Strict vs. Liberal ConstructionStrict Construction

It simply means that the scope of the statute shall not be extended or enlarged by implication, intendment, or equitable consideration beyond the literal meaning of its termsLiberal Construction

It simply means that the words should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation, so as to attain the intent, spirit and purpose of the law

Subjects of ConstructionThe Constitution

• Sarmiento vs MisonFacts: -Petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of the IBP and professors of Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin Salvador Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of Mison’s salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison’s appointment as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. -The respondents, on the other hand, maintain the constitutionality of Mison’s appointment without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The Supreme Court held that the President has the authority to appoint Mison as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs without submitting his nomination to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation, and thus, the latter is entitled the full authority and functions of the office and receive all the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and the petition in intervention, without costs.

Ruling:

1. Standing to file suit / Prohibition as proper remedy: Procedural ques-tions set aside due to demands of public interest.

2.Constitutional Construction. The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it.

3.President’s power to appoint .Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution empowers the

President to appoint 4 groups of officers: (1) the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution; (2) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; (3) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and (4) officers lower in rank 4 whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

4. Express enumeration excludes others not enumerated. It is an accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction that an express enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated.

5. Constitutional provision presumed to have been framed and adopted in light of prior laws . Courts are bound to presume that the people adopting a constitution are familiar with the previous and existing laws upon the subjects to which its provisions relate, and upon which they express their judgment and opinion in its adoption.

6. Construction of “also” in second sentence; consideration of different language of proximate sentences to determine meaning The word “also” could mean “in addition; as well; besides, too” besides “in like manner” which meanings could stress

7. Power to appoint fundamentally executive in character; Limitations construed strictly .

8. The use of word “alone” after “President” in third sentence is a lapse in draftsmanship, a literal import deemed redundant 9. President authorized Commissioner of Bureau of Customs; Commis-sioner not included with the first group of appointment The position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau head) is not one of those within the first group of appointments where the consent of the Commission on Appointments is required.

10. Laws approved during the effectivity of previous constitution must be read in harmony with the new one RA 1937 and PD 34 were approved dur-ing the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution, under which the President may nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, ap-point the heads of bureaus, like the Commissioner of the Bureau of Cus-toms.

How should the Constitution be Construed?

• Perfecto vs Meer The Collector of Internal Revenue required Justice Gregorio

Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of the Judiciary.  The latter paid the amount under protest.  He contended that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it and would be in violation of the Constitution under Article VIII, Section 9. “The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of the inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior, untill they reached the age of seventy years, or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. They shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office ...”

Issue: Whether the imposition of an income tax upon the salary of a member of the Judiciary amount to a diminution thereof, and thus violate the Constitution.

Held:

The imposition of the income tax upon the salary of Justice Perfecto amount to diminution thereof. The prohibition is general, contains no excepting words, and appears to be directed against all diminution. The Fathers of the constitution prohibit diminution by taxation that they regarded the independence of the judges as of far greater importance than any revenue that could come from taxing their salaries.

The primary purpose of the prohibition against diminution was not to benefit the judges but to attract good and competent men to the bench and to promote the independence of action and judgment which is essential to the maintenance of the guaranties, limitations an d and pervading principles of the constitution.

• Endencia vs David

Collector of Internal Revenue Saturnino David ordered the taxing of Justice Pastor Endencia’s and Justice Fernando Jugo’s compensation pursuant to Sec 13 of RA 590 which states: “No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.” 

Issue: Whether the Legislature may lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a public official, especially a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise.

Held:

• This act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and established jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

• The rule is recognized that the legislature cannot pass any declaratory act, or act declaratory of what the law was before its passage, so as to give it any binding weight with the courts. 

• In this sense, section 13 of RA 590 is unconstitutional, it being a transgression of the fundamental principles underlying the separation of powers.

• Nitafan vs. Commissioner on Internal Revenue

ISSUE: Whether the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to exempt justices and judges from taxes.

HELD:The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges

are property subject to general income tax applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within the constitution protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in office.

The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the constitutional provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting it, was to make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect.

May the preamble be referred to in the construction of Constitutional Provisions?

• Aglipay vs. Ruiz

ISSUE: Whether the issuance of the postage stamps was constitutional.

HELD: Ruiz acted under the provision of Act No. 4052, which contemplates no

religious purpose in view, giving the Director of Posts the discretion to determine when the issuance of new postage stamps would be “advantageous to the Government.”

In the case at bar, the issuance of the postage stamps was not intended by Ruiz to favor a particular church or denomination. The purpose of issuing of the stamps was to actually take advantage of an international event considered to be a great opportunity to give publicity to the Philippines and as a result attract more tourists to the country.

In evaluating the design made for the stamp, it showed the map of the Philippines instead of showing a Catholic chalice. The focus was on the location of the City of Manila, and it also bore the inscription that reads “Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937.” In considering these, it is evident that there is no violation of the Constitution therefore the act of the issuing of the stamps is constitutional.

Are the provisions of the constitution self-executing?

• Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS

Issue: Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-executing.

Held: Supreme Court ruled that Article XII Section 10 is self-executing.

1. A provisions that lays down a general principle, such as those in Article II of the 1987 Constitution (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), is usually not self executing.

2. But a provision that is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary and enabling legislation, or which supplies rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.

3. Constitutional provision is self-executing if:The nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed

by the Constitution itself.

