STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION NOTES

I.INTRODUCTION Construction and interpretation, distinguished -

Construction is the drawing of conclusions with respect to
THE ESSENTIALS subjects that are beyond the direct expression of the
text, while interpretation is the process of discovering the
Statutory construction, defined. – art or process to
true meaning of the language used.
discover and expound the meaning and intention of the
authors of the law with respect to the application to a
Interpretation is limited to exploring the written text.
given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful,
Construction on the other hand is the drawing of
among others, by reason of the fact that the given case is
conclusions, respecting subjects that lie beyond the direct
not explicitly provided for in the law.
expressions of the text.
Legal hermeneutics, defined. - is the
Legislative meaning, defined.- is what the law, by its
systematic body of rules which are recognized
language, means. Where the statute is clear, plain and free
as applicable to the construction and
interpretation of legal writings. from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without interpretation.
Construction, purpose of – the sole construction of
Legislative intent, defined. - it is the vital part, the
statutory construction is to ascertain meaning and intention
heart, the soul, and the essence of the law
of the legislature so that it may be enforced.

Legislative purpose, defined. – reason a particular statute

Construction, scope of. – a law is not vulnerable to
was enacted by the legislature.
construction UNLESS IT IS AMBIGOUS.

Legislative intent and purpose, distinguished – the result

A condition sine qua non, before the court construe a
of combined application purpose and meaning is the
statute, is that there be doubt or ambiguity in its language.
legislative intent.
Note: NO AMBUITY, NO CONSTRUCTION
KINDS OF INTERPRETATION
Ambiguity, defined - doubtfulness, duplicity of
1) Close interpretation
meaning, or indistinctness, or uncertainty of
2) Extensive interpretation
meaning of the expression used in the
3) Extravagant interpretation
instrument.
4) Free or unrestricted interpretation
5) Limited or restricted interpretation
Remedy for courts in case of ambiguity. -
6) Predestined interpretation
CONSTUCTION

Close interpretation. – adopted if just reasons, connected

Rules of construction, binding effect on courts.
with the formation and character of the text, induce the
- The rules of statutory construction are not interpreter to take words in their narrowest meaning. (also
mandatory upon the courts. They reast on the called literal)
authority of the courts that gradually developed
Extensive interpretation. – Also known as ARTIFICIAL or
them into a complete and detailed system.
STRAINED construction. It refers to the process whereby
- But a long and uniform construction of a statute
words of the statute are arrested from their plain and
amounts to a positive law. Judicial decisions
obvious meaning and made bear an entirely different
interpreting laws or constitution form part of
meaning to avoid an absurd and unjust result
the legal system.

Extravagant interpretation. – substitutes a meaning

Exception – unless the statute expressly
evidently beyond the true one. It is therefore not a
provides
genuine interpretation

Exception to exception – unless

Judicial activism. – it should never be allowed
there is ambiguity to the exception.
to become judicial exuberance. The court cannot
craft and tailor constitutional provision to
Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apr. 23, 1992
accommodate all situtations no matter how ideal
Doctrine On rules of construction: Supreme Court
decisions applying or interpreting the or reasonable it may sound.
Constitution shall form part of the legal
Free or unrestricted interpretation. – proceeds simply on
system of the Philippines
the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of interpretation in good faith,
NOT BOUND by any specific or superior principle.
Case
summar
y
Limited or restricted interpretation. – happens when VOLUNTARY INHIBITION - the decision on
interpretation is influenced by principles than the strictly whether to inhibit is left to the sound discretion
hermeneutic ones. and conscience of the judge based on his
rational and logical assessment of the
Predestined interpretation – (cold neutrality of an circumstances prevailing in the case brought
impartial judge) an artful interpretation, by which an before him.
interpreter seeks to give meaning to the text other than
the one he knows to have intended. This takes place if the Authentic interpretation – in civil law, authentic
interpreter, laboring under a strong bias of mind, makes interpretation of laws is that given by the legislator
the text subservient to preconceived views or desires. himself or herself, which is obligatory on the courts.

Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, Apr. 24, Customary interpretation – AKA usual interpretation. It is
2018 which arises from SUCCESSIVE OR CONCURRENT
Doctrine On extensive interpretation: The DECISIONS of the court on the same subject matter,
legislative intent is not at all times having regard to the spirit of the law, jusrisprudence,
accurately reflected in the manner in which usages and equity as distinguished from authentic
the resulting law is couched. Thus, applying interpretation, which is that given by the legislator
a verba legis or strictly literal
interpretation of a statute may render it AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE LAW OR REVIEW
meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an
absurd situation or injustice. To obviate Who can construe the law? It’s the judiciary - must
this aberration, and bearing in mind the follow the hierarchy of courts. You can proceed to supreme
principle that the intent or the spirit of court in cases where there is a transcendental importance
the law is the law itself, resort should be to of the law. The supreme court will never touch the law
the rule that the spirit of the law controls
unless there is ambiguity
its letter.
Case The Supreme Court, composition. – Composed of: 1 Chief
summar Justice and 14 associate justices.
y
NOTE: It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
divisions of 3,5, or 7 members.
Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242, Apr. 16, 2013
Doctrine On judicial activism: it should never be The Members of the Supreme Court, qualifications:
allowed to become judicial exuberance. The
court cannot craft and tailor constitutional - Natural-born Filipino Citizen
provision to accommodate all situtations no - At least 40 years of age
matter how ideal or reasonable it may - Must have 15 years or more experience of being
sound. a judge of a lower court in the Philippines
Case - Must of proven competence, integrity, probity,
summar and independence.
y
NOTE: The CONGRESS prescribes the
qualifications of judges in the lower courts, BUT
Remedies: COMPULSORY and VOLUNTARY
NO PERSON MAY BE APPOINTED to it unless he
INHIBITION.
is a Filipino citizen and a member of the Philippine
Bar
COMPULSORY INHIBITION - No judge or
judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he,
The Supreme Court, jurisdiction. – ALL cases involving
or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as
Constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which
agreement, or law, and ALL other cases UNDER the RULES
he is related to either party within the sixth
OF THE COURT (including constitutionality, application,
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to
operation of P.D., proclamations, orders, instructions,
counsel within the fourth degree, computed
ordinances, and other regulations,) and DECIDE with
according to the rules of the civil law, or in
concurrence of a majority of the members who took part in
which he has been executor, administrator,
the deliberation.
guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
presided in any inferior court when his ruling or The lower courts, jurisdiction. – cases
decision is the subject of review, without the involving CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY
written consent of all parties in interest, signed TREATY or LAW, for it speaks of appellate
by them and entered upon the record. (Section review of the decisions rendered by the lower
1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court) courts where constitutionality happens to be an
issue.
 NOTE: the power of judicial review is not whether a statute enacted by the legislature
exclusive to S.C. but is shared to the inferior transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental
courts law. Where a statute violates the Constitution,
it is not only the right but the duty of the
The Supreme Court, expanded jurisdiction. – Judicial judiciary to declare such act as unconstitutional
power is NOT ONLY EXCLUSIVE to settle actual and void.
controversies i.e. legally demandable and enforceable rights
BUT it also includes the duty to determine whether any Tatad v. Energy & Finance Secretary, G.R. No.
government branch or instrumentality gravely abused its 124360, Nov. 5, 1997
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Doctrin
e
Grave abuse of discretion (GAD)– Facts Republic Act No. 8180, or the Downstream
CAPRICIOUS and WHIMSICAL exercise of Oil Industry Regulation Act of 1996, was
judgement as is equivalent to lack of enacted by Congress for the purpose of
jurisdiction. deregulating the downstream oil industry.

