statcon final syllabus

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTIONAtty. Howard M. Calleja

SY 2015-2016

Chapter ISTATUTES

A. IN GENERAL

1. Laws, generally2. Statutes, generally3. Permanent and temporary statutes4. Other classes of statutes5. Manner of referring to statutes

B. ENACTMENT OF STATUTES

1. Generally2. Legislative power of Congress3. Procedural requirements in enacting a law, generally4. Steps in the passage of bill into law

C. PARTS OF STATUTES

1. Statutes generally contain2. Meaning of certain bills originating from the lower House3. Enactment of budget and appropriations law4. Restrictions in passage of budget or revenue bills5. Rules and records of legislative proceedings6. Unimpeachability of legislative journals7. Enrolled bill8. Withdrawal of authenticity, effect of.9. Summary rules

Cases:

People vs. Palma G.R. No. L-44113 (March 31, 1977)Lidasan v. Comelec 21 SCRA 496 (1967)Ichong vs. Hernandez 101 Phil 1155 (1957)Municipality of Jose Panganiban v. Shell 17 SCRA 77 (1966)Del Rosario vs Carbonell G.R. No. L-32476 October 20, 1970People vs. Buenviaje 46 Phil 536 (1925)Alalayan vs NPC 24 SCRA 172 (1968)Cordero vs Cabatuando 6 SCRA 418 (1962)Tobias vs Abalos 237 SCRA 106 (1994)Ayson vs. Provincial Board of Rizal G.R. No. 14019. July 26, 1919People vs. Valensoy 101 Phil 642 (1957)People vs Carlos 78 Phil 535 (1947)

Casco Phil Chem v GimenezG.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963

Astorga v. Villegas 56 SCRA 714 (1974)

1


SY 2015-2016

D. ISSUANCES, RULES AND ORDINANCES

1. Presidential issuances2. Administrative rules and regulations3. Illustrative cases on validity of executive orders, rules and regulations4. Administrative rule and interpretation distinguished5. Supreme Court rule-making power6. Legislative power of local government units7. Barangay ordinance8. Municipal ordinance9. City ordinance10. Provincial ordinance

Cases:

People v. Lim 108 Phil 1091 (1960)KMU v. Garcia G.R. 115381, 23 December 1994Hijo Plantation v. Central Bank G.R. No. L-34526, 9 August 1988China Bank v. CA 265 SCRA 327 (1996)Santos v. Estenzo 109 Phil 419 (1960)Grego v. Comelec 274 SCRA 481 (1997)Santos v. Municipal Ordinance G.R. No. L-15807, 22 April 1963People v. Lim 108 Phil 1091 (1960)

E. VALIDITY OF STATUTE

1. Presumption of constitutionality2. Requisites for exercise of judicial power3. Appropriate case4. Standing to sue5. When to raise constitutionality6. Necessity of deciding constitutionality7. Summary of Essential Requisites for Judicial Review8. Test of constitutionality9. Effects of constitutionality10. Invalidity dues to change of conditions11. Partial invalidity

Cases:

NHA v Reyes G.R. No. L-49439, 29 June 1983Lao Lim vs CA G.R. 119178, 20 June 1997Hon. Lim v. Hon. Pacquing G.R. 115044, 27 January 1995Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers G.R. No. L-25246, 12 September

1974

F. EFFECT AND OPERATION

1. When laws take effect2. When Presidential issuances, rules and regulations take effect3. When local ordinance takes effect

2


SY 2015-2016

4. Statutes continue in force until repealed5. Territorial and personal effect of statutes6. Manner of computing time

Cases:

Tanada v. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 (1986)Gutierrez v. Carpio 53 Phil 334Guzman v. Lichauco 42 Phil 292US v. Painaga G.R. No. L-8223, 4 March 1914PNB v. CA 222 SCRA 134 (1993)

Chapter II

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

A. NATURE AND PURPOSE

1. Construction defined2. Construction and interpretation distinguished3. Rules of construction, generally4. Purpose or object of construction5. Legislative intent, generally6. Legislative purpose7. Legislative meaning8. Graphical illustration9. Matters inquired into in construing a statute10. Where legislative intent is ascertained

Cases:

Hidalgo v. Hidalgo G.R. No. L-25326, 29 May 1970U.S. v. Navarro 19 Phil 134 (1911)LITEX v. Eduvala 79 SCRA 88 (1977)Regalado vs Yulo 61 Phil 173 (1935)B.E. San Diego Inc. vs. CA 218 SCRA 446 (1993)

