SYLLABUSSTATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Atty. Lorelee DS. Valdez

I. GENERAL PRINICPLESA. Definition

Statutory Construction Interpretation/Construction Statute

B. The three departments of the government; the power of each department in relation to statutory construction

C. Rationale for separation of powers Endencia vs. David, 93 SCRA 696, August 31, 1953

D. Statutes that can be the subject of statutory construction

II. JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND DUTYA. Courts' primary duty to apply the law

Silva vs. Cabrera, 88 Phil 38, March 19, 1951 People vs. Mapa, G.R. No. 220301, August 30, 1967 Lapid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142261, June 28, 2000 Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520 (1997) Cebu Portland Cement, Co. vs. Municipality of Naga, G.R. No.

24116, August 22, 1968 Quijano vs. DBP, G.R. No. 26419, October 19, 1970 Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No.

28463, May 31, 1971B. Courts have no power to change, alter or repeal the law

Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217, June 5, 1990 (determine the law applied in this case and compare it with the present law applicable)

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation, 136 SCRA 141, April 30, 1985

C. Courts must not distinguish where the law does not distinguishLatin maxim: ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos Salenilla vs. Court of Appeals 169 SCRA 829 January 31, 1989

D. Courts must not enlarge nor restrict statutes Canet vs. Decena, G.R. No. 155344, January 20, 2004

Latin maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alteriusE. Courts' duty to effectuate the policy or purpose of the law

Vda. de Macabenta vs. Davao Stevedore Terminal Co., 32 SCRA 553 April 30, 1970 (determine the purpose of the law applied herein)

F. Judicial interpretation, when set aside People vs. Jabinal, G.R. No. 30061, February 27, 1974 Quimpo vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 30052, August 31, 1981