matter does not revocation of physician’s license to practice
come within the exceptions, an ordinance imposing a tax on • Held: Still liable! Rule of expressio unius not applicable
such subject matter is deemed to come within the broad • Court said, I cannot be seriously contended that aside from
taxing power, exception firmat regulam in casibus non the five examples specified, there can be no other conduct of
exceptis.
a physician deemed ‘unprofessional.’ Nor can it be
convincingly argued that the legislature intended to wipe out
Samson v. Court of Appeals
all other forms of ‘unprofessional’ conduct therefore deemed
• Where the law provides that positions in the government
grounds for revocation of licenses
belong to the competitive service, except those declared by
law to be in the noncompetitive service and those which are
4. Does not apply when in case a statute appears upon its face
policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly to limit the operation of its provision to particular persons or
technical in nature and enumerates those in the things enumerating them, but no reason exists why other
noncompetitive as including SECRETARIES OF persons or things not so enumerated should not have been
GOVERNORS AND MAYORS, the clear intent is that included and manifest injustice will follow by not including
assistant secretaries of governors and mayors fall under the them.
competitive service, for by making an enumeration, the 5. If it will result in incongruities or a violation of the equal
legislature is presumed to have intended to exclude those not protection clause of the Constitution.
enumerated, for otherwise it would have included them in 6. If adherence thereto would cause inconvenience, hardship
the enumeration and injury to the public interest.
Statute and its amendments construed together How statutes in Pari Materia construed
• rule applies to the construction and its amendments • Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus
• Whatever changes the legislature made it should be given interpretandi modus – every statute must be so construed and
effect together with the other parts. harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system
of jurisprudence (parang ganun din nung first part, construe
Almeda v. Florentino it as a whole. But also bear in mind that it should also be in
harmony with other existing laws)
• Construe statutes in pari materia together to attain the Illustration of the rule (in pari materia)
purpose of an express national policy
• Why should they be construed together? - Because of the Lacson v. Roque
assumption that when the legislature enacted the statutes they • Issue: the phrase unless sooner removed of a statute that
were thinking of the prior statute. Prior statutes relating to states “the mayor shall hold office for four years unless
the same subject matter are to be compared with the new sooner removed”
provisions. • statcon: the court held that the phrase should be construed in
• Again it is important to harmonize the statutes. Courts relation to removal statutes. Thus the phrase meant that
should not render them invalid without taking the necessary although the mayor cannot be removed during his term of
steps in reconciling them office, once he violates those that are stated in removal
statutes.
CHAPTER NINE: Prospective and Retroactive Statutes • Nova constitution futuris formam imponere debet non
praeteretis – A new statute should affect the future, not the
IN GENERAL
past.
Prospective and retroactive statutes, defined
• Prospective –
o operates upon facts or transactions that occur after • Prospectivity applies to:
the statute takes effect o Statutes
o looks and applies to the future. o Administrative rulings and circulars
• Retroactive – o Judicial decisions
o Law which creates a new obligation, imposes a • The principle of prospectivity of statutes, original or
new duty or attaches a new disability in respect to amendatory, has been applied in many cases. These include:
a transaction already past.
o A statute is not made retroactive because it draws Buyco v. PNB
on antecedent facts for its operation, or part of the • Statute: RA 1576 which divested the PNB of authority to
requirements for its action and application is drawn accept back pay certificates in payment of loans
from a time antedating its passage. • Held: does not apply to an offer of payment made before
effectivity of the act.
Umali vs. Estanislao
• A law may be made operative partly on facts that occurred
prior to the effectivity of such law without being retroactive. Lagardo v. Masaganda
• Statute: RA 7167- granting increased personal exemptions • Held: RA 2613, as amended by RA 3090 ON June 1991,
from income tax to be available thenceforth, that is, after said granting inferior courts jurisdiction over guardianship cases,
Act became effective and on or before the deadline for filing could not be given retroactive effect in the absence of a
income tax returns, with respect to compensation income saving clause.
earned or received during the calendar year prior to the date
the law took effect. Larga v. Ranada Jr.
• Held: Sec. 9 & 10 of E.O. 90 amending Sec 4 of P.D. 1752
Castro v. Sagales could have no retroactive application.
• A retroactive law (in a legal sense)
o one which takes away or impairs vested rights Peo v. Que Po Lay
acquired under existing laws • Held: a person cannot be convicted of violating Circular 20
o creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty of the Central Bank, when the alleged violation occurred
o attaches a new disability in respect of transactions before publication of the Circular on the Official Gazette.
or considerations already past
People v. Macatanda
♥ Amendment Operates Prospectively Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
An amendment will not be construed as having a retroactive law in force at the time of the commencement of the
effect, unless the contrary is provided or the legislative intent action; laws should only be applied prospectively unless
to give it a retroactive effect is necessarily implied from the the legislative intent to give them retroactive effect is
language used and only if no vested right is impaired. expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language used.
