JOSON, RICHELLE MILES B.

1-E L-170133

CHAPTER 7
STRICT OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
A. In General
1. Generally
 Whether a statute is to be given a strict or liberal construction depends upon:
 the nature of the statute
 the purpose to be subserved
 the mischief to be remedied
 The interpretation to be given to a statute must be that will best accomplish the end desired and
effectuate legislative intent.

2. Strict Construction, generally

 Construction according to the letter of a statute which recognizes nothing that is not expressed,
takes the language used in its exact meaning, and admits no equitable consideration.
 However, does not mean that words shall be restricted as not to have their full meaning.
 It is a close and conservative adherence to the literal or textual interpretation.
 The case of People v Garcia, 85 Phil. 651 (1950)
FACTS:
The appellant was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime robbery. The lower
court, ignoring the defendant’s minority sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence of 4 years,
2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor. The Solicitor General
contends that R.A 47, which amended article 80 of the Revised Penal Code by reducing from 18
to 16 the age below which accused have to "be committed to the custody or care of a public or
private, benevolent or charitable institution," instead of being convicted and sentenced to prison,
also amended by implication paragraph 2 of article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides that when the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, "The penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period”.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of article 68,
paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:
There are well recognized rules of statutory construction which are against the Government's
contention. One of these rules is that all parts of a statute are to be harmonized and reconciled.
This rule applies in the construction of a statute and its amendment, both being read together as
whole. Criminal and penal statutes must be strictly construed, that is, they cannot be enlarged or
extended by intendment, implication, or by any equitable considerations. The language cannot
be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms in order to carry into effect the general
purpose for which the statute was enacted. The Court finds no irreconcilable conflict between
article 68, paragraph 2, and article 80 as amended. There is no incompatibility between granting
accused of the ages of 15 to 18 a privileged mitigating circumstance and fixing at 16 the
maximum age of persons who are to be placed in a reformatory institution.

3. Liberal Construction, defined

 Meaning: Equitable construction as will enlarge the letter of a statute to accomplish the
intended purpose, carry out its intent, or promote social justice.
 The words should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation, so as to attain the intent, spirit
and purpose of the law.
4. Liberal Construction, applied, generally
 When the statute is ambiguous and capable of more than one construction, the literal
meaning of the words used may be rejected if the result of adopting said meaning would
defeat the purpose of the law.
 Instead, the statute will be given a liberal interpretation so as to save the statute from
obliteration. (ut res magis valeat quam pereat)
 Liberal construction vs judicial legislation: However, the difference between liberal
construction and judicial interpretation shall be considered since the former is a legitimate
exercise of judicial power while the latter is forbidden by the doctrine of separation of
powers between the three departments.
 Liberal interpretation vs Categorical provisions of law: A statute may not be liberally
construed to read into it something which is clear and plain language rejects. Liberal
interpretation cannot prevail against categorical provisions of law.

5. Construction to promote social justice

 Principles of social justice in the Constitution should be taken into account in the
interpretation and application of laws.
 The principles on social justice apply to the three departments of the government.
 The concurring opinion of Justice Perfecto where he quoted Bacobo’s work, Cult of
Legalism, in the case of Gomez v Government Insurance Board:
FACTS:
Andres Gomez served the provincial government of Pampanga as a provincial appraiser
delegated for a continuous period of 25 years until he died in Feb. 28, 1938. According
to the agreement, there is no doubt that his appointment was temporary since he was not
eligible for civil service. On 1937, the provincial government of Pampanga, approved
August 8, 1937, a resolution in which it signified its intention to affiliate with the
National Government's Life Insurance System called "Government Service Insurance
System”. After receiving said resolution, the board that manages and administers said
Insurance System duly approved it, effective the affiliation as of February 28, 1938.
Andres had filled out a form of the Insurance System called "Information for
membership insurance,temporary - under the Civil Service rules, and, therefore, was not
insurable when he died on February 28, 1938. His widow instituted an action requesting
the collection of the amount of policy. The lower court, however, considering the
defense that Andres Gomez was only a temporary worker, without being qualified in the
civil service through the corresponding examination to merit an appointment as regular
and permanent employee, and, therefore, without right to be automatically insured under
the law that governs the System, dictate sentence against the plaintiff, override and end
the lawsuit.