GAD must be PATENT and GROSS to amount to

Its validity was challenged on the following
an ENVASION OF POSITIVE DUTY or
constitutional grounds:
VIRTUAL REFUSAL to perform duty enjoined
a) that the imposition of different
by law or to act at all in CONTEMPLATION of tariff rates on imported crude
law, as where the power is exercised oil and imported refined
ARBITRARILY and DESPOTIC manner by reason petroleum products violates the
of passion or hostility. equal protection clause;
b) the imposition of different
Therefore : the scope of Judicial review is (1) actual tariff rates does not deregulate
controversies involving legally demandable and the downstream oil industry but
enforceable rights (2) grave abuse of discretion of any instead controls the oil industry;
branch of the gov’t and its instrumentalities w/n it lacks c) the inclusion of the tariff
or excess jurisdiction provision in Section 5(b) of RA
8180 violates the one title-one
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993 subject requirement of
Doctrine On grave abuse of discretion: The court the Constitution;
can invoke the expanded power of judicial d) that Section 15 thereof
review under article 8 of the constitution constitutes undue delegation of
in which judicial branch can correct grave legislative power to the
abuses of discretion amounting to lack or President and the Secretary of
excess of jurisdiction. Energy and violates the
Summar A case filed by minors against the constitutional prohibition against
y secretary of DENR (Factoran), to mandate monopolies; and
the latter to cancel all existing timber e) that Executive Order No. 392
license agreement and to stop their future implementing R.A. 8180 is
issuance arbitrary and unreasonable
because it was enacted due to
the alleged depletion of OPSF
The case poses 4 issues: fund — a condition not found in
1) W/N the kids have locus standi the law.
2) W/N there is a valid class suit Issue
3) W/N there is a cause of action
4) W/N a judicial review can be invoke Ruling

Judicial review, nature of.- Judicial power

Judicial supremacy. – when the judiciary mediates to
includes not only the duty of the courts to
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
settle actual controversies involving rights
superiority over other departments. It does not nullify an
which are legally demandable and enforceable,
act of the legislature, but only asserts solemn and sacred
but also the duty to determine whether or not
obligation assigned to it by the constitution.
there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
government. Doctrin For Judicial Supremacy: when the
e judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, boundaries, it does not assert any
have the inherent authority to determine superiority over the other departments; it
 does not in reality nullify or invalidate an LAMP v. Secretary of Budget & Management, G.R.
act of the legislature, but only asserts the No. 164987, Apr. 24, 2012
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it Doctrine On actual case or controversy: An aspect
by the Constitution to determine conflicting of the "case-or-controversy" requirement is
claims of authority under the Constitution the requisite of "ripeness”. courts are
and to establish for the parties in an actual centrally concerned with whether a case
controversy the rights which that involves uncertain contingent future events
instrument secures and guarantees to them. that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed
This is in truth all that is involved in what is may not occur at all. Another concern is the
termed "judicial supremacy" which properly evaluation of the twofold aspect of
is the power of judicial review under the ripeness: first, the fitness of the issues for
Constitution judicial decision; and second, the hardship
Facts to the parties entailed by withholding court
consideration. In our jurisdiction, the issue
Issue
of ripeness is generally treated in terms of
Ruling actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a
question is ripe for adjudication when the
act being challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual challenging.
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Case
summar
The power to judicial review is subject to limitations. It can
y
only be exercised if the essential elements are present.
These are:
Ripeness & prematurity, justiciability:
 ripeness or actual case or controversy When? – A question is ripe for adjudication
 locus standi or the person must have the when the act challenged has had a direct
standing to challenge adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
 question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest opportunity How to determine if the issue is ripe? – 2
 the issue of constitutionality must be very fold aspect of ripeness: (1) fitness of issues for
LIS MOTA to the case judicial decision; (2) the hardship to parties
entailed by withholding court decision.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
Doctrin On essential requisites: the courts' power
160261, Nov. 10, 2003
e of judicial review, like almost all powers
Doctrin On justiciability ; The determination of a
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to
e truly political question from a non-
several limitations, namely: (1) an actual
justiciable political question lies in the
case or controversy calling for the exercise
answer to the question of whether there
of judicial power; (2) the person challenging
are constitutionally imposed limits on
the act must have "standing" to challenge;
powers or functions conferred upon political
he must have a personal and substantial
bodies. If there are, then our courts are
interest in the case such that he has
duty-bound to examine whether the branch
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
or instrumentality of the government
result of its enforcement; (3) the question
properly acted within such limits.
of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the
issue of constitutionality must be the very Truly political questions are thus beyond
lis mota of the case judicial review, the reason being that
Facts respect for the doctrine of separation of
powers must be maintained. On the other
Issue hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of
Ruling the Constitution, courts can review
questions which are not truly political in
nature
Facts
(1) Actual case or controversy. – it involves a conflict of
Issue
leal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from Ruling
a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute.

