DIGESTS
Rules of Statutory Construction
The connotation of the word “shall”; When the law is clear and unambiguous.
The use of the word shall connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.
——————————————
Where a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation.
It is settled that where a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the court should adopt such reasonable and beneficial construction which will render the provision thereof operative and effective, as well as harmonious with each other.
——————————————
Reconciliation of statutes.
Every effort must be exerted to avoid a conflict between statutes; so that if reasonable construction is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that manner.
——————————————
Internal revenue laws, how construed
Internal revenue laws are to be construed fairly for the government and justly for the citizen. They should receive a liberal construction to carry out the purposes of their enactment; they should not receive so loose a construction as to permit evasions on merely fanciful and insubstantial distinctions. The internal revenue laws cannot be so construed as to extend their meaning beyond the clear import of the words used.
~~~The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Rafferty (G.R. No. 13188, 30 October 1980, En Banc, J. Malcolm)
——————————————
When the tax authorities’ interpretations will not be upheld.
In the scheme of judicial tax administration, the need for certainty and predictability in the implementation of tax laws is crucial. Our tax authorities fill in the details that Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. The regulations these authorities issue are relied upon by taxpayer, who are certain that these will be followed by the courts. Courts, however, will not uphold these authorities’ interpretations when clearly absurd, erroneous or improper.
——————————————
Tax laws may not be extended by implication.
Tax laws may not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of their language, nor their operation enlarged so as to embrace matters not specifically provided.
——————————————
Law on prescription, how construed.
For the purpose of safeguarding taxpayers from any unreasonable examination, investigation or assessment, our tax law provides a statute of limitations in the collection of taxes. Thus, the law on prescription, being a remedial measure, should be liberally construed in order to afford such protection. As a corollary, the exceptions to the law on prescription should perforce be strictly construed.
——————————————
The lawmaker’s intent is the controlling factor.
The Court is bound to effectuate the lawmakers’ intent, which is the controlling factor in interpreting a statute.
——————————————
Reading a statute as a whole.
A statute’s clauses and phrases 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.
*******
In CIR v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, the Count enunciated that:
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. The law must not be read in truncated parts, its provisions must be read in relation to the whole law. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expression, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. (Citations omitted)
*******
It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that no word, clause, sentence, provision or part of a statute shall be considered surplusage or superfluous, meaningless, void and insignificant. To this end, a construction which renders every word operative is preferred over that which makes some words idle and nugatory. This principle is expressed in the maxim Ut magis valeat quam pereat, that is, we choose the interpretation which gives effect to the whole of the statute – its every word.
——————————————
As a rule, a statute is to be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification.
It is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.
——————————————
Prior special law vis-a-vis later law
It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a later law, general in terms and not expressly repealing or amending a prior special law, will not ordinarily affect the special provision of such earlier law.
——————————————
The relation between, and significance of, a special law and a general law.
The rule is that on a specific matter, the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former. In addition, where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general – the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special – the fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case. It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute..
*******
It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law — regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general. The rationale is:
Why a special law prevails over a general law has been put by the Court as follows:
x x x x
x x x The Legislature consider and make provision for all the circumstances of the particular case. The Legislature having specially considered all of the facts and circumstances in the particular case in granting a special charter, it will not be considered that the Legislature, by adopting a general law containing provisions repugnant to the provisions of the charter, and without making any mention of its intention to amend or modify the charter, intended to amend, repeal, or modify the special act. (Lewis vs. Cook County, 74 I11. App., 151; Philippine Railway Co. vs. Nolting 34 Phil., 401.)
Where a general law is enacted to regulate an industry, it is common for individual franchises subsequently granted to restate the rights and privileges already mentioned in the general law, or to amend the later law, as may be needed, to conform to the general law. However, if no provision or amendment is stated in the franchise to effect the provisions of the general law, it cannot be said that the same is the intent of the lawmakers, for repeal of laws by implication is not favored.
——————————————
Duty of courts in interpreting laws; How treaties are interpreted.
Laws are not just mere compositions, but have ends to be achieved and that the general purpose is a more important aid to the meaning of a law than any rule which grammar may lay down. It is the duty of the courts to look to the object to be accomplished, the evils to be remedied, or the purpose to be subserved, and should give the law a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effectuate its purpose. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
——————————————
The basic law prevails over rule or regulation.
It is settled that in case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails, because the said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.
——————————————
An omission in a statute.
A statute is meaningful not only by what it includes but also by what it omits. What is left out is not devoid of significance. As observed by Frankfurter: “An omission at the time of enactment, whether careless or calculated, cannot be judicially supplied however much later wisdom may recommend the inclusion.”
~~~Republic of the Philippines vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (G.R. No. L-26862, 30 March 1970, En Banc, J. Fernando)
——————————————
