1 LAW 517 – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

2
3 A course that examines the use and force of statutes as well as the principles
4 and methods of their application, construction and interpretation.
5
6 SYLLABUS
nd
7 2 SEMESTER, SY 2020-2021
8
9 PART I. LAWS IN GENERAL
10
11 I. LAW
12 A. Definition
13 1. Generic Sense
14 2. Jural and Concrete Sense
15
16 B. Kinds
17 1. Statutes
18 2. Presidential Decrees/Executive Orders
19 3. Presidential Issuances
20 4. Rulings of the Supreme Court
21 5. Rules and Regulations
22 6. Ordinances
23
24 II. STATUTES
25 A. DEFINITION
26 B. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF LEGISTATIVE BODIES OF THE
27 PHILIPPINES THAT ENACTED STATUTES
28
29 C. KINDS OF STATUTES
30 (1) As to its effect to the community
31 (a) Public statute
32 - Classification
33 i. General Law
34 ii. Special Law
35 iii.Local Law
36 (b) Private statute
37 (1) As to its duration
38 a) Permanent statute
39 b) Temporary statute
40 1. Garcia-Padilla v. Ponce Enrile, G. R. no. 61388, April 20, 1983
41 2. Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-40004 January 31, 1975
42 3. Espiritu v. Cipriano, G. R. No. 32743, Feb. 15, 1974
43 4. Homeowners Assn. of the Philippines v. Municipal Board of Manila, G. R. No. 23979, Aug. 30, 1967
44
45 (2) As to their application
46 a) Prospective

Page 1 of 15
47 b) Retroactive
48
49 (3) According to their operation
50 a) Declaratory
51 b) Curative
52 c) Mandatory
53 d) Directory
54 e) Substantive
55 f) Remedial
56
57 (4) As to their form
58 a) Affirmative
59 b) Negative
60
61 D. ENACTMENT OF STATUTES
62
63 E. LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS (Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
64 (1) The Congress of the Philippines
65 a) Senate
66 b) House of Representatives
67 5. Ople v. Torres, 1998
68 6. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 1994
69 7. Marcos v. Manglapus, 1989
70
71 F. SUBJECT OF LEGISLATION
72 (1) Self-executing Laws
73 (2) Laws requiring enabling laws
74 8. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
75 9. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997
76
77 G. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN ENACTING A LAW
78 10. Arroyo v. De Venecia, 1977
79
80 H. STEPS IN THE PASSAGE OF A BILL INTO LAW
81 (1) Three Readings
82 a) Exception – when the President certifies as to its necessity
83 (2) Bicameral Conference Committees
84 a) Function
85 (3) Authentication of Bill
86 (4) Enrolled Bill Doctrine
87 (5) President’s Approval or Veto
88 a) Manner of Approval
89 b) Manner of Veto
90 b.1. Regular Veto
91 b.2. Item Veto (ART bills)
92 (6) Over-riding the Veto of the President

Page 2 of 15
 93 I. STATUTES REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED BY THE HOUSE OF
94 REPERESENTATIVES (APRIL bills)
95 (1) Restrictions in the passage of budget or revenue bills
96 (2) Enactment of Budget and Appropriations Bills
97
98 J. RULES OF PROCEEDINGS
99
100 K. RECORDS OR JOURNALS OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS
101 (1) Unimpeachability of the Journals
102 11. National Electrification Administration v. COA, GR No. 143481, February 15, 2002
103 12. Phil. Constitution Association v. Enriquez
104 13. Province of Batangas v. Romulo, May 27, 2004
105 14. Bengzon v. Drilon, 1992
106 15.
107 III. VALIDITY OF STATUTES
108 A. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
10924. Salas v. Jarencio, GR No. 29788, August 30, 1970
11025. Morfe v. Mutuc, GR No. 20387, January 31, 1968
11126. Peralta v. COMELEC, GR No. 47771, March 11, 1978
11227. Heirs of Ordona v. Reyes, GR No. 62549, October 26, 1983
11328. Drilon v. Lim, 1994
11429.
115 B. WHEN TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONALITY
11630. San Miguel Brewery , Inc. v. Magno, GR No. 21879, September 29, 1967
11731. Macondray v. Benitio, 1935
118
119 C. TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
12032. Walter Olesen & Co., Inc. v. Aldanese, 1922
12133. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, Gr No. 148560, November 19, 2001
122
123 D. JUDICIAL REVIEW
124 (1) Requisites
125 a) Actual Case or Controversy
126 b) Legal Standing
127 c) It must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
128 d) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of
129 the case
13034. Dumlao v. COMELEC, GR No. 52245, January 22, 1980
13135. Francisco v. House of Representatives, GR No. 1600261, November 10, 2003
13236. Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991
133
134 (1) Necessity of deciding constitutionality
135 37. Krivenko v. Registry of Deeds, 1947
136 38. Dumlao v. COMELEC, GR No. 52245, January 22, 1980
137
138 E. EFFECTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
139 39. De Agbayani v. Phil. National Bank, GR No. 23127, April 29, 1971
140 40. Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, 1992
141
142 IV. OTHER KINDS OF LAWS

