STATCON NOTES:

Statute- act of the legislature as an organized

body
-

written will of the legislature,

expressed according to form
necessary to constitute it a law of the
state, and rendered authentic by
certain prescribed forms and
solemnities

Statutory Construction
- art or the process of expounding or
discovering the meaning and
intention of the authors of the law
with respect to its application to a
given case, where the intention is
rendered doubtful, the given case is
not explicitly provided for in the law
-

only statutes with ambiguous or

doubtful meaning may be the subject
of statutory construction

Where the statutory norm speaks

unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts
to do except to apply it
If a statute is clear, plain, and free from
ambiguity, then it must be given its literal
meaning, and must be applied without
attempted interpretation
Where the law is clear, the literal meaning
must be given, and there is no room for
intended rationalization of laws
Where the provision of law is clear, plain,
and free from ambiguity, it must be applied
without attempted or strained interpretation
The courts do not have power to change, but
only to interpret the law as it stands at any
given time
Courts do not legislate but merely applies
and gives effect to constitute guarantee of
social justiceCourts are given the task to
fill gaps since the law is finite

Judiciary- has the power to interpret laws

-

has the power to construe laws

enacted by the legislature
if the legislature interpreted any part
of the constitution, then it encroaches
on the power of the judiciary

Where the law does not distinguish, the

courts cannot distinguish
Once the policy has been ascertained, effect
should be given by the judiciary

The fundamental duty of the courts is to

apply the law. Construction is only possible
if application is impossible without them

MORE NOTES:

It is not within the law to set aside clear

mandate to statutory provisions

The legislature acted with full knowledge as

to the existing conditions

Where the language of the law is clear, and

the intent is plain, then there is no room for
interpreting the statute

It did not intend unjust or unreasonable

meaning

Act expresses the intention of the legislature

In interpreting statutes, the assumption is

that the legislature intended to enact an
effective law, and the legislature is not

presumed to have done a vain thing in the

enactment of the statute
The fundamental role of Statcon is to
ascertain and if possible give effect to the
intention or purpose of the legislature as
expressed in the statute
When there is ambiguity, such interpretation
as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is
to be adopted.
Where the language of a statute is plain and
unambiguous, there is no occasion for
construction, and the statute must be given
effect according to its plain and obvious
meaning.
Tax exemptions are construed strictly
against the taxpayer, and if not expressly
mentioned in the law, must be within its
purview by clear legislative intent.
The duty devolves on the court to ascertain
the true meaning where the language of a
statute is in doubtful meaning, or when an
adherence to the strict letter would lead to
injustice, absurdity, or contradictory
provisions.
A statute is said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensive standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its
application.
Where the language of the statute is clear
and unambiguous, there is no reason for
construction. The statute must be given
effect according to plain and obvious
meaning.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction
that courts must give effect to the general
legislative intent that can be discovered from
or is unraveled by the four corners of the

statute, and in order to discover the said

intent, the whole statute, and not only a
particular provision thereof, should be
considered.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a
consideration of the whole statute; words
and phrases and clauses should not be
studied in isolation or detached from the rest
The particular words, clauses and phrases
should not be studied as detached and
isolated expressions, but the whole and
every part of the statute must be considered
in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and
in order to produce harmonious whole.
In interpreting the meaning and scope of a
term used in the law, a careful review of the
whole law involved, as well as intendment
of the law, must be made.
Where the statutory language is vague,
ambiguous or uncertain, the court may look
to the subject matter of the act, or its
expediency, occasion and necessity, or
reasonable practicality, as well as to the
remedy provided, the condition of the
country to be affected, the consequences
following upon the enactment, and logic and
sound economic principles
In construing a statute, the court must look
to the object to be accomplished, the evils
and mischief sought to be remedied, or the
purpose to be subserved, and place it on a
reasonable or liberal construction which will
best effect its purpose rather than one which
will defeat it
Statutes are to be construed in the light of
the purposes to be achieved and the evils
sought to be remedied. Thus in keeping a
statute the reason for its enactment should
be kept in mind and the statute should be
construed to the intended scope and purpose

The spirit or intention of the statute prevails

over the letter thereof, and whatever is
within the spirit of a statute is within the
statute although it is not within the letter
thereof, while that which is within the letter,
but not within the spirit of a statute, is not
within the statute. But where a law is free
and clear from ambiguity, the letter of it is
not to be disregarded on the pretext of
pursuing its spirit
Conscience and equity should always be
considered in the construction of statutes.
The courts are not to be hedged in by the
literal meaning of the language of the
statute; the spirit and intendment thereof
must prevail over its letter. This rule of
construction is especially applicable where
adherence to the letter of the statute would
result in absurdity and injustice.
If there is ever any occasion where the
principle of statutory construction that what
is within the spirit of the law is as much a
part of it as what is written, this is it.
Otherwise, the basic principle discernible in
such codal provision would not be attained.
Courts may consider the spirit and reason of
a statute where a literal meaning would lead
to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or
would defeat the clear purpose of
lawmakers.
A literal interpretation is to be rejected if it
would be unjust or lead to absurd results.

Statutes should receive a sensible

construction, such as will give effect to the
legislative intention and so as to avoid an
unjust or absurd conclusion
That which is implied in a statute is as much
a part of it that which is expressed
Doctrine of necessary implication- what is
implied in a statute is as much a part thereof
as that which is expressed
The courts cannot supply omissions in a
statute
The words and phrases used in a statute
should be given the meaning intended by the
lawmakers
The words used in a statute are to be given
their usual and commonly understood
meaning, unless it is plain from the statute
that a different meaning is intended.
The word principally as used in the codal
provision is not equivalent to exclusively..
May is merely permissive and operates to
confer discretion upon a party. Under
ordinary circumstances, the term may be
notes possibility.
It does not connote
certainty.
May is an auxiliary verb
indicating liberty, opportunity, permission or
possibility.