STATCON Flashcards
“including/involving”
Sterling Selections Corp vs. LLDA, GR 171427, March 30, 2011
The word include means “to take in or comprise as a part of a whole.
Thus, this Court has previously held that it necessarily conveys the very idea of non-exclusivity of the enumeration The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply where other circumstances indicate that the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive, or where the enumeration is by way of example only The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply when words are mentioned by way of example. Said legal maxim should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest.
In another case, the Court said:
The word “involving,” when understood in the sense of “including,” as in including technical or financial assistance, necessarily implies that there are activities other than those that are being included. In other words, if an agreement includes technical or financial assistance, there is apart from such assistance – something else already in and covered or may be covered by, the said agreement.
As the regulation stands, therefore, all cottage industries including, but not limited to, those enumerated therein are exempted from securing prior clearance from the LLDA. Hence, the CA erred in ruling that only the three activities enumerated therein are exempted.
“plural vs singular”
In re: The Intestate Estate of Pedron Satillion GR L-19281, June 30, 1965
This is, remember, intestate proceedings. In the New Civil Code’s chapter on legal or intestate succession, the only article applicable is Art. 996. Our colleague, Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, professor of Civil Law, is quoted as having expressed the opinion that under this article, when the widow survives with only one legitimate child, they share the estate in equal parts. 1 Senator Tolentino in his commentaries writes as follows:
One child Surviving. — If there is only one legitimate child surviving with the spouse, since they share equally, one-half of the estate goes to the child and the other half goes to the surviving spouse. Although the law refers to “children or descendants, the rule in statutory construction that the plural can be understood to include the singular is applicable in this case. Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. III, p. 436.)
The theory of those holding otherwise seems to be premised on these propositions: (a) Art. 996 speaks of “Children,” therefore it does not apply when there is only one “child”; consequently Art. 892 (and Art. 888) should be applied, thru a process of judicial construction and analogy; (b) Art. 996 is unjust or unfair because, whereas in testate succession, the widow is assigned one-fourth only (Art. 892), she would get 1/2 in intestate.
A. Children. — It is a maxim of statutory construction that words in plural include the singular. 2 So Art. 996 could or should be read (and so applied) : “If the widow or widower and a legitimate child are left, the surviving spouse has the same share as that of the child.” Indeed, if we refuse to apply the article to this case on the ground that “child” is not included in “children,” the consequences would be tremendous, because “children” will not include “child” in the following articles:
ART. 887. — The following are compulsory heirs: (1) legitimate children and descendants … .
ART. 888. — The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate … .
ART. 896. — Illegitimate children who may survive … are entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate … . (See also Art. 901).
In fact, those who say “children” in Art. 996 does not include “child” seem to be inconsistent when they argue from the premise that “in testate succession the only legitimate child gets one-half and the widow, one-fourth.” The inconsistency is clear, because the only legitimate child gets one-half under Art. 888, which speaks of “children,” not “child.” So if “children” in Art. 888 includes “child,” the same meaning should be given to Art. 996.
B. Unfairness of Art. 996. — Such position, more clearly stated, is this: In testate succession, where there is only one child of the marriage, the child gets one-half, and the widow or widower one-fourth. But in intestate , if Art. 996 is applied now, the child gets one-half, and the widow or widower one-half. Unfair or inequitable, they insist.
On this point, it is not correct to assume that in testate succession the widow or widower “gets only one-fourth.” She or he may get one-half — if the testator so wishes. So, the law virtually leaves it to each of the spouses to decide (by testament, whether his or her only child shall get more than his or her survivor).
Our conclusion (equal shares) seems a logical inference from the circumstance that whereas Article 834 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which Art. 996 was taken, contained two paragraphs governing two contingencies, the first, where the widow or widower survives with legitimate children (general rule), and the second, where the widow or widower survives with only one child (exception), Art. 996 omitted to provide for the second situation, thereby indicating the legislator’s desire to promulgate just one general rule applicable to both situations.
The resultant division may be unfair as some writers explain — and this we are not called upon to discuss — but it is the clear mandate of the statute, which we are bound to enforce.
The appealed decision is affirmed. No costs in this instance.