Page 3 of 15
143 A. PRESIDENTIAL ISSUANCES
144 (1) Definition
145 (2) Kinds of issuances
146
147 B. ADMINISTRATIVE RULES and REGULATIONS
148 (1) Definition
149 (2) 1987 Administrative Code
150 (3) Distinction between Administrative Rule and Administrative
151 Interpretation
152
153 C. ORDINANCES
154 (1) Concept
155 (2) Kinds
156 a) Provincial Ordinance
157 b) City Ordinance
158 c) Municipal Ordinance
159 d) Barangay Ordinance
16041. Pesigan v. Angeles, GR No. 64279, April 30, 1984
16142. Director of Forestry v. Munoz, GR No. 25459, June 28, 1968
16243. Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919
16344. Shell Philippines v. Central Bank, 1988
16445. Gobantes v. Civil Service Commission, 1992
16546. Wise & Co. v. Meer, 1947
16647. Villa v. LLanes,GR No. 61498, January 17, 1983
16748. Pelaez v. Auditor General, GR No. 23825, December 25, 1965
16849. Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and Employment, GR No. 58184, October 30, 1981
16950. Edu v. Ericta, GR No. 32096, October 24, 1970, Maceda v. Macaraeg, 1991
17051. Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & Delos Santos v. HMDF, 2000
171
172 D. RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
173 (1) Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
17452. First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, 1994
17553. Fabian v. Disierto, 1998
17654. St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 1998
177
178 V. EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS AND THEIR OPERATION
179 A. Art. 2, Civil Code of the Philippines
180 (1) Duration
181 (2) Territorial and Personal Effect
182 (3) Manner of computing time
183 B. Effectivity of Presidential Issuances
184 C. Effectivity of Administrative Rules and Regulations
185 D. Effectivity of Local Ordinances
186 55. Lara v. Del Rosario, 1954
187 56. Republic v. Encarnacion, 1950
188 57. Police Commision v. Bello, 1971
189 58. People v. Que Po Lay, 1954
190 59. Persigan v. Angeles, GR No. 64279, April 30, 1984
191 60. Tanada v. Tuvera, 1986

