MENS LEGISLATORES

MENS LEGISLATORESBy Nestor P. MondokBy this principle, the courts should look into the object to be accomplished, the evils and mischief to be remedied, or the purpose to be sub-served.

The court should give the statute a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effects its purpose rather than one which will defeat it even though such construction is not within the strict literal interpretation of the statute.

The court should give the statute a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effect its purpose, rather than one which will defeat it.MENS LEGISLATORES(INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATOR)SPECIFIC INTENTIONS: (particular statute)*Object to be accomplished*Evils and mischief to be remedied*the purpose to be sub-served *manner of application

GENERAL INTENTIONS: (Various PRESUMPTIONS COMMON in all statutes)-Presumption of validity-Presumption of Constitutionality- Presumption of good faith -presumption against injustice -presumption against inconsistency -presumption against absurdity-presumption against ineffectiveness-presumption against irrepealable laws-presumption against implied repeal-presumption against violation of public policy-presumption of knowledge of existing laws- presumption of acquiescence to judicial construction -presumption of jurisdiction -presumption of acting within the scope of authority -presumption against violation of international lawINTENTIONS OF THE LEGISLATORS*In Pari Materia Rule *Statute must be read and construed as a whole.*Legislative intent must be ascertained from the statute as a whole.*Courts have the duty to reconcile or harmonize the different provisions of the statute, including the conflicting provisions thereof.*As a rule, statute of latter date prevails.*Generalia specialibus non derogant.*Special law prevails over a general law.*In interpreting reenacted statutes, the court will follow the construction which statutes previously received.*In case of adopted statute, the interpretation of the state from where it came from should be considered.*In case of conflict between a common law principle and statutory provision, the latter prevails.GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTEVERBA LEGIS / PLAIN LANGUAGE RULEPRESUMPTION AGAINST INJUSTICE -ART. 10 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODEPRESUMPTION OF VALIDITYPRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITYPRESUMPTION OF GOOG FAITHPRESUMPTION AGAINST INCONSISTENCYPRESUMPTION AGAINSTABSURDITYPRESUMPTION AGAINST INEFFECTIVENESSPRESUMPTION AGAINST IRREPEALABLE LAWSPRESUMPTION AGAINST IMPLIED REPEALPRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICYPRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING LAWSPRESUMPTION OF ACQUIESCENCE TO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTIONPRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTIONPRESUMPTION ON ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITYPRESUMPTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

PRESUMPTIONSABSOLUTE SENTENCIA EXPOSITORE NON INDIGETINDEX ANIMI SERMO ESTVERBA LEGISOPTIMA STATUTULI INTERPRETATIX EST IPSUM STATUTUMVERBA LEGIS NON EST RECEDENDUM GENERALIA VERBA SUN GENERALITER INTELLIGENCIAUBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUIRE DEBEMOSINTERPRETATIO TALIS IN AMBIGUIS SEMPER FRIENDA EST, UT EVITATUR INCONVENIENS ET ABSURDUMUT RES MAGIS QUAM PEREATIN PARI MATERIA RULEDURA LEX SED LEXLEGIS POSTERIORES PRIORES CONTRARIES ABROGANTGENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANTMENS LEGISLATORESRATIO LEGISRATIO LEGIS EST ANIMACESSANTE RATIONE (LEGIS) CESSAT IPSA LEXEJUSDEM GENERISNOSCITUR A SOCIISEXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS (INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS)REDENNDO SINGULA SINGULISCASUS OMISUSCASUS OMISUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS ESTEX NECISSITATE LEGISDOCTINE OF LAST ANTECEDENCELEX PROSPICIT NON RESPICITLES DE FUTURO JUDEX DE PRATERITOIN EO PLUS INEST SIT, SIMPER ET MINUSLEGIS INTERPRETATIO LEGIS VIM OBTINET

LATIN MAXIMSWHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS CLEAR NO EXPLANATION OF IT IS REQUIREDABSOLUTE SENTENCIA EXPOSITORE NON INDIGETSPEECH IS THE INDEX OF INTENTIONINDEX ANIMI SERMO ESTPLAIN LANGUAGE RULE

