Statutory construction, defined -It has no binding effect; it is merely persuasive

The art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of -The SC is not mandated to use the Rules of Statutory Construction but it can
the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that persuade the SC, if the Stat Con is applicable to the given set of facts
intention is rendered doubtful, among others, by reason of the fact that the given
case is not explicitly provided for in the law Calderon v Carale
-art
-legislative intent Source: http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/10/calderon-vs-carale.html
FACTS:
-in enacting a statute
In 1989, RA 6715 was passed. This law amended PD 442 or the Labor Code. RA 6715 provides that
-and applying it to a certain set of principles the Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners [of the NLRC] shall all
be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the CoA. Appointments to any vacancy shall
Legal hermeneutics, defined come from the nominees of the sector which nominated the predecessor. Pursuant to the law, Cory
-branch of science that establishes a principle and rules of statutory construction assigned Carale et al as the Chairman and the Commissioners respectively of the NLRC, the
appointment was not submitted to the CoA for its confirmation. Calderon questioned the appointment
-the systematic body of rules which are recognized as applicable to the construction saying that w/o the confirmation by the CoA, such an appointment is in violation of RA 6715. Calderon
and interpretation of legal writings asserted that RA 6715 is not an encroachment on the appointing power of the executive
contained in Sec16, Art. 7, of the Constitution, as Congress may, by law, require confirmation
Purpose of Construction by the Commission on Appointments of other officers appointed by the President additional to
those mentioned in the first sentence of Sec 16 of Article 7 of the Constitution.
-ascertain
-give effect ISSUE:
-legislative intent Whether or not Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the CoA of appointments extended by
the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of
Scope of Construction Sec. 16, Art. 7 of the Constitution whose appointments require confirmation by the CoA.
1. Intention is doubtful RULING:
2. Ambiguity in language The SC agreed with the Sol-Gen, confirmation by the CoA is required exclusively for the heads of
3. Ambiguity is thus a condition precedent for statutory construction executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by
the Constitution, such as the members of the various Constitutional Commissions. With respect to the
Ambiguity, defined
other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the law and to those whom the
-duplicity of meaning President may be authorized by law to appoint, no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
is required.
Remedy of the courts in ambiguity
Jurisprudence established the following in interpreting Sec 16, Art 7 of the Constitution
1. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only for presidential appointees
1. Construe the statute mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII, including, those officers whose appointments
2. Give it meaning are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral representatives to
3. In accordance with the legislative intent Congress and members of the constitutional commissions of Audit, Civil Service and
Election).
Rules of construction, binding effect on courts

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali
 2. Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose Exception to the exception: If the law is absurd
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by
law to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rights).
Construction v Interpretation
-Construction: reads between the lines
Issue: Is the appointment constitutional? Does the NLRC Chair Commissioner -Interpretation: meaning of words
need to undergo the confirmation of the CoA based on the enumeration of
the Constitution? Legislative meaning
Held: There was a law that the appointment of the NLRC could undergo -What the laws by its language
confirmation of the CoA but the Constitution does not require it -It comprehends, covers or embraces, limits or confines
-language of the law
ONE LINER: CONGRESS CANNOT DICTATE TO THE SUPREME COURT
WHAT THE LAW MEANS. OTHERWISE, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND Legislative intent, defined
VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. -history of enactment
-evil sought to be prevented or cured
Why is the Constitution enumerating the positions that must be checked by -essence of the law
the CoA? Answer: Check and balance -no need to collect to collect the subjective wishes of each members
-but the objective footprints left in the trail of legislative enactment
-looking forward, what you want to achieve
-essence, spirit, soul
Remember: The separation of powers
Legislative purpose, defined
1. Executive: approves the law; execute the law -reason why the law was passed
2. Legislature (Congress): makes the law -Is it to prevent mischief?
3. Judiciary: interpret the law -Create new rights?
4. The SC is not mandated to use the Rules of Statutory Construction but it can -look backward
persuade the SC, if the Stat Con is applicable to the given set of facts

TN: The Congress cannot say, “SC, this is what the law means” Legislative intent and purpose, distinguished
-Combined application of purpose and meaning (legislative intent)
Exception: -Example: A statute prohibits operation of a motor vehicle in a public highway while
Federation of Free Farmers the driver is intoxicated
-Questions: Does the motor vehicle include “motorcycle”? Does intoxication influence
Exception: If the rules of statutory construction is provided in the statute narcotics?
Such as the Civil Code (In case of doubt, there is a presumption of justice and
equality) And in the Labor Law, it is favorable to the laborer