Page 4 of 15
192 61. Phil. Veterans Bank Employees Union v. Vega, GR No. 105364, June 28, 2001
193 62. Philippine International Trading Corp. v. Angeles, 1996
194 63. Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR No. 26379, December 27, 1969
195 64. People v. Gonzales, GR No. 36409, October 26, 1973
196 65. National Marketing Corp. v. Tecson, GR No. 29131, August 27, 1969
197 66. Vir-jen Shipping & Marine Services v. NLRC, GR No. 58011, July 20, 1982
198 67. Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, GR No. 28841, June 24, 1983
199
200
201 PART II. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
202
203 I. CONCEPT
204 A. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
205 B. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
206 C. PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION
207 D. LEGISLATION
208 (1) Legislative Intent
209 (2) Legislative Purpose
210 (3) Legislative Meaning
21168. Caltex(Phil), Inc., v. Palomar, GR No. 19650, September 29, 1966
21269. Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customss, GR No. 28463, May 31, 1971
21370. Roman Catholic Apostolic Administration of Davao, Inc. v. Land Registration Commission, 1957
21471. Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio, 1937
21572. Tanada v. Cuenco, 1957
21673. City of Baguio v. Marcos, GR No. 26100, February 28, 1969
21774. People v. Purisima, GR No. 42050, November 20, 1978
21875. U.S. v. Toribio, 1910
21976. General v. Barrameda, GR No. 29906, January 30, 1976
22077. Litex Employees Assn. v. Eduvala, GR No. 41106, September 22, 1977
22178. Bocobo v. Estanislao, GR No. 30458, August 31, 1976
222
223 II. POWER TO CONSTRUE
224 A. JUDICIAL FUNCTION
225 (1) When court may construe statute
226 a) Condition sine qua non
227 (2) When court may not construe
228 a)Verbal legis or plain meaning rule
229 (3) Legislature cannot overrule judicial construction
230 (4) When judicial interpretation be set aside
231
232 B. RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT AS PART OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
233 (1) Non-retroactive effect
234 (2) Manner of modifying or abandoning of a ruling
235 (3) Duty to issue guidelines in construing statutes
236
237 C. LIMITATION OF THE POWER TO CONSTRUE BY THE COURT
238 79. San Migule Corp. v. Avelino, GR No. 39699, March 14, 1979
239 80. Joya v. PCGG. 1993
240 81. Alunan v. Mirasol, 1997

Page 5 of 15
241 82. Philippines Today, Inc. v. NLRC, 1997
242 83. Quimpo v. Mendoza, GR No. 33052, August 31, 1981
243 84. Caltex (Phil.) Inc., v. Palomar, GR No. 19650, September 29, 1966
244 85. Daong v. Municipal Judge, 1988
245 86. Del Mar v. PAGCOR, 2000
246 87. People v. Mapa, GR No. 220301, August 30, 1967
247 88. Ramos vs. CA, GR No. 5376, Oct. 30, 1981
248 89. University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Auditor General, GR No. 19617, Oct. 31, 1969
249 90. Baking v. Director of Prisons, GR No. 30364, July 29, 1969
250 91. Manikan v. Tanodbayan, 1984
251 92. People v. Jabina, GR No. 30061, February 27, 1974
252 93. Pesca v. Pesca, GR No. 136921, April 17, 2001
253 94. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 2001
254 95. People v. Ferrer, GR No.32613, December 27, 1972
255 96. Morales v. Subido, GR No. 29658, November 29, 1968
256 97. Vera v. Avelino, 1946
257 98. Palanca v. City of Manila, 1920
258 99. Inchong v. Hernandez, 1957
259 100. Lacson v. Roque, 1935
260
261 PART III. AID TO CONSTRUCTION
262 I. GENERAL RULES
263 A. TITLE
264 (1) When resort to title is not authorized
265 B. PREAMBLE
266 (1) Relevance
267 C. WHOLE TEXT
268 D. PUNCTUATION MARKS
269 E. CAPITALIZATION OF LETTERS
270 F. HEADNOTES OR EPIGRAPHS
271 G. LINGUAL TEXT
272 101. U.S. v. De Guzman, 1914
273 102. People v. Rivera, 1933
274 103. Commissioner of Customs v. Relunia, 1959
275 104. People v. Purisima, GR No. 42050, November 20, 1978
276 105. PNB v. Office of the President, 1996
277 106. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. City of Cebu, GR No. 14526, March 31, 1965
278 107. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, 1992
279 108. Unabia v. City Mayor, 1956
280 109. Kare v. Platon, 1931
281 110. Traders Insurance & Surety Co. v. Golanggo, 1954
282 111. Yellow Taxi Workers’ Union v. Manila Yellow Taxi Cab Co. 1948
283 112. Villanueva v. City of Iloilo, GR No. 26521, December 28, 1968
284 113. Manila Lodge NO. 761 v. CA, GR No. 41001, September 30, 1976
285 114. Nilo v. CA, GR No. 34586, April 12, 1984
286 115. Cajiuat v. Mathay, 1983
287 116. Escribano v. Avila, GR No. 30375, September 12, 1978
288 117. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, November 19, 2001
289 118. Gomez v. Government Insurance Board, 1947
290
291 II. INTENT OR SPIRIT OF THE LAW