“clerical error”
Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. vs CTA 100 PHIL 850 (1957)
DOCTRINE: Under the rules of statutory construction, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention of the Legislature that is important and which matters. When the interpretation of a statute according to the exact and literal import of its words would lead to absurd or mischievous results, or would contravene the clear purposes of the Legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary, the latter of the law. Statutes may be extended to cover cases not within the literal meaning of the terms, for that which is clearly within the intention of the Legislature in enacting the law is as much within the statute as if it were within the latter.** Here the error (clerical and misprint) is plain and obvious. It is within the province of the courts to correct said error. This is not to correct the act of the Legislature, but rather to carry out and give due course to the true intention of said Legislature.** (Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd edition, pp. 66-67; 157-158.).
We are in entire accord with the Tax Court and the Solicitor General that a clerical error was committed in section 11, mentioning therein the Collector of Customs. It should be, as it was meant to be, the Commissioner of Customs. There are several reasons in support of this view. Under the Customs Law, found in sections 1137 to 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Commissioner of Customs (Insular Collector of Customs) is the Chief of the Bureau of Customs and has jurisdiction over the whole country as regards the enforcement of the Customs Law, whereas, there are about sixteen Collectors of Customs for the sixteen collection districts and principal parts of entry into which the Philippines has been divided.** These Collectors of Customs are subordinates of the Commissioner of Customs** over whom he has supervision and control (section 1152, Revised Administrative Code). Pursuant to said supervision and control, under section 1405 of the Revised Administrative Code, when any new or unsettled question shall be determined by the Collector of Customs, he shall,** if matter is not otherwise carried upon for review in ordinary course, notify the Commissioner of his decision,** submitting an adequate statement of acts involved. What is more important is the provision of section 1380, which reproduce below:
SEC. 1380. Review by Commissioner. — The person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector of Customs in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen days after notification in writing by the collector of his action or decision, give written notice to the collector signifying his desore to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner.
Thereupon, the Collector of Customs shall forthwith transmit all the papers in the cause to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify, or reverse the action of his subordinate and shall take such steps and make such order or orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision.
Under this section, any person affected or aggrieved by the decision of the Collector of Customs may appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Customs. From all this, it is clear if we followed the literal meaning and wording of section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, **in the sense that persons affected by a decision of the Collector of Customs may appeal directly tot he Court of Tax Appeals, then the supervision and control of the Commissioner of Customs over his Collector of Customs, and his right to review their decisions upon appeal to him by the persons affected by said decision would, not only be gravely affected, but even destroyed. **We cannot believe that was the intention of the Legislature in passing Republic Act No. 1125. It is more reasonable and logical to hold that in Section 11 of the Act, the Legislature meant and intended to say, the Commissioner of Customs, instead of Collector of Customs in the first paragraph and the first part of the second paragraph of said section. In thus holding, the Court are not exactly indulging in judicial legislation. They are merely endeavoring to rectify and correct a clearly clerical error in the wording of a statute, in order to give due course and carry out the evident intention of the Legislature. This the Courts should and can validly do. Under the rules of statutory construction, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention of the Legislature that is important and which matters. When the interpretation of a statute according to the exact and literal import of its words would lead to absurd or mischievous results, or would contravene the clear purposes of the Legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary, the latter of the law. Statutes may be extended to cover cases not within the literal meaning of the terms, for that which is clearly within the intention of the Legislature in enacting the law is as much within the statute as if it were within the latter. Here the error (clerical and misprint) is plain and obvious. It is within the province of the courts to correct said error. This is not to correct the act of the Legislature, but rather to carry out and give due course to the true intention of said Legislature. (Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd edition, pp. 66-67; 157-158.).
Noscitur a sociis
People vs Delantar, GR 169143, February 2, 2007
DOCTRINE: Further, according to the maxim noscitur a sociis, the correct construction of a word or phrase susceptible of various meanings may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated.
Section 31(c) of R.A. No. 7610 contains a listing of the circumstances of relationship between the perpetrator and the victim which will justify the imposition of the maximum penalty, namely when the perpetrator is an “ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.” It should be noted that the words with which “guardian” is associated in the provision all denote a legal relationship.