(2) Locus standi – right of appearance in a court of

Note: RIPENESS is the requirement to actual case
justice on a given situation.
or controversy
 PERSONAL. There must be a showing that not
Direct Injury Test – must have a PERSONAL and only the law or gov’t act is invalid, but also he
SUBSTANTIAL interest in the case such that the sustained direct injury as a result of
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a enforcement.
result of an act being challenged.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
Exception: requirements for locus standi is 160261, Nov. 10, 2003
deemed waived (1) if the petition crafts an issue Doctrin On Citizen as petitioner: When suing as a
e citizen, the interest of the petitioner
of transcendental importance; (2) or in view of
assailing the constitutionality of a statute
its seriousness, novelty, novelty, and weight as a
must be direct and personal. He must be
precedent; (3) due to its implications.
able to show, not only that the law or any
government act is invalid, but also that he
Locus Standi v. Real Party – in – Interest – Locus
sustained or is in imminent danger of
Standi has Constitutional underpinnings whereas the
sustaining some direct injury as a result of
real party-in-interest is a concept in civil procedure
its enforcement, and not merely that he
that inquires whether petitioner is a party who suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It
benefits or is injured from the judgement. must appear that the person complaining
has been or is about to be denied some
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. right or privilege to which he is lawfully
160261, Nov. 10, 2003 entitled or that he is about to be subjected
Doctrine On locus standi: Locus standi or legal to some burdens or penalties by reason of
standing or has been defined as a personal the statute or act complained of. In fine,
and substantial interest in the case such when the proceeding involves the assertion
that the party has sustained or will sustain of a public right, the mere fact that he is a
direct injury as a result of the citizen satisfies the requirement of
governmental act that is being challenged. personal interest
The gist of the question of standing is Facts
whether a party alleges such personal stake
in the outcome of the controversy as to Issue
assure that concrete adverseness which
Ruling
sharpens the presentation of issues upon
which the court depends for illumination of Concerned citizen.
difficult constitutional questions
Case Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012
summar Doctrin On concerned citizen as a petitioner:
y e For concerned citizens, there must be a
showing that the issues raised are of
Non-traditional suitors. transcendental importance which must be
settled early
Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012 Facts

Issue
Doctrin On non-traditional suitors: The rule
e on locus standi is after all a mere Ruling
procedural technicality in relation to which
the Court, in a catena of cases involving a
subject of transcendental import, has Taxpayer. – plaintiff is affected by the
waived, or relaxed, thus allowing non- expenditure of public funds.
traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned
citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators, to Legislator. – a legislator is allowed to question
sue in the public interest, albeit they may validity of any official action he claims infringes
not have been personally injured by the
his prerogatives as a legislator.
operation of a law or any other government
act. Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Facts Doctrin On legislator as a petitioner: As for a
e legislator, he is allowed to sue to question
Issue the validity of any official action which he
claims infringes his prerogatives as a
Ruling
legislator. 82 Indeed, a member of the
House of Representatives has standing to
Citizen as petitioner. – when suing as a citizen, maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers
interest of the petitioner must be DIRECT AND and privileges vested by the Constitution in
his office
Facts
While as a rule, only natural and juridical
Issue
persons or entities authorized by law may be
Ruling parties in a civil action, whales, dolphins,
porpoises and other cetacean species need not
be given locus standi, when represented by their
Association – an association has legal
legal guardian and human friends collectively
personality to represent its members, especially
known as STEWARDS.
when composed of substantial tax payers and
the outcome affects their vital interest.
Inanimate objects.