Page 6 of 15
292 A. PRESUMPTIONS
293 B. POLICY AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW
294
295 III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
296 A. What constitutes legislative history
297 B. President’s Message to the Legislature
298 C. Explanatory Note
299 D. Legislative Debates
300 E. Reports of Commissions
301 F. Prior laws
302 G. Amendment by deletion
303 (1) Exception
304 H. Adopted foreign statutes
305 (1) Limitations
306 (2) Conditions at time of enactment
307 119. Greenfield v. Meer, 1946
308 120. Topacio Nueno v. Angeles, 1946
309 121. Arenas v. City of San Carlos, GR No. 34024, April 5, 1978
310 122. Espino v. Cleofe, GR No. 33410, July 13, 1973
311 123. Escalante v. Santos, 1932
312 124. People v. Manantan, 1962
313 125. Akbayan v. COMELEC, GR No. 147066, March 26, 2001
314 126. Niere v. Court of First Instance of Negros Occ., GR No. 30324, November 29, 1973
315 127. People v. Yadao, 1954
316 128. Procter and Gamble Philippines v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 24173, May 23, 1968
317 129. Aznar v. Yapdiangco, GR No. 18936, March 31, 1965
318
319 IV. CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
320 A. CONCEPT
321 B. REASONS WHY CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION IS GIVEN
322 MUCH WEIGHT
323 (1)Weight accorded to usage and practice
324 (2) When is it disregarded
325 (3)Erroneous contemporaneous construction
326
327 C. LEGISLATIVE PRESCRIPTION OF RULES FOR CONTEMPORANEOUS
328 CONSTRUCTION
329 (1) Legislative approval of contemporaneous construction
330 a) Reenactment
331 130. Phil. Sugar Central Agency v. Collector of Customs, 1927
332 131. Philippine Global Communications v. Relova, 1986
333 132. Manila Jockey Club, Inc., v. Games and Amusement Board, 1960
334 133. Guekeko v. Araneta, 1957
335 134. Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 19337,
336 135. Koppel v. Yatco, 1946
337 136. Legaspi v. Mathay, GR No. 36153, November 28, 1975
338 137. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CTA, GR No. 52306, October 12, 1981
339 138. City of Manila v. Manila Remnants Co., Inc., 1957
340 139. Tamayo v. Manila Hotel Co., 1957

Page 7 of 15
341 140. American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, GR No. 26803, October 14, 1975
342
343 V. STARE DECISIS (Art. 4, Civil Code of the Philippines)
344 A. CONCEPT
345 B. WHEN IT IS APPLIED
346 C. OBITER DICTUM
347141. People v. Jabinal, GR No. 300061, February 27, 1974
348142. National Power Corp. v. Province of Lanao del Sur, 1996
349143. Tung Chiu Hui v. Rodriguez, 2000
350144. Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila, GR No. 26364, May 29, 1968
351
352 VI. ADHERENCE TO, OR DEPARTURE FROM, LANGUAGE OF STATUTE
353 A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION
354 (1) Literal or plain-meaning rule
355 (2) Dura lex sed lex
356 145. Espiritu v. Cipriano, GR No. 32742, February 15, 1974
357 146. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. v. IAC, 1999
358 147. Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, GR No. 28464, May 31, 1971
359 148. Regalado v. Yulo, 1935
360
361 B. DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION
362 (1) Rules
363 a) Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise
364 inoperative
365 b) What is within the spirit is within the law
366 i.Limitation
367 c) Literal import must yield to intent
368 d) Intent of the statute is the law
369 e) Construction to accomplish purpose
370 f) Construction to accomplish purpose
371 g) When reason of law ceases, law itself ceases
372 (2) Supplying legislative omission
373 (3) Correcting clerical errors
374 (4) Construction to avoid absurdity
375 (5) Construction to avoid injustice
376 (6) Construction to avoid danger to public interest
377 (7) Construction in favor of right and justice (Art. 10, Civil Code of the
378 Philippines)
379 (8) Disregard of surplasage and superfluity
380 (9) Rejection of redundant words
381 (10) Obscure or missing words
382 (11) Number and gender words
383
384 C. EXEMPTION FROM RIGID APPLICATION OF LAW
385 (1) Law does not require the impossible
386 149. Regalado v. Yulo, 1935
387 150. Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, GR No. 25326, May 29, 1970
388 151. Casela v. CA, GR No. 26754, October 16, 1970