From this description we may safely deduce that the guardian envisioned by law is a person who has a legal relationship with a ward. This relationship may be established either by being the ward’s biological parent (natural guardian) or by adoption (legal guardian). Appellant is neither AAA’s biological parent nor is he AAA’s adoptive father. Clearly, appellant is not the “guardian” contemplated by law.
ejusdem generis
Mutuc vs COMELEC, GR 32717 November 26, 1970
This Court, after deliberation and taking into account the need for urgency, the election being barely a week away, issued on the afternoon of the same day, a minute resolution granting the writ of prohibition, setting forth the absence of statutory authority on the part of respondent to impose such a ban in the light of the doctrine of ejusdem generis as well as the principle that the construction placed on the statute by respondent Commission on Elections would raise serious doubts about its validity, considering the infringement of the right of free speech of petitioner. Its concluding portion was worded thus: “Accordingly, as prayed for, respondent Commission on Elections is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political jingles by candidates. This resolution is immediately executory.”4
- As made clear in our resolution of November 3, 1970, the question before us was one of power. Respondent Commission on Elections was called upon to justify such a prohibition imposed on petitioner. To repeat, no such authority was granted by the Constitutional Convention Act. It did contend, however, that one of its provisions referred to above makes
unlawful the distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words “and the like.”
For respondent Commission, the last three words sufficed to justify such an order. We view the matter differently. What was done cannot merit our approval under the well-known principle of ejusdem generis, the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution.
Under the rule of construction known as “ejusdem generis”, where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. The rule is based on the obvious reason that if the legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes. (82 CJS 658-660.)
General words, which standing alone might have a wide and comprehensive meaning, when joined with an enumeration of articles, things, and entities will be interpreted in their narrower sense and understood to refer only to articles, things and entities fairly similar in kind, class and nature to those set forth in the associated list of enumeration.’ (Sandack v. Tamme, C.A. N.M., 182 F. 2d. 759.)
For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.
ejusdem generis
Cagayan Valley Enterprises vs CA GR 78413, Nov. 8, 1989
DOCTRINE:The rule of ejusdem generis states that “where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things or by words of particular and specific meaning such general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as enumerated.
The term “Name or Other Mark of Ownership” means the name of the applicant or the name of his principal, or of the product, or other mark of ownership. The second set of bottles of LTI without the words “property of” substantially complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 623, as amended, since they bear the name of the principal, La Tondeña Inc., and of its product, Ginebra San Miguel. The omitted words “property of” are not of such vital indispensability such that the omission thereof will remove the bottles from the protection of the law. The owner of a trade-mark or trade-name, and in this case the marked containers, does not abandon it by making minor modifications in the mark or name itself. 13 With much more reason will this be true where what is involved is the mere omission of the words “property of” since even without said words the ownership of the bottles is easily Identifiable. The words “La Tondeña Inc.” and “Ginebra San Miguel” stamped on the bottles, even without the words “property of,” are sufficient notice to the public that those bottles so marked are owned by LTI.
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 623, as amended by Republic Act No. 5700, provides:
SECTION 1. Persons engaged or licensed to engage in the manufacture, bottling, or selling of soda water, mineral or aerated waters, cider, milk, cream or other lawful beverages in bottles, boxes, casks, kegs, or barrels and other similar containers, or in the manufacturing, compressing or selling of gases such as oxygen, acytelene, nitrogen, carbon dioxide ammonia, hydrogen, chloride, helium, sulphur, dioxide, butane, propane, freon, melthyl chloride or similar gases contained in steel cylinders, tanks, flasks, accumulators or similar containers, with the name or the names of their principals or products, or other marks of ownership stamped or marked thereon, may register with the Philippine Patent Office a description of the names or marks, and the purpose for which the containers so marked and used by them, under the same conditions, rules, and regulations, made applicable by law or regulation to the issuance of trademarks
The claim of petitioner that hard liquor is not included under the term “other lawful beverages” as provided in Section I of Republic Act No. 623, as amended by Republic Act No. 5700, is without merit. The title of the law itself, which reads “ An Act to Regulate the Use of Duly Stamped or Marked Bottles, Boxes, Casks, Kegs, Barrels and Other Similar Containers” clearly shows the legislative intent to give protection to all marked bottles and containers of all lawful beverages regardless of the nature of their contents. The words “other lawful beverages” is used in its general sense, referring to all beverages not prohibited by law. Beverage is defined as a liquor or liquid for drinking. 14 Hard liquor, although regulated, is not prohibited by law, hence it is within the purview and coverage of Republic Act No. 623, as amended.