B. POWER TO CONSTRUE

1. Construction is a judicial function2. Legislature cannot overrule judicial construction3. When judicial interpretation may be set aside4. When court may construe statute5. Condition sine qua non before courts can construe statutes; ambiguity

defined6. Court may not construe where statute is clear7. Verbalegis or plain meaning rule8. Rulings of Supreme Court part of legal system9. Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect10. Only Supreme Court en banc can modify or abandon principle of

law, not any division of the Court3


SY 2015-2016

11. Court may issue guidelines in construing statute

C. LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO CONSTRUE

1. Courts may not enlarge nor restrict statutes2. Courts not to be influenced by questions of wisdom

Cases:

Araneta v. Dinglasan G.R. No. L-2044. August 26, 1949Edencio v. David G.R. No. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953Daong v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas

G.R. No. L-34568 March 28, 1988

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Lim-Pan

G.R. Nos. L-28571 and L-28644. July 31, 1970

Cebu Portland Cement v. Mun. of Naga, Cebu

G.R. Nos. 24116-17 August 22, 1968

Resins v. Auditor General G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 196Quijano v. DBP G.R. No. L-26419 October 16, 1970Chapter 2: 66 ( Kapisanan vs Manila Railroad)

G.R. No. L-14332 May 20, 1960

Davao Light v. Commissioner of Customs

G.R. Nos. L-28739 & L-28902 March 29, 1972

Ramos v. CA (1981) G.R. No. L-53766 October 30, 1981Floresca v. PhilEx G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985Enrile v Salazar G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990Manikad v. Tanodbayan G.R. No. L-65097 February 20, 1984Senarillos v. Hermosisimo G.R. No. L-10662 December 14, 1956People v. Macarandang G.R. No. L-12088 December 23, 1959People v. Mapa G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967Co v. CA G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993People v. Ferrer G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27,

1972daong v. Municipal Judge of San Nicolas

G.R. No. L-34568 March 28, 1988

Sumulong v COMELEC G.R. No. 48609 October 10, 1941Central Capiz v. Ramirez G.R. No. 16197 March 12, 1920Eugenio vs. Exec Sec. Drilon G.R. No. 16197 March 12, 1920

Chapter III

AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION

A. IN GENERAL

1. Generally2. Title3. When resort to title not authorized4. Preamble5. Illustration of rule

4


SY 2015-2016

6. Context of whole text7. Punctuation marks8. Illustrative examples9. Capitalization of letters10. Headnotes or epigraphs11. Lingual text12. Intent or spirit of law13. Policy of law14. Purpose of law or mischief to be suppressed15. Dictionaries16. Consequences of various constructions17. Presumptions

B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

1. Generally2. What constitutes legislative history3. President’s message to legislature4. Explanatory note5. Legislative debates, views and deliberations6. Reports of commissions7. Prior laws from which statute is based8. Change in phraseology9. Amendment by deletion10. Exceptions to the rule11. Adopted statutes12. Limitations of rule13. Principles of common law14. Conditions at time of enactment15. History of the times

C. CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

1. Generally2. Executive construction, generally; kinds of3. Weight accorded to contemporaneous construction4. Weight accorded to usage and practice5. Construction of rules and regulations6. Reasons why contemporaneous construction is given much weight7. When contemporaneous construction is disregarded8. Erroneous contemporaneous construction does not preclude correction

nor create rights; exceptions9. Legislative interpretation10. Legislative approval11. Reenactment12. Stare decisis

Cases:

People v. Purisima G.R. No. L-42050-66 November 20, 1978

People v. Echaves G.R. No. 47757, 28 January 1980Aboitiz v. City of Cebu G.R. No. L-14526 March 31, 1965CIR v. TMX G.R. No. 83736. January 15, 1992

5


SY 2015-2016

Feliciano v. Aquino G.R. No. 10201, 23 September 1957US v. Hart G.R. No. L-8848 November 21, 1913In re: Estate of Johnson G.R. No. L-12767 November 16, 1918People v. Yabut G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933People v. Mendoza G.R. No. 104461 February 23, 1996People v Manaba G.R. No. L-1960 November 26, 1948US vs Quintanar (16 P 504) G.R. No. L-5654 August 27, 1910Employee's Club Inc. v China Bank Corp. (1934)