Page 8 of 15
389 152. PNB v. Office of the President, GR No. 104528, January 18, 1996
390 153. Tanada v. Cuenco, 1957
391 154. De Villa v. COMELEC, 1992
392 155. Planters Association of Southern Negros v. Ponferrada, 1999
393 156. People v. Garcia, 1950
394 157. Lamp v. Phipps, 1912
395 158. Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. v. Gimenez, GR No. 17931, February 28, 1963
396 159. Amatan v. Aujero, 1995
397 160. Pritchard v. Republic, 1948
398 161. De Padilla v. De Padilla, 1943
399 162. Company “Bighani” v. Pablo, 1928
400 163. Munoz & Co. v. Hord, 1909
401 164. People v. Gutierrez, 1970
402 165. Province of Cebu v. IAC, 1987
403 166. Gatchalian v. COMELEC, GR No. 32560, October 22, 1970
404
405 D. IMPLICATIONS
406 (1) Doctrine of necessary implication
407 (2) Remedy implied from a right
408 (3) What may be implied from a grant of jurisdiction
409 (4) Grant of power
410 a. Includes incidental power
411 Exceptions:
412 i. those which cannot be exercised without violating the
413 constitution
414 ii. those which cannot be exercised without violating the
415 statute conferring the power
416 iii. those which cannot be exercised without violating other
417 laws on the same subject
418 b. Excludes greater power
419 (5) Authority to charge against public funds may not be implied
420 (6) Illegality of act implied from prohibition
421 a. ex dolo malo non oritur actio
422 b. nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria
423 c. in pari delicto potiur est condition defendentis
424 Exceptions:
425 i. when the enforcement or application will violate an
426 avowed fundamental public policy or public interest
427 ii. when the transaction is not illegal per se but merely
428 prohibited
429 iii. when the prohibition by law is designed for the protection
430 of one party
431 (7) What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
432
433 VII. INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
434 A. CONCEPT
435 B. RULES
436 (1) Statutory definition

Page 9 of 15
437 a. Qualification
438 b. Words construed in their ordinary sense
439 c. General words are construed generally
440 d. Generic term includes things that arise thereafter
441 e. Words with commercial or trade meaning should not be given
442 a new or strange interpretation
443 f. Words with technical meaning interpreted according to the
444 sense in which they have been previously used
445 g. Identical terms in the same statute bear the same meaning
446 throughout the same statute
447 h. Meanings of words may be qualified by the purpose of the
448 statute
449 i. Word or phrase construed in relations to other provisions
450 j. Meaning of term dictated by context
451 k. Where the law does not distinguish, do not distinguish
452 l. Disjunctive and conjunctive words
453
454 (2) Associated Words
455 a. Noscitur a sociis
456 b. Ejusdem generis
457 i. Limitations
458 c. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
459 i. Limitations
460 d. Negative-opposite doctrine
461 e. Doctrine of casus omissus
462 f. Doctrine of last antecedent
463 i. Qualification
464 g. Reddendo singular singulis
465
466 (3) Provisos, Exceptions and saving clauses
467 a. Concept
468 b. Proviso may enlarge scope of law
469 c. Proviso as additional legislation
470 d. What proviso qualifies
471 i. exception
472 e. Repugnancy between proviso and main provision
473 i. exception
474 f. Distinction between PROVISO and EXCEPTION
475 g. Saving Clause
476
477 VIII. STATUTE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER
478 STATUTES
479 A. CONCEPT
480 B. RULES
481 (1) Intent ascertained from statute as a whole
482 (2) Purpose or context as controlling guide