Republic Act No. 623, as amended, has for its purpose the protection of the health of the general public and the prevention of the spread of contagious diseases. It further seeks to safeguard the property rights of an important sector of Philippine industry. 15 As held by this Court in Destileria Ayala, Inc. vs. Tan Tay & Co.,16 the purpose of then Act 3070, was to afford a person a means of Identifying the containers he uses in the manufacture, preservation, packing or sale of his products so that he may secure their registration with the Bureau of Commerce and Industry and thus prevent other persons from using them. Said Act 3070 was substantially reenacted as Republic Act No. 623. 17
The proposition that Republic Act No. 623, as amended, protects only the containers of the soft drinks enumerated by petitioner and those similar thereto, is unwarranted and specious. The rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied in this case. To limit the coverage of the law only to those enumerated or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned will defeat the very purpose of the law. Such rule of ejusdem generis is to be resorted to only for the purpose of determining what the intent of the legislature was in enacting the law. If that intent clearly appears from other parts of the law, and such intent thus clearly manifested is contrary to the result which would be reached by the appreciation of the rule of ejusdem generis, the latter must give way.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Catu vs Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738, Feb. 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 209
It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others.This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters,it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others.The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.
Under RA 7160, elective local officials of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays are the following: the governor, the vice governor and members of the sangguniang panlalawigan for provinces; the city mayor, the city vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang panlungsod for cities; the municipal mayor, the municipal vice mayor and the members of the sangguniang bayan for municipalities and the punong barangay, the members of the sangguniang barangay and the members of the sangguniang kabataan for barangays.
Of these elective local officials, governors, city mayors and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives. This is because they are required to render full time service. They should therefore devote all their time and attention to the performance of their official duties.
On the other hand, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours. In other words, they may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools outside their session hours. Unlike governors, city mayors and municipal mayors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan are required to hold regular sessions only at least once a week. Since the law itself grants them the authority to practice their professions, engage in any occupation or teach in schools outside session hours, there is no longer any need for them to secure prior permission or authorization from any other person or office for any of these purposes.
While, as already discussed, certain local elective officials (like governors, mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Since they are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession. And this stands to reason because they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact, the sangguniang barangay is supposed to hold regular sessions only twice a month
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Commission on Audit vs Province of Cebu, GR 141386, Nov. 29, 2001
Invoking the legal maxim “expressio unius es exclusio alterius,” petitioner alleges that since salaries, personnel-related benefits and scholarship grants are not among those authorized as lawful expenditures of the SEF under the Local Government Code, they should be deemed excluded therefrom.
The contentions are without merit. It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is the controlling factor in the interpretation of a statute.
Evidently, what was expressly repealed by the Local Government Code was only Section 3, of R.A. No. 5447, which deals with the “Allocation of taxes on Virginia type cigarettes and duties on imported leaf tobacco.” The legislature is presumed to know the existing laws, such that whenever it intends to repeal a particular or specific provision of law, it does so expressly. The failure to add a specific repealing clause particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and the old laws.[7] Hence, the provisions allocating funds for the salaries of teachers under Section 1, of R.A. No. 5447, which are not inconsistent with Sections 272 and 100 (c) of the Local Government Code, remain in force and effect.
EXTRINSIC AIDS of Construction
Contemporaneous Circumstances
Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. GAB, G.R. No. L-12727, 29 February 1960
The intention of the legislature to which effect must be given is that expressed in the statute and the courts will not inquire into the motives which influence the legislature, or individual members, in voting for its passage; nor indeed as to the intention of the draftsman, or the legislature, so far as it has been expressed in the act. So, in ascertaining the meaning of a statute the court will not be governed or influenced by the views or opinions of any or all members of the legislature or its legislative committees or any other persons.
