STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1st Semester, AY 2016-2017

Atty. Rene G. Pilapil Jr.
Lecturer, De La Salle University College of Law

COURSE OUTLINE

Recommended materials: “Statutory Construction” by Atty. Ruben E. Agpalo

“Canons of Statutory Construction” by Atty. Dennis B. Funa

Part I – Preliminary Considerations

1. Legal System in the Philippines

 Laws passed by Congress

 Administrative Regulations

 Stare decisis et non quieta movere (To stand by decisions and not
to disturb settled matters)
Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines
J.M Tuason & Co., Inc., et. al. v. Hon. Herminio Mariano, et. al., G.R. No. L-
33140, 23 October 1978
Jose Mecenas, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 88052, 14 December
1989
Negros Navigation Co. , Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 110398, 7
November 1997
Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,
G.R. No. 132051, 25 June 2001
Gregorio Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138231, 21 February 2002
Cristinelli Fermin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157643, 28 March
2008
Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association v. Remington Steel Corporation,
G.R. No. 159422, 28 March 2008
Benjamin Ting vs. Carmen Velez-Ting, G.R. No. 166562, 31 March 2009
J.R.A. Phils. Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 177127, 11
October 2010
Nancy Ty vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 188302,
27 June 2012

 “Law of the case”

Leoncio Zarate vs. The Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-13334, 18 March
1919
 Veronica Padillo vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 119707, 29
November 2001
Eloisa Tolentino vs. Roy Loyola, et. al., G.R. No. 153809, 27 July 2011

 Res judicata (a thing adjudged)

Philippine Farming Corporation, Ltd. vs. Alejandro Llanos, et. al., G.R.
No. L-21014, 14 August 1965
Francisca Gutierrez, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 82475,
28 January 1991
Confederation of Sugar Producers Association, Inc., et. al. vs. Department of
Agrarian Reform, et. al., G.R. No. 169514
Elsa Degayo vs. Cecilia Magbanua-Dinglasan, et. al., G.R. No. 173148, 6
April 2015

2. Judicial Review

The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to

determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution
itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way.
And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does
not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality
nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
"judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the
Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual
cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by
the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the
very lis mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to
dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to
actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the judiciary does not
pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. More
than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative
enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the
Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual
cases and controversies must respect the wisdom and justice of the people as
expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative
departments of the government.1

3. International Law: Incorporation Clause

Article II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution

1
Jose A. Angara vs. The Electoral Commission, et. al., G.R. No. L-45081, 15 July 1936.