G.R. No. L-40188 July 27, 1934

McMicking v. Lichauco G.R. No. L-7896 March 30, 1914Alonzo v. IAC G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987Macabenta v. Davao Stevedoring Terminal

G.R. No. L-27489. April 30, 1970

Tinio v. Frances G.R. No. L-7747 November 29, 1955Home Ins. v. Eastern Shipping Lines

G.R. No. L-34382 July 20, 1983

Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Trinidad

G.R. No. 18316. September 23, 1922

Go Chico v. Martinez G.R. Nos. 19684 & 19685. October 17, 1923

US v. De Guzman G.R. No. L-9144 March 27, 1915Basiana v. Luna G.R. No. L-34135-36 February 24, 1981Baga v. PNB G.R. No. L-9695 September 10, 1956De Villa v. CA G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991NAPOLCOM v. De Guzman G.R. No. 106724 February 9, 1994China Banking V. Ortega G.R. No. L-34964 January 31, 1973Mayon Motors v, Acting CIR G.R. No. L-15000 March 29, 1961KilosbayanInc v Morato G.R. No. 118910 November 16, 1995Luzon v. Marine Dept. Union G.R. No. L-9265 April 29, 1957Song Kiat v. Central Bank G.R. No. L-8888 November 29, 1957People v. Manantan G.R. No. L-14129. July 31, 1962Director of Lands v Abaja G.R. No. L-42134 October 21, 1936Com of Customs v CTA G.R. No. L-29059 December 15, 1987Buenaseda v. Flavier G.R. No. 106719 September 21, 1993Carolina v. CMS Stock Brokerage

G.R. No. 46908, 17 May 1980

Tamayo v.Gsell G.R. No. 10765 December 22, 1916People v. Yadao G.R. No. L-6835. March 30, 1954

Chapter IV

ADHERENCE TO, OR DEPARTUREFROM, LANGUAGE OF STATUTE

A. LITERAL INTERPRETATION

1. Literal meaning or plain-meaning rule2. Dura lex sed lex

B. DEPARTURE FROM LITERAL INTERPRETATION

6


SY 2015-2016

1. Statute must be capable of interpretation, otherwise inoperative2. What is within the spirit is within the law3. Literal import must yield to intent4. Intent of a statute is the law5. Limitation of rule6. Construction to accomplish purpose7. Illustration of rule8. Qualification of rule9. Construction to avoid absurdity10. Construction to avoid injustice11. Construction to avoid danger to public interest12. Construction in favor of right and justice13. Surplusage and superfluity disregarded14. Redundant words may be rejected15. Obscure or missing word or false description may not preclude

construction16. Exemption from rigid application of law17. Law does not require the impossible18. Number and gender of words

C. IMPLICATIONS

1. Doctrine of necessary implication2. Remedy implied from a right3. Grant of jurisdiction4. What may be implied from grant of jurisdiction5. Grant of power includes incidental power6. Grant of power excludes greater power7. What is implied should not be against the law8. Authority to charge against public funds may not be implied9. Illegality of act implied from prohibition10. Exceptions to the rule11. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly12. There should be no penalty for compliance with law

Cases:

Bustamante v. NLRC 265 SCRA 61 (1996)Go v. Anti-Chinese League 84 Phil 468 (1949)Santiago v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106 (1997)Galuba v. Laureta 157 SCRA 627 (1988)Rufino Lopez v. Court of Tax Appeals

100 Phil 850 (1957)

Solid Homes v. Tan 465 SCRA 137 (2005)Tanada v. Cuenco 103 Phil 1051 (1957)People v. Lacson G.R. No. 149453, 7 October 2003King v. Hernandez 114 Phil 730 (1962)US v. Toribio 15 Phil. 85 (1910)Ramirez v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 23587, 10 June 1967Matabuena v. Cervantes G.R. No. 28771, 31 March 1971Ryfino Lopez v. Court of Tax Appeals

100 Phil 850 (1957)

Largado v. Masaganda 115 Phil 519 (1962)

7


SY 2015-2016

Automative Parts and Equipment v. Lingad

G.R. No. 26406, 30 October 1969

Amatan v. Aujero 248 SCRA 511 (1995)Pitchard v. Republic 81 Phil 244 (1948)Teehankee v. Director of Prisons