Upon the other hand, at the time of the enactment of Republic Act No. 1502 in June, 1956, the long, continuous, and uniform practice was that all sweepstakes draws and races were held on Sundays and during the whole day. With this background, when Congress chose not to specify in express terms how the additional sweepstakes draws and races would be held, it is safe to conclude that it did not intend to disturb the then prevailing situation and practice.
“On the principle of contemporaneous exposition, common usage and practice under the statute, or a course of conduct indicating a particular undertaking of it, will frequently be of great value in determining its real meaning, especially where the usage has been acquired in by all parties concerned and has extended over a long period of time; . . . (59 C. J. 1023).
Likewise, the language of Republic Act No. 1502 in authorizing the increase, clearly speaks of regular sweepstakes draws and races. If the intention of Congress were to authorize additional sweepstakes draws only which could, admittedly, be inserted in the club races, the law would not have included regular races; and since regular sweepstakes races were specifically authorized, and it would be confusing, inconvenient, if not impossible to mix these sweepstakes races with the regular club races all on the same day (and it has never been done before), the conclusion seems inevitable that the additional sweepstakes draws and races were intended to be held on a whole day, separate and apart from the club races.
Appellants’ contention that to compel them to permit the PCSO to use their premises and equipment against their will would constitute deprivation of property without due process of law, deserves no serious consideration. As the lower court has found, every time the PCSO uses appellants’ premises and equipment, they are paid rentals in accordance with the terms of separate contracts of lease existing between them and the PCSO.
The decision appealed from, being in consonance with the above findings and considerations of this Court, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
EXTRINSIC AIDS of Construction
Contemporaneous Circumstances
Lagman et.al. v. Medialdea, et.al., G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017
b) The “sufficiency of factual
basis test”.
Similarly, under the doctrine of contemporaneous construction, the framers of the 1987 Constitution are presumed to know the prevailing jurisprudence at the time they were drafting the Constitution. Thus, the phrase “sufficiency of factual basis” in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution should be understood as the only test for judicial review of the President’s power to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court does not need to satisfy itself that the President’s decision is correct, rather it only needs to determine whether the President’s decision had sufficient factual bases.
We conclude, therefore, that Section 18, Article VII limits the scope of judicial review by the introduction of the “sufficiency of the factual basis” test.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole discretion to declare martial law and/or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, subject to the revocation of Congress and the review of this Court. Since the exercise of these powers is a judgment call of the President, the determination of this Court as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for the exercise of such, must be based only on facts or information known by or available to the President at the time he made the declaration or suspension, which facts or information are found in the proclamation as well as the written Report submitted by him to Congress. These may be based on the situation existing at the time the declaration was made or past events. As to how far the past events should be from the present depends on the President.
Past events may be considered as justifications for the declaration and/or suspension as long as these are connected or related to the current situation existing at the time of the declaration.
As to what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written Report is up to the President.165 As Commander-in-Chief, he has sole discretion to determine what to include and what not to include in the proclamation and the written Report taking into account the urgency of the situation as well as national security. He cannot be forced to divulge intelligence reports and confidential information that may prejudice the operations and the safety of the military.
Similarly, events that happened after the issuance of the proclamation, which are included in the written report, cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus since these happened after the President had already issued the proclamation. If at all, they may be used only as tools, guides or reference in the Court’s determination of the sufficiency of factual basis, but not as part or component of the portfolio of the factual basis itself.
In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into the full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness of the facts stated in the proclamation and in the written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. To require precision in the President’s appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process of his decision-making. Such a requirement will practically necessitate the President to be on the ground to confirm the correctness of the reports submitted to him within a period that only the circumstances obtaining would be able to dictate. Such a scenario, of course, would not only place the President in peril but would also defeat the very purpose of the grant of emergency powers upon him, that is, to borrow the words of Justice Antonio T. Carpio in Fortun, to “immediately put an end to the root cause of the emergency”.166 Possibly, by the time the President is satisfied with the correctness of the facts in his possession, it would be too late in the day as the invasion or rebellion could have already escalated to a level that is hard, if not impossible, to curtail.
Besides, the framers of the 1987 Constitution considered intelligence reports of military officers as credible evidence that the President ca appraise and to which he can anchor his judgment,167 as appears to be the case here.