IBP v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160343,

River. Resident Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No.
Nov. 10, 2003
180771, Apr. 21, 2015
Doctrin
Doctrin
e
e
Facts
Facts
Issue
Issue
Ruling
Ruling

Voters.
(3) Earliest opportunity. The issue of constitutionality
must raised in the initial pleading.
Funa v. Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012

Can the issue of constitutionality be opened

Doctrin For voters: For voters, there must be a after 10 years? – Yes, because the issue of
e showing of obvious interest in the validity constitutionality can still be opened even after a
of the election law in question decade because it affects the past, the present
Facts
and the future.
Issue
Umali v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 131124,
Ruling Mar. 29, 1999

Minors – Minors represented by their parents in Doctrin

a class suit, who assert they represent their e
generation as well as the generation of the Facts
unborn may file a class suit.
Issue

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993 Ruling

Doctrin On minors (locus standi) – the personality
e to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations is based on the concept of (4) Lis mota.
intergenerational responsibility.
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.
160261, Nov. 10, 2003
Class suit, requisites. – there is a class suit if
Doctrin On lis mota: Court should not pass upon a
the subject matter involves (1) right of the
e constitutional question and decide a law to
people to a balance and healthful ecology (2)
be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such
that is of common and general interest to all
question is raised by the parties and that
citizens of the country. when it is raised, if the record also
presents some other ground upon which the
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
court may rest its judgment, that course
Doctrin will be adopted and the constitutional
e question will be left for consideration until
Facts a case arises in which a decision upon such
Issue question will be unavoidable
Facts
Ruling
Issue

Ruling
Marine mammals. – the court may lower the
benchmark in locus standi as an exercise of
epistolary jurisdiction.
LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO CONSTRUE 7) When the validity of an act of the
Congress is drawn in question, and even
Under American jurisprudence. if a serious doubt of constitutionality is
raised, it is a cardinal principle that this
7 PILLARS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
Court will first ascertain whether a
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE:
construction of the statute is fairly
1) The Court will not pass upon the possible by which the question may be
constitutionality of legislation in a avoided.
friendly, non-adversary proceeding,
Under Philippine jurisprudence. - parallel guidelines have
declining because to decide such questions
been adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court in the
‘is legitimate only in the last resort, and as
exercise of judicial review:
a necessity in the determination of real,
earnest and vital controversy between 1. actual case or controversy calling for the
individuals. exercise of judicial power

It never was the thought that, by means 2. the person challenging the act must have
of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal
legislature could transfer to the courts an and substantial interest in the case such that he
inquiry as to the constitutionality of the has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
legislative act.’ result of its enforcement (Locus standi)

2) The Court will not ‘anticipate a question 3. the question of constitutionality must be raised
of constitutional law in advance of the at the earliest possible opportunity
necessity of deciding it.’ . . . ‘It is not the
habit of the Court to decide questions of a
4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very
constitutional nature unless absolutely
lis mota of the case.
necessary to a decision of the case.’

Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261,

3) The Court will not ‘formulate a rule of
Nov. 10, 2003
constitutional law broader than is
required by the precise facts to which it Other limitations.
is to be applied.’
- Separation of powers
4) The Court will not pass upon a - Judicial legislation
constitutional question although properly - Doctrine of political question
presented by the record, if there is also - Legislative wisdom
present some other ground upon which - Doctrine of Stare decisis
the case may be disposed of. This rule - Moot & Court academic principle
has found most varied application. - Advisory opinion
- Judicial restraint
Thus, if a case can be decided on either
of two grounds, one involving a (1) Separation of powers – Under the separation
constitutional question, the other a of powers, the court CANNOT restrain
question of statutory construction or Congress from passing any law, or from setting
general law, the Court will decide only into motion the legislative mill according to its
the latter. internal rules

5) The Court will not pass upon the validity A proposed bill is not subject to judicia; review
of a statute upon complaint of one who because its not a law.
fails to show that he is injured by its
operation. Among the many applications of The Court has no power to dictate Congress the
this rule, none is more striking than the object or subject of bills that Congress should
denial of the right of challenge to one who enact into law.
lacks a personal or property right
The judicial power to review constitutionality of
6) The Court will not pass upon the laws does not include the power to prescribe
constitutionality of a statute at the Congress what laws to enact.
instance of one who has availed himself
of its benefits.
 Note: always remember the relationship of the Restrictions to the doctrine: courts
3 branches of the Government are may not by implication read into a statute that
INDEPENDENT and COORDINATE. which is not intended to be there. The may not
imply that which the language of the statute
(2) Judicial legislation. - judiciary not being may not warrant.
allowed to legislate. When you right something
to the law that it doesn’t have to be there to Aratea v Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, Oct. 9, 2012
begin with. Doctrin On judicial legislation:
e
An omission at time of enactment, whether Facts
careless or calculated, cannot be judicially Issue
supplied even if wisdom recommends it.
Ruling
If there is a legislative gap caused by omission,
the judiciary cannot fill that gap. Otherwise, it
results in judicial legislation.
Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. CTA, G.R. No. L-9274,
Feb. 1, 1957
Exceptions. Doctrin On correction of clerical error:
(1.a) Court-issued guidelines. – the Supreme e
Court has the duty to formulate guiding and Facts
controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules. (i.e. guidelines in defining Issue
psychological capacity) Ruling

Note: guidelines are not judicial legislation

Fariñas v. Barba, G.R. No. 116763, Apr. 19, 1996

(1.b) Casus omissus. – words or phrases may be
Doctrin On doctrine of necessary implication and
supplied by courts and inserted in a statute
e inferences:
where necessary to ELIMINATE REPUGNANCY
Facts
and INCONSISTENCY IN IT.
Issue
the SC can supply the missing text in the law but
Ruling
with guidelines (i.e. texts that are present in
other provisions but missing in other provisions)

(1.c) Correction of clerical error.- The court Chua v. CSC, G.R. No. 88979, Feb. 7, 1992 COA v.
may correct clerical errors, mistake, or Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 141386, Nov. 29, 2001
misprints to CARRY OUT THE OBVIOUS Doctrin On doctrine of necessary implication and
e inferences:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
Facts

(1.d) Doctrine of necessary implication and Issue

inferences. - The doctrine states that what is
Ruling
implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as
that which is expressed.
(3) Doctrine of political question. – refers to those
Every statute is understood, by question, under the constitution, that are to be
implication, to contain all such provisions as may decided by the people in their sovereign
be necessary to effectuate its object and capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, authority is delegated to legislative and
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, executive branch.
including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and logically Under the "political question" doctrine arising
inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. from the principle of separation of powers, the
And every statutory grant of power, right or Judicial Branch cannot decide questions "in
privilege is deemed to include all incidental regard to which full discretionary authority has
power, right or privilege. This is so because the been delegated to the legislative or executive
greater includes the lesser, expressed in the branch of the government"(i.e. appointment of
Maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus. the president and grave abuse of discretion)
 Purely political questions – matters that have Facts
been textually committed by the Constitution to
Issue
the political departments like internal discipline
within the congress when its acts do not impair Ruling
private rights. Outside of these, the courts
have a duty to decide and to redress violation of
rights.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
(1994
Other truly political questions: (a) Doctrin On purely political questions:
determination of impeachable offense; (b) e
budgetary allocation; (c) legislative declaration Facts
of presidential inability; (d) basis for urgency of
bills. Issue