Page 10 of 15
483 (3) Giving effect to statute as a whole
484 (4) Reconciling apparently conflicting provisions
485 (5) Special and general provisions in the same statute
486 (6) Construction as not to render provision nugatory
487 (7) Construction as to give life to law
488 (8) Construction to avoid surplusage
489 (9) Statute and its amendments construed together
490
491 IX. STATUTE CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
492 OTHER STATUTES
493 A. STATUTE CONSTRUED IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSTITUTION
494 B. STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA
495 C. HARMONIZATION OF LAWS ON SAME SUBJECT
496 (1) When harmonization is not possible
497 D. GENERAL AND SPECIAL STATUTES
498 E. REFERENCE STATUTES
499 F. SUPPLEMENTAL STATUTES
500 G. REENACTED STATUTES
501 (1) Adoption of contemporaneous construction
502 (2) Adopted statutes
503
504 X. STRICT OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
505 A. GENERAL RULE ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION
506 B. GENERAL RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
507 C. CONSTRUCTION TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE
508 D. CONSTRUCTION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION GENERAL WELFARE
509
510 XI. STATUTES STRICTLY CONSTRUED
511 A. PENAL STATUTES
512 (1) Reasons for strict construction
513 (2) Acts mala in se and mala prohibita
514 (3) Limitations
515
516 B. STATUTES IN DEROGATION OF RIGHTS
517 C. STATUTES AUTHORIZING EXPROPRIATIONS
518 D. STATUTES GRANTING PRIVELEGES
519 E. LEGISLATIVE GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
520 F. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OFFICIALS
521 G. NATURALIZATION LAWS
522 H. STATUTES IMPOSING TAXES AND CUSTOMS DUTIES
523 I. STATUTES GRANTING TAX EXCEMPTIONS
524 J. STATUTES CONCERNING THE SOVEREIGN
525 K. STATUTES AUTHORIZING SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
526 L. STATUTES PRESCRIBING FORMALITIES OF WILL
527 M. EXCEPTIONS AND PROVISOS
528

Page 11 of 15
529 XII. STATUTES LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
530 A. GENERAL AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
531 B. GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE
532 C. GRANT OF POWER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
533 D. STATUTES GRANTING TAXING POWER
534 E. STATUTES PRESCRIBING PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS TO COLLECT TAXES
535 F. STATUTES IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NONPAYMENT OF TAX
536 G. ELECTION LAWS
537 H. AMNESTY PROCLAMATIONS
538 I. STATUTES PRESCRIBING PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
539 J. ADOPTION STATUTES
540 K. VETERAN AND PENSION LAWS
541 L. RULES OF COURT
542 M. OTHER STATUTES
543
544 XIII. MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY STATUTES
545 A. CONCEPT OF A MANDATORY STATUTE
546 (1) When is a statute considered mandatory
547 (2) Kinds of mandatory statutes
548 a. Statutes conferring power
549 b. Statutes granting benefits
550 c. Statutes prescribing jurisdictional requirements
551 d. Statutes prescribing time to take action or to appeal
552 e. Statutes prescribing procedural requirements
553 f. Election laws on conduct of election
554 g. Election laws on qualification and disqualification
555 h. Statutes prescribing qualifications for office
556 i. Statutes relating to assessment of taxes
557 j. Statutes relating to assessment of taxes
558 k. Statues concerning public auction sale
559
560 B. CONCEPT OF A DIRECTORY STATUTE
561 (1) When is a statute directory
562 (2) Kinds of directory statutes
563 a. Statutes prescribing guidance for officers
564 b. Statutes prescribing manner of judicial action
565 c. Statutes requiring rendition of decision within prescribed
566 period
567 d. Constitutional time provision
568
569 C. TEST TO DETERMINE NATURE OF A STATUTE
570 (1) Language used
571 (2) Use of “shall” or “must”
572 (3) Use of “may”
573 (4) When “shall” is construed as “may” and vice versa
574 (5) Use of negative, prohibitory or exclusive terms