♥ Application of rule
Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor Union
an act passed April 16th and in force April 21st was held Sto. Domingo v. De los Angeles
to prevail over an act passed April 9th and in effect July The court invariably ruled that the special law is not
4th of the same year. impliedly repealed and constitutes an exception to the
And an act going into effect immediately has been held general law whenever the legislature failed to indicate
to prevail over an act passed before but going into effect in unmistakable terms its intent to repeal or modify the
later. prior special act.
Whenever two statutes of different dates and of contrary
tenor are of equal theoretical application to a particular case,
the statute of later date must prevail, being a later expression
of legislative will. NAPOCOR v. Arca
Issue: whether Sec. 2 of Com. Act 120 creating the
Philippine National Bank v. Cruz NAPOCOR, a government-owned corporation, and
As between the order of preference of credit set forth in empowering it “to sell electric power and to fix the rates
Articles 2241 to 2245 of the CC and that of Article 110 and provide for the collection of the charges for any
of the Labor Code, giving first preference to unpaid services rendered: Provided, the rates of charges shall
wages and other monetary claims of labor, the former not be subject to revision by the Public Service Act has
must yield to the latter, being the law of the later been repealed by RA 2677 amending the Public Service
enactment. Act and granting the Public Service Commission the
The later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later jurisdiction to fix the rate of charges of public utilities
owned or operated by the government or government-
legislative will.
owned corporations.
Presumption: the lawmakers knew the older law and
Held: a special law, like Com. Act 120, providing for a
intended to change it.
particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a
In enacting the older law, the legislators could not have
subsequent statute, general in its terms, like RA 2677,
known the newer one and could not have intended to
although the general statute are broad enough to include
change what they did not know.
the cases embraced in the special law, in the absence of
CC: laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, not the a clear intent to repeal.
other way around.
There appears no such legislative intent to repeal or
abrogate the provisions of the earlier law.
David v. COMELEC
The explanatory note to House Bill 4030 the later
Sec. 1 of RA 6679 provides that the term of barangay
became RA 2677, it was explicit that the jurisdiction
officials who were to be elected on the second Monday
conferred upon the Republic Service Commission over
of May 1994 is 5 years
the public utilities operated by government-owned or
The later act RA 7160 Sec 43 (c) states that the term of controlled corporations is to be confined to the fixing of
office of barangay officials who were to be elected also rates of such public services
on the 2nd Monday of May 1994 is 3 years. The harnessing and then distribution and sale of electric
There being a clear inconsistency between the two laws, power to the consuming public, the contingency
the later law fixing the term barangay officials at 3 intended to be met by the legal provision under
years shall prevail. consideration would not exist.
The authority of the Public Service Commission under
♥ General law does not repeal special law, generally RA 2677 over the fixing of rate of charges of public
A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a prior utilities owned or operated by GOCC’s can only be
special law on the same subject, unless it clearly appears that exercised where the charter of the government
the legislature has intended by the later general act to modify corporation concerned does not contain any provision to
or repeal the earlier special law. the contrary.
Presumption against implied repeal is stronger when of two
laws, one is special and the other general and this applies Philippine Railway Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue
even though the terms of the general act are broad enough to PRC was granted a legislative franchise to operate a
include the matter covered by the special statute. railway line pursuant to Act No. 1497 Sec. 13 which
Generalia specialibus non derogant – a general law does not read: “In consideration of the premises and of the
operation of this concession or franchise, there shall be
nullify a specific or special law
paid by the grantee to the Philippine Government,
The legislature considers and makes provision for all the
annually, xxx an amount equal to one-half of one per
circumstances of the particular case.
centum of the gross earnings of the grantee xxx.”