Ruling
Francisco Jr. v. HR, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10,
2003
Doctrin On doctrine of political question: The
e determination of a truly political question (4) Legislative wisdom. – the Supreme Court cannot
from a non-justiciable political question lies rule upon the wisdom of a law or repeal or
in the answer to the question of whether modify it if it finds it impractical. That function
there are constitutionally imposed limits on belongs to the legislature. Its function is to
powers or functions conferred upon political interpret and apply the law as conceived and
bodies. If there are, then our courts are approved by the political departments of the
duty-bound to examine whether the branch government in accordance with prescribed
or instrumentality of the government
procedure.
properly acted within such limits.

Rationale – the principle of the separation of

Truly political questions are thus beyond powers mandates that challenges on
judicial review, the reason being that constitutionality of a law should be resolved in
respect for the doctrine of separation of courts of justice while doubts on wisdom of a
powers must be maintained. On the other law should be debated in the halls of Congress.
hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of
the Constitution, courts can review
Dura lex sed lex. – the court of law is no place
questions which are not truly political in
for a protracted debate on morality and
nature
propriety of the sentence, where the law itself
Facts
provides for the sentence in specific and well-
Issue defined instances.

Ruling
Under this system, judges are guided by the
rule of law, and ought to protect and enforce it
without fear or favor, resist encroachments by
Francisco Jr. v. HR, G.R. No. 160261, Nov. 10, gov’t, political parties, or even the interference
2003 of their own personal belief.
Doctrin On purely political questions: The
e determination of a truly political question
Note: if there is a problem of the harshness of
from a non-justiciable political question lies
the law, it is the LEGISLATURE who will
in the answer to the question of whether
address it.
there are constitutionally imposed limits on
powers or functions conferred upon political
bodies. If there are, then our courts are Exception. – the S.C. is empowered
duty-bound to examine whether the branch to rule upon even the wisdom of the
or instrumentality of the government decisions of the executive and
properly acted within such limits. legislature and to declare their acts
invalid for lack or excess of
jurisdiction for being tainted with
Truly political questions are thus beyond
grave abuse of discretion.
judicial review, the reason being that
respect for the doctrine of separation of
Tatad v. Energy & Finance Secretary, G.R. No.
powers must be maintained. On the other
124360, Nov. 5, 1997
hand, by virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of
Doctrin On legislative wisdom:
the Constitution, courts can review
e
questions which are not truly political in
nature Facts
Issue modified or reversed except by the court
sitting en banc.
Ruling

NOTE: the SC clarified that it does NOT

APPLY to Criminal cases and appointive
Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. officials that supervenes pendency of such
160261, Nov. 10, 2003 proceedings and reinforced it as justified by
Doctrin On legislative wisdom: sound public policy. Also it cannot be given
e retroactive effects
Facts

Issue Obiter dictum. – a judicial comment made while

delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is
Ruling unnecessary to the decision of the case and
therefore not precedential, although it may be
considered persuasive.
People v. Veneracion, G.R. Nos. 119987-88, Oct.
12, 1995 Ratio decidendi – principle or rule of law on
Doctrin On dura lex sed lex: which a court’s decision is founded or the rule of
e law on which a later court thinks that a previous
Facts court founded its decision.