ISSUE: Whether Andres Gomez at the time of his death, had such qualifications that he
could be considered as a regular and permanent employee for the purposes of collecting
the amount of his insurance policy by the beneficiary.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and ordered the defendant
to pay plaintiff the insurance of her deceased husband Andres Gomez. It held: “The test
of the competence, of the suitability of the examinee, was carried out before his
death; therefore, it must be given effectiveness from the date on which the test took
place. However, it is argued that Gomez's approval cannot be given retroactive effect in
its examination, since Article 663 (d) of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended,
provides that "a period of trial service shall be required before appointment or
employment is made permanent; " and it is clear that Gomez, having domesticated after
the examination and before his result was announced, could not be submitted to said
 trial period for 6 months. This way of interpreting the law has the defect of being too
literal, and "the letter kills (sometimes), while the spirit vivifies”. It is evident that the
Government's National Life Insurance System has been created for social and
humanitarian purposes.

Article 3 of Commonwealth Law No. 186, which creates and regulates said System,
says positively that it establishes "in order to promote the efficiency and well-being of
the employees of the Philippine Government and replace the currently established
pension systems.

J. Perfecto: The system was established "in order to promote the efficiency and
welfare of the employees of the Government of the Philippines”.
There is absolutely no principle of justice which can justify circumscribing the
benefits of the system only to permanent and regular employees, when it was expressly
intended for all employees, and to continue the hateful discrimination which compelled
the National Assembly to abolish the then existing special pension systems.
Certainly, this principle of social justice in our Constitution as generously conceived
and so tersely phrased, was not included in the fundamental law as a mere popular
gesture. It was meant to a vital, articulate, compelling principle of public policy. It
should be observed in the interpretation not only of future legislation, but also of all
laws already existing on November 15, 1935. It was intended to change the spirit of our
laws, present and future. Thus, all the laws which on the great historic event when the
Commonwealth of the Philippines was born, were susceptible of two interpretations —
strict or liberal, against or in favor of social justice, now have to be construed broadly in
order to promote and achieve social justice.

6. Construction taking into consideration general welfare or growth of civilization

 Some authorities advocate a construction which seeks an expansive application of
statutes to attain general welfare. Salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the
people is the extreme law)
 Statuta pro publico commodo late interpretantur (statutes enacted for the public
good are to be construed liberally). Justice Malcolm in his dissenting opinion in U.S
v Estapia expounded on this type of construction:
FACTS:
The defendants took part, either as principals or spectators, in an ihaway, the local
name for a kind of cockfighting. The cockfight took place at a grove of buri palms.
The lower court convicted the defendants of a violation of the provisions of section
1 of Act No. 480 punishing unlicensed cockfighting.

ISSUE: Whether the term cockpit as used in the statute should be construed to mean
any place at which a cockfight takes place.

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that such contention counter to the plain language of the
statute. The Court agreed with counsel for the appellants that while it appears that
the accused were participants in, or spectators at an unlicensed cockfight, the
evidence of record fails utterly to sustain a finding that this cockfight took place in a
cockpit. It stated that the statute does not penalize all unlicensed cockfighting, but
merely unlicensed cockfighting in a cockpit. The penalties prescribed in this statute
cannot be imposed unless it affirmatively appears not only that the accused engaged
 in, or were spectators of cockfighting, but also that this cockfighting took place in a
cockpit.

 J. Malcom’s Disenting Opinion: The term cockpit does not necessarily carry with it
the idea of a building or place maintained for the fighting cocks.
A diametrically opposed to this standpoint, there is for me in all cases a principle of
statutory construction not to be found in the books, but which for the Philippine
Islands is all-important. In the resolution of all questions, I begin with these queries:
What is for the best interest of the Filipino People? How under the law can the
progress of the Philippine Islands be advanced? From this viewpoint, which as a
matter of fact is herein in accord with the logical interpretation of the law, there is
but one possible result-to assist the Legislature in its enactment of the law and the
Executive in his enforcement of the law by a judicial interpretation which will make
legislative intention and executive action effective.
 J. Perfecto, concurring opinion in Garcia v Government Insurance Board: The State
in general has two, and only two, articulate organs for law-making purposes — the
Legislature and the Tribunals. The first organ makes new law, the second attests and
confirms old law, though under cover of so doing it introduces many new principles.

For statutes and judicial decisions alike come into being and grow out of the same
common roots, the supreme good of society. It is a consecrated legal axiom that the
reason of the law is the life of the law. The reason lies in the soil of the common
welfare. Consequently, if the judge limits himself to the printed page of the statute,
and does not go out into the open spaces o factuality and dig down deep into this
common soil, he fails in his noble calling, and becomes subservient to formalism.