Legislative History
Commissioner v. Esso, G.R. No. L-28329, 7 August 1975
It is clear that the only issue involved in this case is whether or not the exemption enjoyed by herein private respondent ESSO Standard Eastern, Inc. from customs duties granted by Republic Act No. 387, or the Petroleum Act of 1949, should embrace or include the special import tax imposed by R.A. No. 1394, or the Special Import Tax Law.
We have examined the records of this case thoroughly and carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and We are convinced that the only thing left to this Court to do is to determine the intention of the legislature through interpretation of the two statutes involved, i.e., Republic Act No. 1394 and Republic Act No. 387.
It is a well accepted principle that where a statute is ambiguous, as Republic Act No. 1394 appears to be, courts may examine both the printed pages of the published Act as well as those extrinsic matters that may aid in construing the meaning of the statute, such as the history of its enactment, the reasons for the passage of the bill and purposes to be accomplished by the measure.
Having this in mind, particularly the manner in which extrinsic aids the history of the enactment of the statute and purpose of the legislature in employing a clause or provision in the law had been applied in determining the true intent of the lawmaking body
We are convinced that R.A. No. 387, The Petroleum Act of 1949, was intended to encourage the exploitation, exploration and development of the petroleum resources of the country by giving it the necessary incentive in the form of tax exemptions. This is the raison d etre for the generous grant of tax exemptions to those who would invest their financial resources towards the achievement of this national economic goal.
On the contention of herein petitioner that the exemptions enjoyed by respondent ESSO under R.A. No. 387 have been abrogated by R.A. No. 1394, We hold that repeal by implication is not favored unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is logical to conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to the same matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable but also clear and convincing as a result of the language used, or unless the latter act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier. 14
As observed earlier, Congress lined up for revocation by Republic Act No. 1394 six statutes dealing with the imposition of special imposts or levies or the granting of exemptions from special import taxes. Yet, considering the tremendous amount of revenues it was losing under the Petroleum Law of 1949, it failed to include the latter statute among those it chose to bury by the Special Import Taw Law. The reason for this is very clear: The legislature wanted to continue the incentives for the continuing development of the petroleum industry.
It is not amiss to mention herein passing that contrary to the theory of the herein petitioner, R.A. No. 387 had not been repealed by R.A. No. 2352 which expressly abrogated Section 6 of R.A. No. 1394 but did not repeal any part of R.A. No. 387. Therefore, the exemption granted by Republic Act No. 387 still stands.
WHEREFORE, taking into consideration the weight given by this Court to the findings and conclusions of the Court of Tax Appeals on a matter it is well-equipped to handle, which findings and conclusions We find no reason to overturn, the petition of the Commissioner of Customs to reverse the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals should be, as it is hereby, denied.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Castro (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
Filipinas Life Assurance Company v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L21258, 31 October 1967
Legislative History
Doctrine: As a general rule of statutory construction a proviso is deemed to apply only to the immediately preceding clause or provision. **Where, as in the case at bar, there is no clear legislative intention to apply it to the subse-clause or provision (Section 24[B]), we are constrained to interpret the proviso as affecting only the preceding clause or provision. **(See Collector, et al. vs. Servando de los Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-9899, August 13, 1957). Consequently, we are of the opinion that the proviso relative to the returnability of only 25% of such dividends applies only to corporations organized in or existing under the laws of the Philippines . . ., but not including duly registered copartnerships (companias colectivas), domestic life insurance companies and foreign life insurance companies doing business in the Philippines.
But a purely syntactical approach is hardly a safe guide to the meaning of a statute. The position of a proviso, for instance, although possessed of considerable influence, is not necessarily controlling. The proviso may apply to sections or portions thereof which follow it or even to the entire statute. Position, after all, cannot override intention, in the ascertainment of which the legislative history of a statute is extremely more important.
However, a review of the circumstances, which prompted the amendment of section 24 in 1957 shows no intention to withdraw from life insurance companies the exemption which theretofore had been enjoyed by them along with non-life insurance companies. To be sure, the 1957 amendment was intended for a two-fold purpose: first, to change the tax base from premium income to investment income and, second, to lower the tax on life insurance companies, in order to encourage their growth as well as their investment in the development of the national economy.