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali
 EQUATION FOR STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
Legislative Intent=Legislative Meaning+Legislative Purpose(rationale)
 There are times when the SC might overstretch the construction of the law.
 Grace Poe Case: where the SC says she is the natural born Filipino, you can
Different kinds of interpretation infer that somehow overstretch the construction of the word “natural born
1. Close interpretation-literal Filipino”
2. Extensive interpretation-liberal
 Can you depart not only from the language but also from the intent of the
3.
Republic v Manalo law? YOU CANNOT. Because in that way it becomes extravagant.
-Petition for cancellation of entry of marriage of a Filipina who recently divorced  But of course you cannot stop the SC from doing that. As a matter of fact,
with a Japanese man in Japan there were cases were the SC overstretch the language of the law. Ex. Grace
-Article 15 “does not afford the Filipinos the right to divorce” Poe Case
-Article 26 explicitly states that the alien spouse must file for the divorce  Judicial Activism –the Constitution actually foresees an activist supreme
-Held: The requirement is only a valid divorce decree obtained abroad court-expanded jurisdiction of the SC: SC can strike down the executive and
-Generally, there is no ambiguity in the law, therefore, there is no need to legislative acts for as long it proceeds from grave abuse of discretion. In
construe. But on the basis of justice and equity, we must construe and go to that sense, we can say that it is about judicial activism.
the intent. The intent of the law is to allow Filipino spouses who are married to
alien spouses to remarry in case of a divorce. What is the intent of the law?
That the two should be equal: if the foreigner is permitted to remarry in his Chavez v JBC
Source: https://jeffsarabusing.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/case-brief-chavez-v-jbc/
foreign land, then the spouse here should also be permitted. It would be Facts:
absurd and unjust, so long as the Filipina spouse is concerned. The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacant seat of Supreme Court
If the language of the law is clear, no problem. But the SC might still construe if Chief Justice following Renato Corona’s departure.
Originally, the members of the Constitutional Commission saw the need to create a separate,
the plain language of the law results in injustice, absurd. For as long as the competent and independent body to recommend nominees to the President. Thus, it conceived of a
construction or interpretation is consistent with the intent of the law, no body representative of all the stakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial
and Bar Council (JBC).
problem. In particular, Paragraph 1 Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution states that “(1) A Judicial and Bar
ONE LINER: Legislative intent can outweigh the language of the law. –Intent Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice
PREVAILS over the express language of the law. as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
Court, and a representative of the private sector.” In compliance therewith, Congress, from the moment
4. Extravagant interpretation-departs from true meaning of the creation of the JBC, designated one representative from the Congress to sit in the JBC to act as
Judicial activism one of the ex officio members.
In 1994 however, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of having only seven
(7) members, an eighth (8th) member was added to the JBC as two (2) representatives from Congress