Statute-A statute is “an act of the legislature commanding or prohibiting something-A particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of the government

Requirements for the publication of Laws• Tanada v. Tuvera (136 SCRA 27)

Issue: Whether publication is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of laws

Held: The Supreme Court ordered the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and that unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

Publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date — for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication — but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

The clear object of the such provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim “ignorantia legis non excusat.” It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

• Tanada vs Tuvera (146 SCRA 446)

Issue: Whether publication is still required in light of the clause “unless otherwise provided”.

Held: The clause “unless it is otherwise provided,” in Article 2 of the Civil

Code, refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself.

This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. The legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended.

The Supreme Court declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after 15 days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.

• Publication requirements applies to:

1. All statutes, including those of local application and private laws

2. Presidential decrees and executive3. Administrative rules and regulations4. Charter of a city5. Monetary Board circulars

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.

Ordinances

• Rule on Construction of ordinances vis-à-vis Statute

• Primicias v. Urdaneta (1979)– Issue

• Whether the Municipal Ordinance No. 3 (Series of 1964) of Urdaneta is null and void?

– Decision• The general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier law. The

ordinance’s validity should be determined vis-a-vis RA 4136, the mother statute (not the repealed statue, Act 3992).

• In case there is a conflict between a statute and ordinance, the ordinance must give way.

Interpretation of Specific Types of Statutes

Tax Laws

How are tax refunds construed?

• La Carlota Sugar Central v. Jimenez (1961)– Issue

• Whether the importation of the fertilizers is covered by the exemption provided by Sections 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 601

– Decision• the rule is that the exempting provision is to be construed liberally in favor of

the taxing authority and strictly against exemption from tax liability. Importations made by agent of planter or farmer are not exempt from tax, only when imported by planters or farmers directly or through their cooperatives.

• Provisions governing the refund of taxes are strictly construed against exemption from tax liability.

Who has the burden of proof in tax cases?• Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Court of Appeals

Issue: Whether the Ateneo De Manila University has the burden of

proof in the tax case.Held:

The Commissioner erred in applying the principles of tax exemption without first applying the well-settled doctrine of strict interpretation in the imposition of taxes. It is obviously both illogical and impractical to determine who are exempted without first determining who are covered by the aforesaid provision.

The Commissioner should have determined first if Ateneo was covered by Section 205, applying the rule of strict interpretation of laws imposing taxes, before asking Ateneo to prove its exemption therefrom, following the rule of construction where the tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer.

• Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs Marcos

Issue: Whether the MCIAA is exempted from realty taxes.

Held: • The tax exemption provided for in RA 6958 had been expressly

repealed by the provisions of the Local Government Code. Therefore, MCIAA has to pay the assessed realty tax of its properties effective after January 1, 1992 until the present.

• Tax statutes are construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. But since taxes are paid for civilized society, or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority.

Tax Sales Construed• Serfino v. CA

Issue: Whether the public auction was validly conducted.

Held: In the present case, the sale by the Province of Negros Occidental of the

land in dispute to Serfino was void since the Province of Negros Occidental was not the real owner of the property thus sold. The inability of the Register of Deeds to notify the actual owner or Lopez Sugar Central of the scheduled public auction sale was partly due to the failure of Lopez Sugar Central to declare the land in its name for a number of years and to pay the complete taxes thereon.

The prescribed procedure in auction sales of property for tax delinquency should be followed punctiliously. Strict adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperative not only for the protection of the tax payers, but also to allay any possible suspicion of collusion between the buyer and the public officials called upon to enforce such laws. Notice of sale to the delinquent land owners and to the public in general is an essential and indispensable requirement of law, the non-fulfillment of which vitiates the sale.

Labor Laws Rules on the construction of Labor Laws

• Manahan v. ECC

ISSUE: Whether the Workmen’s Compensation should be resolved in favor of the worker.

HELD: • The Transitory and Final Provisions of the New Labor Code provides that

all actions and claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be determined in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their accrual.

• Under the third paragraph of Article 292, Title II (Prescription of Offenses and Claims), workmen’s compensation claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code and during the period from 1 November 1974 up to 31 December 1974 shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the laws and rules at the time their causes of action accrued

• The Court applied the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended, on passing upon petitioner’s claim.

• The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the ECC and ordered the GSIS to  pay the petitioner the amount of P6,000.00 as death compensation benefit and P600.00 as attorney’s fees, to reimburse the petitioner’s expenses incurred for medical services, hospitalization and medicines of the deceased Nazario Manahan, Jr., duly supported by proper receipts, and to pay administrative fees.

• Villavert v. ECC

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is entitled to her son’s death benefits

HELD:• From the foregoing facts of record, it is clear that Marcelino N. Villavert

died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis which was directly caused or at least aggravated by the duties he performed as code verifier, computer operator and clerk typist of the Philippine Constabulary.

• Further, Article 4 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor.”

• The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the ECC and ordered the GSIS to pay the petitioner death benefits in the amount of P6,000.00.

• Del Rosario & Sons v. NLRC

Issue:

• Whether the formal defects of the appeal of the security agency invalidate the appeal.

• Whether the security guards from the agency are entitled to benefits claimed from the company

Held:

• The formal defects in the appeal of the Security Agency were not fatal defects. The lack of verification could have been easily corrected by requiring an oath. The appeal fee had been paid although it was delayed. Failure to pay the docketing fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal.

• Articles 106 of the Labor Code provides that “in the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him,”

• The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under review, without prejudice to petitioner’s right to seek reimbursement from Calmar Security Agency for such amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants. Costs against the private respondent.