76 Phil 756 (1943)

Demafiles v. COMELEC G.R. No. 28396, 29 December 1967Munoz v. Hord 12 Phil 624 (1909)People v. Gutierrez 36 SCRA 172 (1970)Reyes v. Republic 104 Phil 889 (1958)Santillon v. Miranda G.R. No. 19281, 30 June 1965Chua v. CSC 206 SCRA 65 (1992)Felipe v. Leuterio 91 Phil 482 (1952)People v. Palana G.R. No. 44113, 31 March 1977Angara v. Electoral Commission

63 Phil 139 (1936)

Chapter V

INTERPRETATION OF WORDSAND PHRASES

A. IN GENERAL

1. Generally2. Statutory definition3. Qualifications of rule4. Words construed in their ordinary sense5. General words construed generally6. Application of rule7. Generic term includes things that arise thereafter8. Words with commercial or trade meaning9. Words with technical or legal meaning10. How identical terms in same statue construed11. Meaning of word qualified by purpose of statute12. Word or phrase construed in relation to other provisions13. Meaning of term dictated by context14. Where the law does not distinguish15. Illustration of rule16. Disjunctive and conjunctive words

B. ASSOCIATED WORDS

1. Noscitur a sociis2. Application of rule3. Ejusdem generis4. Illustration of rule5. Limitations of ejusdem generis6. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius7. Negative-opposite doctrine8. Application of expression unius rule9. Limitations of rule10. Doctrine of casus omissus

8


SY 2015-2016

11. Doctrine of last antecedent12. Illustration of rule13. Qualification of the doctrine14. Reddendo singular singulis

C. PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONSAND SAVING CLAUSES

1. Provisos, generally2. Proviso may enlarge scope of law3. Proviso as additional legislation4. What proviso qualifies5. Exception to the rule6. Repugnancy between proviso and main provision7. Exceptions, generally8. Exception and proviso distinguished9. Illustration of exception10. Saving clause

Cases:

Secretary Perez v. LPG Refillers G.R. No. 159149, 28 August 2007Geotina v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 33500, 30 August 1971Asiatic Petroleum v. Collector of Internal Revenue

38 Phil 510 (1918)

Keepner v. US 79 Phil 461 (1947)Claudio v. COMELEC 331 SCRA 388Santulan v. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 28021, 15 December 1977Colgate-Palmolive v. Gimenez G.R. No. 14787, 28 January 1961Gonzales v. COMELEC G.R. No. 28196, 9 November 1967Caltex v. Palomar G.R. No. 19650, 29 September

1966Go Tiaco v. Hermanos v. Union Insurance

40 Phil 40 (1919)

Murphy Morris v. Collector of Customs

11 Phil 456 (1908)

Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 33741, 31 January 1972

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. American Express

G.R. No. 152609, 29 june 2005

Canlas v. Republic 103 Phil 712 (1958)Coconut Refiners v. Torres G.R. No. 132527. 29 July 2005Chung Fook v. White 264 US 443 (1924)Escribano v. Avila G.R. No. 30375, 12 September

1978People v. Manantan 115 Phil 657 (1962)Roldan v. Villaroman 69 Phil 12 (1939)People v. Tamani G.R. No. 22160, 21 January 1974Ibanez de Aldecoa v. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank

30 Phil 228 (1915)

Chapter VI

9


SY 2015-2016

STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE ANDIN RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES

A. STATUTE CONSTRUED AS WHOLE

1. Generally2. Intent ascertained from statute as whole3. Purpose or context as controlling guide4. Giving effect to statute as a whole5. Apparently conflicting provisions reconciled6. Special and general provisions in same statute7. Construction as not to render provision nugatory8. Reason for the rule9. Qualification of rule10. Construction as to give life to law11. Construction to avoid surplusage12. Application of rule13. Statute and its amendments construed together

B. STATUTE CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO CONSTITUTION AND OTHER STATUTES

1. Statute construed in harmony with the Constitution2. Statutes in pari materia3. How statutes in pari materia construed4. Reasons why law laws on same subject are reconciled5. Where harmonization is impossible6. Illustration of the rule7. General and special statutes8. Reason for the rule9. Qualifications of the rule10. Reference statutes11. Supplemental statutes12. Reenacted statutes13. Adoption of contemporaneous construction14. Qualifications of the rule15. Adopted statutes

Cases:

Sotto v. Sotto 43 Phil 688 (1922)Loyola Grand Villas v. Court of Appeals

276 SCRA 681 (1997(

Maddumba v. Ozaeta 82 Phil 345 (1948)Republic v. Court of Appeals 263 SCRA 758 (1996)Lichauco v. Apostol 44 Phil 138 (1922)People v. Gatchalian 104 Phil 664 (1958)UP Board of Regents v. Auditor General

G.R. No. 19617, 31 October 1969

Cuyegkeng v. Cruz 108 Phil 1147 (1960)Asturias Sugar v. Commissioner of Customs

G.R. No. 19337, 30 September 1969

Uytengsu v. Republic 95 Phil 890 (1954)

10


SY 2015-2016

Mejia v. Balalonh 81 Phil 497 (1948)Manila Lodge v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 41001, 30 September 1976

PLDT v. Collector of Internal Revenue

90 Phil 674 (1952)

Alba v. Evangelista 100 Phil 683San Miguel v. Avelino G.R. No. 39699, 14 March 1979Flores v. San Pedro 102 Phil 44 (1957)Republic v. Asuncion 231 SCRA 211Lacson v. Roque 92 Phil 456 (1953)City of Naga v. Agna G.R. No. 36049, 31 May 1976De Jesus v. People G.R. No. 61998, 22 February 1983Montelibano v. Ferrer 97 Phil 228 (1955)

Chapter VII

STRICT OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

A. IN GENERAL

1. Generally2. Strict construction, generally3. Liberal construction, defined4. Liberal construction applied, generally5. Construction to promote social justice6. Construction taking into consideration general welfare or growth

of civilization

B. STATUTES STRICTLY CONSTRUED

1. Penal statutes, generally2. Penal statutes strictly construed3. Reason why penal statutes are strictly construed4. Acts mala in se and mala prohibita5. Application of rule6. Limitation of rule7. Statutes in derogation of rights8. Statutes authorizing expropriations9. Statutes granting privileges10. Legislative grants to local government units11. Statutory grounds for removal of officials12. Naturalization laws13. Statutes imposing taxes and customs duties14. Statutes granting tax exemptions15. Qualification of rule16. Statutes concerning the sovereign17. Statutes authorizing suits against the government18. Statutes prescribing formalities of will19. Exceptions and provisos

C. STATUTES LIBERALLY CONSTRUED

11


SY 2015-2016

1. General social legislation2. General welfare clause3. Grant of power to local governments4. Statutes granting taxing power5. Statutes prescribing prescriptive period to collect taxese6. Statutes imposing penalties for non-payment of tax7. Election laws8. Amnesty proclamations9. Statutes prescribing prescription of crimes10. Adoption statutes11. Veteran and pension laws12. Rules of Court13. Other statutes

Cases:

People v. Garcia 85 Phil 651 (1950)Gomez v. Government Insurance Board

78 Phil 221 (1947)

Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 125297, 6 June 2003US v. Go Chioco 14 Phil 128 (1909)US v. Ah Chiong 15 Phil 488 (1910)People v. Gatchalian 104 Phil 664 (1958)Realy Investments v. Villanueva

84 Phil 842 (1951)

Manotok v. NHA 150 SCRA 89 (1987)Barreto v. Tuason 50 Phil 888 (1926)Manila Lodge v. CA G.R. No. 41001, 30 September

1976Hebron v. Reyes 104 Phil 175 (1958)Co v. Republic 104 Phil 889 (1958)MCIAA v. Marcos 261 SCRA 667 (1996)CIR v. CA 303 SCRA 508 (1999)PLDT v. Laguna G.R. No. 151899, 16 August

2005Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor

G.R. No. 60403, 3 August 1983

Republic v. Villasor G.R. No. 30671, 28 November 1973

Uy Coque v. Siosa 43 Phil 405 (1922)PLDT v. Davao G.R. No. 23080, 30 October

1965Quimsing v. Lachica 112 Phil 110 (1961)Lorenzo v. Posadas 64 Phil 393 (1937)Ibasco v. Ilao 110 Phil 553 (1960)Domalanta v. Court of Appeals

148 SCRA 534 (1987)

Chapter VIII

12


SY 2015-2016

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORYSTATUTES

A. IN GENERAL

1. Generally2. Mandatory and directory statutes, generally3. When statute is mandatory or directory4. Test to determine nature of statute5. Language used6. Use of “shall” or “must”7. Use of “may”8. When “shall” is construed as “may” and vice versa9. Use of negative, prohibitory or exclusive terms