Page 12 of 15
575
576 XIV. PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE STATUTES
577 A. DEFINITION
578 B. PRINCIPLES
579 (1) Ex post facto law
580 (2) Bill of Attainder
581
582 C. RULES
583 (1) Laws operate prospectively generally
584 (1) exception
585 (2) Presumption against retroactivity
586 (3) Words or phrases indicating prospectivity
587
588 D. PROSPECTIVE STATUTES
589 (1) Penal statutes
590 a. exception
591 (2) Substantive laws
592 a.Effects on pending actions
593 b. Qualifications
594 c. Statutes affecting vested rights
595 d. Statutes affecting obligations of contract
596 e. Repealing and amendatory acts
597
598 E. RETROACTIVE STATUTES
599 (1) Procedural Laws
600 a. Exception
601 (2) Curative statutes
602 a. Limitations
603 (3) Police power legislations
604 (4) Statutes relating to prescription
605 f. Apparently conflicting decisions on prescription
606 g. Prescription in criminal cases
607 (5) Statutes relating to appeals
608
609 XV. AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND REPEAL
610 A. AMENDMENT
611 (1) Power to amend
612 (2) How amendment is effected
613 (3) Amendment by implication
614 (4) When amendment takes effect
615 (5) How amendment is construed
616 (6) Meaning of law changed by amendment
617 (7) Amendment operates prospectively
618 (8) Effect of amendment on vested rights
619 (9) Effect of amendment on jurisdiction
620 (10) Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act

Page 13 of 15
621
622 B. REVISION and CODIFICATION
623 (1) General Rule
624 (2) Construction to harmonize different provisions
625 (3) What is omitted is deemed repealed
626 (4) Change in phraseology
627 (5) Continuation of existing laws
628
629 C. REPEAL
630 (1) Power to repeal
631 (2) Prohibition of irrepealable laws by the Constitution
632 (3) Kinds of repeal
633 a) Total
634 b) Partial
635 c) Express
636 d) Implied (Repeal by implication)
637 h. General rule: not favored
638 i. When it is allowed
639 1.Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency
640 2. Implied repeal by revision or codification
641 3.Implied Repeal by reenactment
642 (4) Rules
643 a) As between two laws, one passed later prevails
644 b) General law does not repeal special law
645
646 (5) Effect of repeal
647 a) On jurisdiction to try and decide actions
648 b) On action pending or otherwise
649 c) On vested rights
650 d) On contracts
651 e) Of tax laws
652 f) Of penal laws
653 g) Of municipal charter
654
655 (6) Repeal or nullity of repealing law
656
657
658 XVI. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION
659 A. PRIMARY PURPOSE
660 B. CONSTRUED AS ENDURING FOR AGES
661 C. HOW LANGUAGE OF CONSTITUTION CONSTRUED
662 D. AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
663 E. CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION
664 F. PREVIOUS LAWS AND JUDICIAL RULINGS
665 G. CHANGES IN PHRASEOLOGY
666 H. CONSEQUENCES IN ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Page 14 of 15
667 I. CONSTITUTION CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE
668 J. MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY
669 K. PROSPECTIVE OR RETROACTIVE
670 L. APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
671 Maxims:
672 (1) verba legis
673 (2) ratio legis et anima
674 (3) ut magis valeat quam pereat
675
676 M. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE SELF-EXECUTING, AS A GENERAL
677 RULE
678
679 N. CONSTRUCTIONS OF US CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ADOPTED
680 IN 1987 CONSTITUTION
681
682 -nothing follows-
683
684
685
686
687
688 ______________________________________________
689
690 Prepared by:
691
692 Atty. Lorly G. Calzado
693 For: Statutory Construction (LAW 517)
694 ESSU College of Law
695 SY 2020-2021, 2nd Semester

Page 15 of 15