CHAPTER
2:
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
A.
NATURE AND PURPOSE
Definition
It
is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention
of the authors of the law, where that intention is rendered doubtful by reason
of the ambiguity in its language or of the fact that the given case is not
explicitly provided in the law.
Construction and Interpretation, Distinguished
Interpretation
is the art of finding the true meaning and sense of any form of word.
Construction is the process of drawing warranted conclusions not always
included in direct
Rule of Construction, generally
The
legislature is presumed to know the rules of statutory construction, it enacts
a law with the end in view that it will, in case of doubt, be construed in
accordance with the settled principles of interpretation. Where there is
ambiguity in the language of a statute, courts employ canons of statutory
construction to ascertain and give effect to its true intent and meaning.
The
legislature sometimes adopts rules of statutory construction as part of the
provisions of a statute. The legislature
also defines, in certain complicated statutes, the word and phrases used
therein. Except as they may have been
embodied as part of a statute, rules of construction have no binding effect on
the courts. Nor are they controlling in
the interpretation of laws, they may only be used to clarify, not to defeat,
legislative intent. Even those rules of
construction which are in the form of statutory provisions may be ignored if
their employment may defeat, rather than effectuate, legislative intent.
Purpose/Object of Construction
All
rules of construction of interpretation have for their sole object the
ascertainment of the true intent of the legislature. The object of all judicial interpretation of
a statute is to determine legislative intent, what intention is conveyed,
either expressly or impliedly, by the language used, so far as it is necessary
for ascertaining whether the particular case or state of facts presented to the
court comes within it.
Legislative Intent
Courts
will not follow the letter of the statute when it leads away from the true
intent of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general
purpose of the act (Torres v. Limjap). Where the statute is susceptible of more than one construction,
that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the
manifest intent of the legislature (U.S. v. Toribio).
Legislative Purpose
It
is the reason why a particular statute was enacted by the legislature. A legislation is an active instrument of the
government which, for purposes of interpretation, means that law have ends to
be achieved and statutes should be so construed so as not defeat but to carry
out such ends and purposes (Litex Employees Assn v. Eduvala).
Legislative Meaning
It
is what the law, by its language, means.
It may be synonymous to legislative intent. If there is ambiguity in the language, its
purpose may indicate the meaning of the language and lead to what the
legislative intent is.
Matters Inquired into in Construing a Statute
It
is not enough to ascertain the intention of meaning of the statute; it is also
necessary to see whether the intention or meaning of the statute has been
expressed in such a way as to give it legal effect and validity. The legal act is made up of two elements – an
internal and an external one; it originates in intention and is perfected by
expression. Failure of the latter may
defeat the former.
Where Legislative Intent is Ascertained
The
primary source of the intent is the statute itself and has to be discovered
from the four corners of the law (Manila Lodge No. 761 v. C. A). It has to be extracted from the statute as a
whole and not from an isolated part of particular provision thereof. Where the words and phrases of a statute are
not obscure or ambiguous, its meaning and the intention of the legislature must
be determined from the language employed (Veroy v. Layague). The court may also look to the purpose of the
statute to be subserved, the reason or cause which induced the enactment of the
law, the mischief to be suppressed, and the policy which dictated its passage
(Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad).
B.
POWER TO CONSTRUE
Construction is a Judicial Function
It
is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is and it has the final word as to what the law means. The court does not interpret the law in a
vacuum. It does not give legal opinion
on hypothetical cases or in cases which have become moot or academic
Legislature Cannot Overrule Judicial Decisions
The
legislature has no power to overrule the interpretation or construction of a
statute of the Constitution by the Supreme court and while it may indicate its
construction of a statute in a resolution or declaratory act, it cannot
preclude the courts from giving the statute a different interpretation.