B. MANDATORY STATUTES

1. Statutes conferring power2. Statutes granting benefits3. Statutes prescribing jurisdictional requirements4. Statutes prescribing time to take action or to appeal5. Statutes prescribing procedural requirements6. Election laws on conduct of election7. Election laws on qualification and disqualification8. Statutes prescribing qualifications for office9. Statutes relating to assessment of taxes10. Statutes concerning public auction sale

C. DIRECTORY STATUTES

1. Statutes prescribing guidance for officers2. Statutes prescribing manner of judicial action3. Statutes requiring rendition of decision within prescribed period4. Constitutional time provision directory

Cases:

Sarina v. Court of First Instance

G.R. No. 28511, 22 August 1968

Querubin v. CA 82 Phil 226 (1948)Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corp.

91 Phil 608 (1952)

Legazpi v Estrella 189 SCRA 58 (1990)De Mesa v. Mencias G.R. no. 24583, 29 October 1966Valdez v. Tuazon 40 Phil 943 (1920)Brehn v. republic 118 Phil 1442 (1963)Mendoza v. Caya 98 Phil 107 (1955)Palisoc v. Tamondong 43 Phil 789 (1922)Miranda v. Guanzon 92 Phil 168 (1952)Gachon v. De Vera 274 SCRA 540 (1997)Gabriel v. Encarnacion 94 Phil 917 (1954)Lina Luna v. Rodriguez 39 Phil 208 (1918)Gafor v. COMELEC G.R. No. 52365, 22 January 1980

13


SY 2015-2016

Tecson v. COMELEC G.R. No. 52451, 31 March 1981Roxas v. Rafferty 37 Phil 957 (1918)Ramos v. Villaverde 88 Phil 651 (1951)Ocampo v. Cabangis 15 Phil 626 (1910)

Chapter IX

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVESTATUTES

A. IN GENERAL

1. Prospective and retroactive statutes, defined2. Laws operated prospectively, generally3. Presumption against retroactivity4. Words or phrases indicating prospectivity5. Retroactive statutes, generally

B. STATUTES GIVEN PROSPECTIVE EFFECT

1. Penal statutes, generally2. Ex post facto law3. Bill of attainder4. When penal laws applied retroactively5. Statutes substantive in nature6. Effects on pending actions7. Qualification of rule8. Statutes affecting vested rights9. Statutes affecting obligations of contract10. Illustrations of rule11. Repealing and amendatory acts

C. STATUTES GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT

1. Laws not retroactive: Exception2. Exceptions to the rule3. Procedural laws4. Exceptions to the rule5. Curative statutes6. Limitations of rule7. Police power legislations8. Statutes relating to prescription9. Apparently conflicting decisions on prescription10. Prescription in criminal and civil cases11. Statutes relating to appeals

Cases:

Laceste v. Santos 56 Phil 472 (1932)Grego v. COMELEC 274 SCRA 481 (1997)Iburan v. Llabes 87 Phil 234 (1950)Cebu Portland Cement v. G.R. No. 20563, 29 october 1968

14


SY 2015-2016

CIRSantos v. Alvares 78 Phil 503 (1947)People v. Moran 44 Phil 387 (1923)In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.

G.R. No. 32485, 22 October 1970

People v. Ferrer G.R. No. 32613, 27 December 1972

People v. Subido G.R. No. 21734, 5 September 1975

Primicias v. Ocampo 93 Phil 446 (1953)Republic v. Samia G.R. No. 17569, 31 May 1963Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao

G.R. No. 148308, 21 September 2007

Chavez v. Court of Agrarian Relations

G.R. No. 17814, 31 October 1963

Yupangco v. Velayo G.R. No. 50439, 20 July 1982People v. Zeta 98 Phil 143 (1955)Buyco v. PNB 112 Phil 588 (1961)Martinez v. People 332 SCRA 694 (2000)Frivaldo v. COMELEC 257 SCRA 727 (1996)Philamlife v. Auditor General

G.R. No. 19255, 18 January 1968

Chapter X

AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATIONAND REPEAL

A. AMENDMENT

1. Power to amend2. How amendment effected3. Amendment by implication4. When amendment takes effect5. How amendment is construed, generally6. Meaning of law changed by amendment7. Amendment operates prospectively8. Effect of amendment on vested rights9. Effect of amendment on jurisdiction10. Effects of nullity of prior or amendatory act