HELD: ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is ordered to refund to the petitioner company the amount of P2,721 as excess income tax for 1958. No pronouncement as to costs.
The Court stated that there was no intention on the part of the legislature to withdraw the benefits of dividend
Legislative Debates and Committee Reports
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, 30 April 1974
Doctrine: As far as Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct in the certification made by the presiding officers. It is merely a mode of authentication. The lawmaking process in Congress ends when the bill is approved by both Houses, and the certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its passage. In other words it is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that is essential.
It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly on “the respect due to coequal and independent departments,” which requires the judicial department “to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated.” Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment
Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer, and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of, what evidence is there to determine whether or not the bill had been duly enacted? In such a case the entries in the journal should be consulted.
HELD: The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case. This Court is merely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, this Court can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose.The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and signed by him. This Court is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law, which admittedly is a risky undertaking, 13 but to declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. This We do, as indeed both the President of the Senate and the Chief Executive did, when they withdrew their signatures therein. In the face of the manifest error committed and subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for this Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making body.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is denied and the so-called Republic Act No. 4065 entitled “AN ACT DEFINING THE POWERS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE VICE-MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS TEN AND ELEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED NINE, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MANILA” is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. The temporary restraining order dated April 28, 1965 is hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs.
The rationale of the enrolled bill theory is set forth in the said case of Field vs. Clark as follows:
The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.
It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly on “the respect due to coequal and independent departments,” which requires the judicial department “to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated.”
Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment.This was the logical conclusion reached in a number of decisions, although they are silent as to whether the journals may still be resorted to if the attestation of the presiding officers is present.
Legislative Debates and Committee Reports
Gaanan v. IAC, L-69809, 16 October 1986
DOCTRINE:An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereofdoubdoubcannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
It is a rule in statutory construction that in order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. (see Commissioner of Customs v. Esso Estandard Eastern, Inc., 66 SCRA 113,120).
In the same case of Purisima, we also ruled that on the construction or interpretation of a legislative measure, the primary rule is to search for and determine the intent and spirit of the law. A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records will show that not only did our lawmakers not contemplate the inclusion of an extension telephone as a prohibited device or arrangement” but of greater importance, they were more concerned with penalizing the act of recording than the act of merely listening to a telephone conversation.
Hence, the phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.
An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place ‘ to place within a radius of a kilometer or more. A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at the other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a third party listening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another. As was held in the case of Rathbun v. United States (355, U.S. 107, 2 L Ed 2d 137-138):
It can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment, persons such as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar nature. We are of the view that an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court dated August 16, 1984 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Rep. Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
SO ORDERED.
Legislative Debates and Committee Reports
League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, 21 December 2009
DOCTRINE: The legislative intent is not at all times accurately reflected in the manner in which the resulting law is couched. Thus, applying a verba legis or strictly literal interpretation of a statute may render it meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an absurd situation or injustice. To obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the intent or the spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be to the rule that the spirit of the law controls its letter.
It is in this respect that the history of the passage of RA 9009 and the logical inferences derivable therefrom assume relevancy in discovering legislative intent.
The rationale behind the enactment of RA 9009 to amend Sec. 450 of the LGC of 1991 can reasonably be deduced from Senator Pimentel’s sponsorship speech on S. Bill No. 2157. Of particular significance is his statement regarding the basis for the proposed increase from PhP 20 million to PhP 100 million in the income requirement for municipalities wanting to be converted into cities, viz:
What is important is that the debates, deliberations, and proceedings of Congress and the steps taken in the enactment of the law, in this case the cityhood laws in relation to RA 9009 or vice versa, were part of its legislative history and may be consulted, if appropriate, as aids in the interpretation of the law. And of course the earlier cited Drilon-Pimentel exchange on whether or not the 16 municipalities in question would be covered by RA 9009 is another vital link to the historical chain of the cityhood bills. This and other proceedings on the bills are spread in the Congressional journals, which cannot be conveniently reduced to pure rhetoric without meaning whatsoever, on the simplistic and non-sequitur pretext that Congress is not a continuing body and that unfinished business in either chamber is deemed terminated at the end of the term of Congress.