Reason why a special law prevails over a general law: the
Sec 259 of Internal Revenue Code, as amended by RA
legislature considers and makes provision for all the
39, provides that “there shall be collected in respect to
circumstances of the particular case.
all existing and future franchises, upon the gross
General and special laws are read and construed together, earnings or receipts from the business covered by the
and that repugnancy between them is reconciled by law granting a franchise tax of 5% of such taxes,
constituting the special law as an exception to the general charges, and percentages as are specified in the special
law. charters of the corporation upon whom suc franchises
are conferred, whichever is higher, unless the provisions Valera v. Tuason
hereof preclude the imposition of a higher tax xxx. A subsequent general law on a subject has repealed or
Issue: whether Section 259 of the Tax Code has amended a prior special act on the same subject by
repealed Section 13 of Act 1497, stand upon a different implication is a question of legislative intent.
footing from general laws. Intent to repeal may be shown in the act itself the
Once granted, a charter becomes a private contract and explanatory note to the bill before its passage into law,
cannot be altered nor amended except by consent of all the discussions on the floor of the legislature,
concerned, unless the right to alter or repeal is expressly
reserved. Intent to repeal the earlier special law where the later general
Reason: the legislature, in passing a special charter, has act provides that all laws or parts thereof which are
its attention directed to the special facts and inconsistent therewith are repealed or modified accordingly
circumstances in the particular case in granting a special If the intention to repeal the special law is clear, then the rule
charter, for it will not be considered that the legislature, that the special law will be considered as an exception to the
by adopting a general law containing the provisions general law does not apply; what applies is the rule that the
repugnant to the provisions of the charter, and without special law is deemed impliedly repealed.
any mention of its intention to amend or modify the A general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special
charter, intended to amend, repeal or modify the special law by mere implication admits of exception.
act.
The purpose of respecting the tax rates incorporated in City Government of San Pablo v. Reyes
the charters, as shown by the clause. Sec. 1 PD 551 provides that any provision of law or
local ordinance to the contrary, the franchise tax
LLDA v. CA payable by all grantees of franchise to generate,
Issue: which agency of the government, LLDA or the distribute, and sell electric current for light, heat, and
towns and municipalities compromising the region power shall be 25 of their gross receipts.
should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna Lake and Sec. 137 of the LGC states: Notwithstanding any
its environs insofar as the issuance of permits for exemption granted by any law or other special law, the
fishery privileges is concerned. province may impose a tax on business enjoying a
The LLDA statute specifically provides that the LLDA franchise at a rate not exceeding 50% of 1% of the gross
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the annul receipts.
use of all surface water for any projects in or affecting Held: the phrase is all-encompassing and clear that the
the said region, including the operation of fish pens. legislature intended to withdraw all tax exemptions
RA 7160 the LGC of 1991 grants the municipalities the enjoyed by franchise holders and this intent is made
exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in more manifest by Sec. 193 of the Code, when it
municipal waters. provides that unless otherwise provided in this code tax
Held: two laws should be harmonized, and that the LLA exemptions or incentives granted to or presently
statute, being a special law, must be taken as an enjoyed by all persons, except local water districts,
exception to RA 7160 a general law, cooperatives, and non-stock and non-profit hospitals
and educational institutions, are withdrawn upon the
Garcia v. Pascual effectivity of the Code.
Clerks of courts municipal courts shall be appointed by
the municipal judge at the expense of the municipality Gaerlan v. Catubig
and where a later law was enacted providing that Issue: whether Sec. 12 of RA 170 as amended, the City
employees whose salaries are paid out of the municipal Charter of Dagupan City, which fixed the minimum age
funds shall be appointed by the municipal mayor, the qualification for members of the city council at 23 years
later law cannot be said to have repealed the prior law has been repealed by Sec.6 of RA 2259
as to vest in the municipal mayor the power to appoint Held: there was an implied repeal of Sec. 12 of the
municipal cleck of court, as the subsequent law should charter of Dagupan City because the legislative intent to
be construed to comprehend only subordinate officials repeal the charter provision is clear from the fact that
of the municipality and not those of the judiciary. Dagupan City, unlike some cities, is not one of those
cities expressly excluded by the law from its operation
Gordon v. CA and from the circumstance that it provides that all acts
A city charter giving real estate owner a period of one or parts thereof which are inconsistent therewith are
year within which to redeem a property sold by the city repealed.
for nonpayment of realty tax from the date of such The last statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and
auction sale, being a special law, prevails over a general explicit in its words so as to show that it was intended
law granting landowners a period of two years to make to cover the whole subject and therefore to displace the
the redemption. prior statute.
Prospective or retroactive
• RULE: constitution operates prospectively only unless the
words employed are clear that it applies retroactively
Magtoto v. Manguera
• Sec 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: “no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. x x x Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
inadmissible in evidence”
• Court held that this specific portion of the mandate should be
given a prospective application
Co v. Electric Tribunal
• Sec. 1(3) Art. 4 of the 1987 Constitution states that those
born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are
citizens of the Philippines has a retroactive effect as shown
to the clear intent of the framers through the language used
- The End -