B. REVISION AND CODIFICATION

1. Generally2. Construction to harmonize different provisions3. What is omitted is deemed repealed4. Change in phraseology5. Continuation of existing laws

C. REPEAL

15


SY 2015-2016

1. Power to repeal2. The constitution prohibits passage of irrepealable laws; all laws

are repealable3. Repeal, generally4. Repeal by implication5. Irreconcilable inconsistency6. Implied repeal by revision or codification7. Repeal by re-enactment8. Other forms of implied repeal9. “All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are

hereby repealed or modified accordingly,” construed10. Repeal by implication not favoured11. As between two laws, one passed later prevails12. General law does not repeal law, generally13. Application of rule14. When special or general law repeals the other15. Effects of repeal, generally16. On jurisdiction, generally17. On jurisdiction to try criminal case18. On actions, pending or otherwise19. On vested rights20. On contracts21. Effect or repeal of tax laws22. Repeal and re-enactment, effect of23. Effect or repeal of penal laws24. Distinction as to effect of repeal and expiration of law25. Effect of repeal of municipal charter26. Repeal or nullity or repealing law, effect of

Cases:

David v. Dancel G.R. No. 21485, 25 July 1966Estrada v. Caseda 84 Phil 791 (1949)Meralco v. Board of Utility

30 Phil 387 (1915)

Pacia v. Kapisanan 99 Phil 45 (1956)Escasura v. San Miguel, Inc.

114 Phil 225 (1962)

Iburaan v. Labes 87 Phil 234 (1950)Manila Motor Co. v. Flores

99 Phil 738 (1956)

Sanchez v. Rigos G.R. No. 25494, 14 June 1972Mecano v. COA 216 SCRA 500 (1992)Greenfield v. Meer 77 Phil 394 (1946)Duarte v. Dade 32 Phil 36 (1915)City of Manila v. reyes 99 Phil 986 (1956)People v. Castro 43 Phil 842 (1922)Ty v. Trampe 250 SCRA 500 (1995)People v. Almuete G.R. No. 26551, 27 February 1976Joaquin v. Navarro 81 Phil 373 (1948)NPC v. Arca G.R. No. 23309, 31 October 1968Corona v. CA 214 SCRA 378 (1992)

16


SY 2015-2016

Chapter XI

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

1. Constitution defined2. Origin and history of the Philippine Constitutions3. Primary purpose of constitutional construction4. Constitution construed as enduring for ages5. How language of construction construed6. Aids to construction, generally7. Realities existing at time of adoption; object to be accomplished8. Proceedings of the convention9. Contemporaneous construction and writings10. Previous laws and judicial rulings11. Changes in phraseology12. Consequences of alternative constructions13. Constitution construed as a whole14. Mandatory or directory15. Prospective or retroactive16. Applicability of rules of statutory construction17. Generally, constitutional provisions are self-executing18. Three maxim employed as aids to construe constitutional

provisions19. Constructions of US Constitutional provisions adopted in

1987 Constitution20. Other illustrative cases in constitutional construction

Cases:

Legazpi v. Ministry of Finance G.R. No. 58289, 24 July 1982Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997)Javellana v. Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 36142, 31 March 1973

US v. Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1 (1922)J.M. Tuason v. Land Tenure Administration

G.R. No. 21064, 18 February 1970

Ordillo v. COMELEC 192 SCRA 100 (1992)CIR v. Guerrero G.R. no. 20812, 12 September 1967Aquino v. COMELEC G.R. No. 40004, 31 January 1975Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

194 SCRA 317 (1991)

People v. Munoz 170 SCRA 107 (1989)Luz Farms v. DAR 192 SCRA 51 (1990)Roman Catholic Apostolic Administration v. LRC

102 Phil 596 (1957)

Dissenting Opinion of J. Ozaeta, Perfecto v. Meer

85 Phil 567 (1950)

Chiongbian v. De Leon 82 Phil 771 (1949)Marcelino v. Cruz G.R. No. 42428, 18 March 1983Sarmiento v. Mison 156 SCRA 549 (1987)Francisco v. HOR G.R. no. 160261, 10 November

200317


SY 2015-2016

Ombudsman v. Masing G.R. No. 165416, 22 January 2008

18

statcon final syllabus

Documents