Issue
Obiter dictum & ratio decidendi, distinguished
Ruling – obiter dictum is not binding and cannot be
considered as a precedent, while ratio decidendi
can be.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Doctrin On exception to legislative wisdom:
e Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10,
Facts 2015
Doctrin On doctrine of stare decisis:
Issue e
Facts
Ruling
Issue

Ruling
(5) Doctrine of stare decisis. – when the S.C. once
laid down principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it adheres to that
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10,
principle and applies to all future cases where
2015
facts are substantially the same.
Doctrin On subsequent reversal:
e
Judicial interpretation has the force of law and
Facts
establishes contemporaneous legislative intent
of the law, which constitutes part of the law as Issue
of the date it is enacted.
Ruling

Exceptions. – the doctrine does not preclude

the Court from REVERSING it either because it
changes its mind or it was not a binding Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10,
precedent to begin with as in the case of an 2015
Doctrin On authority to modify or reverse:
obiter dictum as opposed to ratio decidendi
e
Facts
Subsequent reversal. – the doctrine does not
preclude the Court from reversing subsequent Issue
doctrine. However, it should not operate if
Ruling
there are powerful countervailing considerations
against its application.

Authority to modify or reverse. – No doctrine Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, Apr. 23, 1992
or principle of law laid down by the court in a Doctrin On authority to modify or reverse:
decision rendered en banc or in division may be e
Facts

Issue Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 &

Ruling 209251, Nov. 19, 2013
Doctrin On exception to moot and academic
e principle:
Facts
Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, Apr. 16,
2013 Issue
Doctrin On obiter dictum:
Ruling
e
Facts

Issue KMU v. Aquino, G.R. No. 210500, April 2, 2019

Ruling Doctrin On exception to moot and academic
e principle:
Facts
(6) Moot & academic principle. – one that ceases to
Issue
present justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration on it Ruling
would be practical use or value.

Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such a

(7) Advisory opinion. – its not the function the
case or dismiss it on ground for mootness.
judiciary to give advisory opinion. Their function
However, supervening events, whether intended
id to determine controversies between litigants.
or accidental, cannot prevent the judiciary from
The giving of such opinions is not the exercise
deciding if the constitution is gravely violated.
of judicial function. Otherwise, the court lays
itself open to charge presumptuousness.
Exceptions. – as an exception the mootness
rule, courts decide a question otherwise moot if
Declaratory relief.- a judge's determination
it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
(called a "declaratory judgment") of the parties'
rights under a contract or a statute often
Courts decides cases, otherwise moot if:
requested (prayed for) in a lawsuit over a
1) There is a grave violation of the
contract.
Constitution
2) The exceptional character of the situation
Advisory opinion v. Declaratory relief -
and the paramount public interest is
declaratory judgement involves real parties with
involved.
real conflicting legal interests whereas advisory
3) When constitutional issue raised requires
opinion is a response to a legal issue posed in the
formation of controlling principles to guide
abstract in advance of any actual case in which
the bench, the bar, and the public
it may be presented
4) The case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.
Advisory opinion binds no one whereas
declaratory relief is a final one and is binding
Morales v. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10,
forever on parties
2015
Doctrin On moot and academic principle:
Ang Cho Kio, 33 SCRA 454 (1970)
e
Doctrin On adivory opinion -
Facts
e
Issue Facts

Ruling Issue

Ruling

Funa v Villar, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012

Doctrin On moot and academic principle:
Municpality of Tupi v. Fuastino, G.R. No. 231896,
e
Aug. 20, 2019
Facts
Doctrin On declaratory relief:
Issue e
Facts
Ruling
Issue

Ruling

(8) Judicial restraint. - a procedural

or substantive approach to the exercise
of judicial review. (separation of power)

As a procedural doctrine, the principle of

restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding
legal issues, and especially constitutional ones,
unless the decision is necessary to the
resolution of a concrete dispute between
adverse parties.

As a substantive one, it urges judges considering

constitutional questions to grant substantial
deference to the views of the elected branches
and invalidate their actions only when
constitutional limits have clearly been violated.

Rationale: To respect the separation of power -

even if the constitution expanded jurisdiction of
the S.C. allowing it to check acts of the
President and the Congress, it does so with
great hesitation.

Exception: If the exercise of power poses a

question to its constitutionality. (i.e. the conduct
of impeachment, and the power to review
justiciable issues in the impeachment
proceedings)

Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No.

166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Doctrine On judicial restraint:
Case
summar
y