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali
began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each case, it becomes apparent that the word “Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution
having one-half (1/2) of a vote. During the existence of the case, Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero is used in its generic sense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the
and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sat in JBC as representatives of House of Representatives is being referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular representative
the legislature. may be allowed to sit in the JBC
It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition. Considering that the language of the subject constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, there
The respondents claimed that when the JBC was established, the framers originally envisioned a is no need to resort extrinsic aids such as records of the Constitutional Commission. Nevertheless,
unicameral legislative body, thereby allocating “a representative of the National Assembly” to the JBC. even if the Court should proceed to look into the minds of the members of the Constitutional
The phrase, however, was not modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism which was Commission, it is undeniable from the records thereof that it was intended that the JBC be composed
adopted by the Constitutional Commission on July 21, 1986. The respondents also contend that if the of seven (7) members only. The underlying reason leads the Court to conclude that a single vote may
Commissioners were made aware of the consequence of having a bicameral legislature instead of a not be divided into half (1/2), between two representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting
unicameral one, they would have made the corresponding adjustment in the representation of members of the JBC for that matter.
Congress in the JBC; that if only one house of Congress gets to be a member of JBC would deprive With the respondents’ contention that each representative should be admitted from the Congress and
the other house of representation, defeating the principle of balance. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, after the perusal of the records of Constitutional
The respondents further argue that the allowance of two (2) representatives of Congress to be Commission, held that “Congress,” in the context of JBC representation, should be considered as one
members of the JBC does not render JBC’s purpose of providing balance nugatory; that the presence body. While it is true that there are still differences between the two houses and that an inter-play
of two (2) members from Congress will most likely provide balance as against the other six (6) members between the two houses is necessary in the realization of the legislative powers conferred to them by
who are undeniably presidential appointees the Constitution, the same cannot be applied in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
Supreme Court held that it has the power of review the case herein as it is an object of concern, not between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. No mechanism is required between the
just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all the citizens who have the right to seek judicial intervention Senate and the House of Representatives in the screening and nomination of judicial officers. Hence,
for rectification of legal blunders. the term “Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative department.
Issue: The framers of Constitution, in creating JBC, hoped that the private sector and the three branches of
Whether the practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8) members, two (2) of whom are government would have an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary.
members of Congress, defeats the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, to allow the Legislature to have more quantitative influence in the JBC by having more than
Held: one voice speak, whether with one full vote or one-half (1/2) a vote each, would “negate the principle
No. The current practice of JBC in admitting two members of the Congress to perform the functions of of equality among the three branches of government which is enshrined in the Constitution.”
the JBC is violative of the 1987 Constitution. As such, it is unconstitutional. It is clear, therefore, that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the words of a statute are only. Thus, any inclusion of another member, whether with one whole vote or half (1/2) of it, goes
clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted against that mandate. Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, providing Congress with an equal
interpretation. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in voice with other members of the JBC in recommending appointees to the Judiciary is explicit. Any
the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As circumvention of the constitutional mandate should not be countenanced for the Constitution is the
such, it can be clearly and unambiguously discerned from Paragraph 1, Section 8, Article VIII of the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
1987 Constitution that in the phrase, “a representative of Congress,” the use of the singular letter “a” conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional
preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to
It is indicative of what the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of
may designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1) the government and the people who run it.
representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its prior
so provided. official actions are nonetheless valid. In the interest of fair play under the doctrine of operative facts,
Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not nullified.
or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current numerical composition of the Judicial and Bar
by considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is associated. Every Council IS declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby enjoined to
meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of the body of the reconstitute itself so that only one ( 1) member of Congress will sit as a representative in its
statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with other words or phrases proceedings, in accordance with Section 8( 1 ), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. This disposition is
and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter. Applying the foregoing principle to this immediately executory.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali
 -Now you might want to argue that even if the language of the law, we can go to
the intent. Yes. However, Statutory Construction does not bind the SC.
WHEN THE STATUTE IS CLEAR, IT MUST BE FOLLOWED (WHEN IT SAYS
SEVEN MEMBERS, THERE SHOULD ONLY BE SEVEN MEMBERS) -If the SC is satisfied with the plain language of the law, that’s it. If they are not
satisfied, they go to the intent of the law, they can do that. Because again, it’s an
-JBC is composed of 7 representatives, which requires one representative of the
art.
Congress. But there are two chambers of the Congress –so now the Congress
sent two thus, seven became eight members. -The bottom line: How do you define the law? The law is what the Supreme Court
-At first, they talk about the unicameral Congress that’s why they said ‘A says it is.
representative of Congress’ but, along the way as they try to developed the
provisions of the Consttution, they realized that they want bicameral system. -TN: The tricky part in StatCon is it is so fluid? Because it is an art. In art, there is
-The Congress said that they just forgot about this but the intent was bicameral so no right and wrong. SC cannot go no wrong unless probably discretion is so
they should be entitled to two representatives. In short, inadvertence. There was gravely abused.
inadvertence; the Constitutional Commission made a mistake because they forgot
-Question: What if the SC abuses or gravely abuses its discretion, where do we
about the “a representative” when they changed the legislature system to
go?
bicameral.
-How did the SC resolve that? The SC ruled that only one representative of the -We cannot go to the president because we have separation of powers. Can we go
Congress is required. In this particular case, the SC used the word, judicial to the Congress? Yes. Through the process of impeachment
exuberance.
-JBC screens candidates to the SC. -The SC said “No, we cannot overstretch. Judicial exuberance could be allowed
-Judicial Activism – Judicial exuberance. but we cannot be go over as to violate the plain language of the Constitution.”
-What is the main reason that SC ruled that only one from the Congress is
ONE LINER: Judicial activism cannot be judicially exuberant for us to overstretch
required? The Constitution is clear that only one representative is allowed. Seven
the language of the law.
is seven members. 1:1. It can never be shared. There is no ambiguity. Chavez
contends that even if the language is clear, you can go to the intent. -TN: Judicial Exuberance v. Judicial Activism: Exuberance is not allowed, Activism
is allowed because that is how the framers of the Constitution intend what the SC
-What if we go to the intent, could the answer be different? Probably, based on the
do, to be an activist.
intent of the Constitution, it could be that they would have wanted two
representatives but the language of the law is clear.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali
 5. Free or unrestricted interpretation-based on the general principles of
interpretation in good faith
6. Limited or unrestricted interpretation-influenced by other principles
7. Predestined interpretation-biased
-Example: if you were judge in the lower court and you got promoted to a higher
court and the case you handled when you were a judge in the lower court is the
same case you will handle in the higher court, you already have a predestined
interpretation and you should abstain)

“Case of Sereno, when De Castro took part in making a decision on the case of the
impeachment of Sereno when she already have a pre-destined disposition on her
mind. Biased na sya. Kaaway na niya si Sereno. She should have voluntary inhibited
but she did not. Because she was so bitter, she made a predestined disposition.”

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
AFGSali