When Judicial Interpretation May be Set Aside
The
Supreme Court may change or overrule its previous construction. Constitutional amendments may modify or nullify
a judicial interpretation of a provision thereof. The rule that the Supreme Court has the final
word in the interpretation of a statute merely means that the legislature
cannot, by law or resolution, modify or annul the judicial construction without
modifying or repealing the very statute which has been the subject of
construction, but when it enacts a repeal, the previous judicial construction
of the statute is modified or set aside.
When Court May Construe Statute
A
condition sine qua non, before the court may construe or interpret, is that
there be doubt or ambiguity in its language. Only statutes with an ambiguous or
doubtful meaning may be the subject of statutory construction (Daong v.
Municipal Judge). A statute is ambiguous
if it is susceptible of more than one interpretation.
Courts May not Construe Where Statute is Clear
Construction
comes only after it has been demonstrated that the application is impossible or
inadequate without it. It is the very
last function which the court should exercise, for it there is more application
and less construction, there would be more stability in the law (Lizarraga
Hermanos v. Yap Tico). It has been
repeatedly declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical
language, there is no room for interpretation and there is only room for
application (Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga).
For
nothing is better settled than that the first and fundamental duty of courts is
to apply the law as they find it, not as they like it to be. Fidelity to such a task precludes
construction unless application is impossible or inadequate without it (Resins,
Inc. v. Auditor General).
Where
the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says
and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed (Luzon
Surety Co. v. De Garcia).
Where
the law is free from ambiguity, the court may not introduce exceptions where
none is provided from considerations of convenience, public welfare, or for any
laudable purpose, nor may it engraft into the law qualifications not
contemplated (Ramos v. C.A), nor construe provisions by taking into account
questions of expediency, good faith, practical utility and other similar
reasons so as to relax non compliance therewith.
Administrative
agencies tasked to implement a stature may not construe it by expanding its
meaning where provisions are clear and unambiguous.
Rulings of Supreme Court Part of Legal System
Legis interpretato legis vim obtinet,
the authoritative interpretation of the Supreme Court of a statute acquires the
force of law by becoming a part thereof as of the date of its enactment, since
the court’s interpretation merely establishes the contemporatneous legislative
intent that the statute thus construed intends to effectuate (Senovila v.
Hermosisimo).
Stare decisis et non quieta movere, when
the Supreme Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the same. This assures certainty and stability in the
legal system.
As
part of the legal system and until reversed by the Supreme Court itself,
rulings of the highest tribunal are binding upon inferior courts.
Judicial Rulings have no Retroactive Effect
Lex prospicit, non respicit, the law
looks forward not backward. The
interpretation of a statute by the Supreme Court remains to be part of the
legal system until the latter overrules it and the new doctrine overruling the
old is applied prospectively in favor of persons who have relied thereon in
good faith.
Courts May Issue Guideline in Construing Statute
In
construing a statute, the enforcement of which may tread on sensitive areas of
constitutional rights, the court may issue guidelines in applying the statute,
not to enlarge or restrict it but to clearly delineate what the law
requires. This is not judicial
legislation but an act to define what the law is.
C.
LIMITATIONS ON POWER TO CONSTRUE
Courts may not Enlarge or Restrict Statutes
- While statutory constructions involves choice, the court should resist the temptation to roam at will and rely on its predilection as to what policy should prevail.
- They may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein situations not provided nor intended by lawmakers.
- They are not authorize to insert into the law what they think should be in it or to supply what they think the legislature would have supplied if its attention had been called to the omission.
- They should not revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislature, nor rewrite the law to conform with what they think should be the law
- Nor may they interpret into the law a requirement which the law does not prescribe
- Neither should courts construe statutes which are perfectly vague, or cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.
COURTS NOT TO BE INFLUENCED BY QUESTIONS OF
WISDOM
Since
the legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity, adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness
and expediency of any law, courts may not take any of these matters into
account in construing or interpreting the law.
As long as laws do not violate the Constitution, the courts merely
interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not they are wise or
salutary.