IF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR , PLSIN AND FREE FROM AMBIGUITY, IT MUST BE GIVEN ITS LITERAL MEANING AND APPLIED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED INTERPRETATIONVERBA LEGISTHE BEST INTERPRETER OF THE STATUTE IS THE STATUTE ITSELFOPTIMA STATULI INTERPRETATIX EST IPSUM STATUTUMFROM THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THERE SHOULD BE NO DEPARTUREVERBA LEGIS NON EST RECEDENDUMWHANT IS GENERALLY SPOKEN SHALL BE GENERALLY UNDERSTOODGENERALIA VERBA SUN GENERALITER INTELLIGENCIAWHEN THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH, WE SHOULD NOT DISTINGUISHUBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUIRE DEBEMOSWHERE THERE IS AMBIGUITY, SUCH INTERPRETATION AS WILL AVOID INCONVENIENCE AND ABSURDITY SHOULD BE ADOPTEDINTERPRETATIO TALIS IN AMBIGUIS SEMPER FRIENDA EST, UT EVITATUR INCONVENIENS ET ABSURDUMTHIS MEANS THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT AS A WHOLE BUT THAT EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO EACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTEUT RES MAGIS QUAM PEREATUNDER THIS RULE STATUTES RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT, OR HAVING THE SAME GENERAL PURPOSE, SHOULD BE READ AND CONSTRUED TOGETHER AS IF THEY CONSTITUTED ONE LAW.IN PARI MATERIA RULETHE LAW MAY BE HARSH BUT THAT IS THE LAWDURA LEX SED LEXIN CASE OF IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT OF TWO LAW OF DIFFERENT VINTAGES, THE LATTER ENACTMENT PREVAILSLEGIS POSTERIORE PRIORES CONTRARIES ABROGANTBY THIS PRICIPLE COURTS SHOULD LOOK INTO THE OBJECT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, THE EVILS AND MISCHIEF TO BE REMEDIED, OR THE PURPOSE TO BE SUBSERVED.THE COURT SHOULD GIVE THE STATUTE A RASONABLE OR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL BEST EFFECT ITS PURPOSE RATHER THAN ONE WHICH WILL DEFEAT IT EVEN THOUGH SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS NOT WITHIN THE STRICT LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.MENS LEGISLATORESINTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE SPIRITIN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, THE COURT MUST LOOK INTO THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW OR THE REASON FOR IT.THE SPIRIT OR INTENTION OF THE LAW PREVAILS OVER THE LETTER THEREOF.THE STATUTE MAY BE EXTENDED TO CASES WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE LITERAL MEANINGOF THE WORDS, IF SUCH CASE IS WITHIN THE REASON FOR THE STATUTERATIO LEGISTHE REASON FOR THE LAW IS ITS SOUL.RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMAWHEN THE REASON OF THE LAW CEASES, THE LAW CEASES TO EXIST.CESSANTE RATIONE (LEGIS) CESSAT IPSA LEXWHERE THE GENERAL TERM FOLLOWS THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICULAR THINGS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS OR SUBJECTS, THE GENERAL TERM WILL BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THOSE THINGS OR PERSONS OF THE SAME CLASS OR OF THE SAME NATURE AS THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.EJUSDEM GENERISUNDER THIS RULE, THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR TERM IN A STATUTE MAY BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RELATED TO THEM IN A STATUTE.WHRWER PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE IS AMBIGUOUS IN ITSELF OR IS SIMPLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARIOUS MEANINGS, ITS TRUE MEANING MAY BE MADE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC BY CONSIDERING THE COMPANY IN WHICH IT IS FOUND OR WHICH IT IS ASSOCIATED.WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE WORDS OF ANALOGOUS MEANING ARE IN ITSELF TOGETHER IN A STATUTE, THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE USED IN THEIR COGNATE SENSE TO EXPRESS THE SAME RELATIONS AND GIVE COLOR AND EXPRESSION TO EACH WORD.NOSCITUR A SOCIISMENTION OF ONE THING IMPLIES THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.WHEN A STATUTE ENUMERATES THE SUBJECTS OR THINGS ON WHICH IT IS TO OPERATE, IT IS TO BE CONSTURED AS EXCLUDING FROM ITS EFFECT ALL THOSE NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED.EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS (INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS)LET EACH BE PUT IN ITS PROPER PLACEDOCTRINE OF COLLOCATION (REFERRING EACH TO EACH)WHERE A SENTENCE HAS SEVERAL ANTECEDENTS AND SEVERAL CONSEQUENTS, THEY ARE TO BE READ DISTRIBUTIVELY. THE ANTECEDENTS SHOULD BE REFRRED TO THEIR PROPER CONSEQUENTS AND VICE VERSA.EACH WORD OR PHRASE OR CLAUSE MUST BE GIVEN ITS PROPER CONNECTION IN ORDER TO GIVE IT PROPER FORCE AND EFFECT, RENDERING NON OF THEM USELESS OR SUPERFLUOUS. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULISUNDER THIS RULE, THE WORDS OR PHRASE MAY BE SUPPLIED BY THE COURTS AND INSERTED IN A STATUTE WHERE THAT IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE REPUGNANCY AND INCONSISTENCY IN THE STZTUTE , TO COMPLETE THE SENSE THEREOF AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE MANIFESTED THEREIN.CASUS OMISUSUNDER THIS RULE, A PERSON, OBJECT OR THING OMITTED FROM AN ENUMERATION MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN OMITTED INTENTIONALLY.CASUS OMISUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS ESTDOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATIONWHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH PART THEREOF AS THAT WHAT IS EXPRESSED.EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD BY IMPLICZATION, TO CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS OBJECT AND PURPOSE.EX NECISSITATE LEGISTHE LAW LOOKS FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD.LEX PROSPICIT NON RESPICITTHE LAW PROVIDES FOR THE FUTURE, THE JUDGE FOR THE PASTLEX FUTURO, JUDEX PRATERITOUNDER THIS RULE, RELATIVE AND QUALIFYING WORDS, PHRASES, AND CLAUSES ARE TO BE APPLIED TO THE WORD OR PHRASE IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDING AND NOT TO OTHERS MORE REMOTE.DOCTRINE OF LAST ANTECEDENCETHE GREATER INCLUDES THE LESSER.IN EO PLUS INEST SIT, SIMPER ET MINUSTHE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE WRITTEN LAW BY THE COMPETENT COURT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.LEGIS INTERPRETATION LEGIS VIM OBTINET