group 1 - statutory construction report

7/23/2019 Group 1 - Statutory Construction Report

1/98

Statutoryconstruction


2/98

B. Statutory construction

or judicial legislation


3/98

Statutory Construction,whose job is it? It belongs to the judiciary branch.

"To declare what the law shall be is a legislativepower, but to declare what the law is or has beenis judicial."


4/98

Denition

!##I$! %BST# & laws held tobe created by thepronounce'ents

o( a judge who departs (ro' astrict interpretation o( a lawaccording

to the 'ani(est intention o( thelegislature


5/98

)udicial *egislation andand the separation o(powers

Branches o( the govern'ent

+. ecutive branch - it has the power toen(orce law

. legislative branch/The legislative branch,which has the authority to 'a0e, alter or repeal

laws1. )udicial branch/ has the power to interpretlaws

Based on separation o( powers judicial

legislation is illegal and superseding theower iven to udiciar .


6/98

)udicial *egislation andand the separation o(

powers

)udicial legislation so'eti'es called

judicial tyranny un(ortunately, hasno clear distinction between judicialinterpretation.

$s the judiciary is called upon toregulate its actions and in a senseestablish its own boundaries.


7/98

en s ons ruc onand %hen it is )udicial

*egislation? It is when the judiciary go beyondruling o( the law and deviated(ro' the legislative intent o( thestatute or law. It is illegal and a'ere violation o( the powers

vested in the di2erent branches o(the govern'ent


8/98

3loresca vs 4hile !ining

Corporation

" Copper !ining %or0er5sDeath benet under%or0'en5s Co'pensation $ctversus Da'ages"


9/98

6.#. 7o. */189:

$pril 18, +; S. 3*>#SC$, in his own behal( and on behal( o( the 'inors#>!*> and 7ST># S.

3*>#SC$@ and #*I7D$ 3*>#SC$/6$BA>, 4D#> S. 3*>#SC$, )#., C*S>

S. 3*>#SC$, !*B$ S. 3*>#SC$, )DIT S. 3*>#SC$ and C$#!7 S. 3*>#SC$@

*ADI$ C$#$!$T D$. D !$#TI7 in her own behal( and on behal( o( her'inor children

*I7D$, #>!>, $7T>7I> )$7 and *A, all surna'ed !artineE@ and D$7I*!$#TI7 and

T>!$S !$#TI7@

S$*STI$7$ $S4I#$S D$. D >B#$, in her own behal( and on behal( o( her'inor children )>S,

ST*$, )*IT$ S$*D and D$7I*>, all surna'ed >B#$@

*ADI$ C*B76$7 D$. D I**$#, in her own behal( and on behal( o( her'inor children D7$,

6>#6 and *$##A III, all surna'ed I**$#@

D>*>#S *>*IT$ $D# D$. D *$7$, in her own behal( and on behal( o(her 'inor children

DIT$, *I$BT, DII7$, #$A!7D>, 7ST># and $#*I>, )#. all

surna'ed *$7$@


10/98

Su''ary

This is a case (or petition done by relatives o( 'iners thatdied as a result o( the cave in that buried the' in tunnelswhile wor0ing at the copper 'ines underground operationin Tuba, benguet. They clai' that they have the right o(selection between availing benets (ro' %or0'en5s

Co'pensation $ct and suing (or da'ages as a result o(negligence o( phile 'ining corporation in protecting theire'ployees, or whether they 'ay avail the'selvescu'ulatively o( both action.

The Supre'e Court #uled in (avor o( the relatives and

stated that ven though they clai'ed the benets (ro'%or0'en5s Co'pensation $ct, such 'ay not preclude the'on ling clai's (or da'ages as a result o( negligence o( thecorporation, though benets clai'ed under the %or0'en5sCo'pensation $ct should be deducted (ro' the da'agesthat 'ay be decreed in their (avor.


11/98

3acts&

>n june


12/98

3acts&

The petitioners led an opposition, stating thatcauses o( action were not based on theprovision o( %or0'en5s Co'pensation $ct, buton the provision o( Civil code allowing the

award o( actual, 'oral and ee'plary da'ages,hereby 'a0ing the case (all under C3I5s

jurisdiction.

The Court o( 3irst Instance held in (avor o( 4hile!ining Corporation, dis'issing the peetition (or

lac0 o( jurisdiction hence the petitioner led apetition (or review.


13/98

Issues&

%hether or not the relatives o( the victi's hencethe petitioners, have the right o( selectionbetween availing the'selves o( the wor0er5s rightunder the %or0'en5s Co'pensation act and suing

in he regular courts under the Civil Code (orda'ages actual, 'oral and ee'plaryJ on thebasis o( negligence by 4hile Corporation orwhether they 'ay avail the'selves cu'ulativelyo( both actions.

Does the C3I have jurisdiction over theeco'plaint?


14/98

eld

Supre'e Court held in (avor o( the petitioner. It washeld that clai' o( da'ages is di2erent (ro' benetunder the wor0'en5s co'peensation act, becausesuch clai' is based on negligence and protectedunder the provision o( the civil code. ence, 'a0ing italso a jurisdiction o( Court o( rst Instance. The legalbasis o( this is based on the (act that e'ployee ande'ployer has a contractual relationship and anybreach o( contract 'ay held liable, the party in bad(aith.

The rationale in awarding co'pnsation under the %C$is based on thory o( co'pensation distinct (ro' theeeisting theories o( da'ages, pay'ents under theacts being 'ade as a co'pensation not as da'ages.


15/98

eld&

The recovery under the act is not based on theeactionable wrong done by the e'ployer. In !urillovs !endoEa, it was held that the e'ployer isliable to pay under co'pensation acts, any

benets (or loss o( inco'e, as long as the death,sic0ness or injury is wor0 connected or wor0aggravated, even i( the death is not due to the(ault o( the e'ployer. Da'ages on th other handare given as an award to one as a vindication on

the wrong(ul invasion o( his rights. The 4rovisionin %or0'en5s Co'pensation act under %or0'en5sco'pensation co''ission now 'ployeesCo'pensation Co''ission did not contain anyaward o( actual, 'orla or ee'plary da'ages.


16/98

eld&

The petitioner also has the right to chose between availing thethe ed a'ounts set by %C$ or to prosecute an ordinary civilaction (or higher da'age but he cannot pursue both 4acanavs Cebu $utobus Co'pany, 1 SC#$ ::1J. Though so'e o( thclai'ants already received The co'pensation (ro' %C$, it

would not preclude the' (ro' bringing action be(ore theregular court because they beca'e aware o( the (act thatphile has been re'iss in its contractual obligation with thedeceased 'iners only a(ter receiving co'pensation under theact.

I( they were aware, they would not have sought it because o(

lesser a'ount o( co'pensation. It was an ignorance or a'ista0e o( (act and the law nullies the choice because itwasnKt 'ad intelligently.

owever, should the petitioner bee success(ul in their bidbe(ore the lower court, the pay'ents 'ade under %C$ shouldbe deducted (ro' the da'ages in their (avor.


17/98

Does the court co''itjudicial legislation?

7o its not, The court 'erely applies and givee2ect to the constitutional guarantees o( social

justice then secured by Section 9, G and ; o($rticle +: o( the +;1= constitution and now

Section 9,G and ;; o( article ++ o( theDC*$#$TI>7 >3 4#I7CI4*S $7D ST$T4>*ICIS >3 T +;G1 C>7STITTI>7 asa'ended, and as i'ple'ented by $rticles +G9,+GG, +G


18/98

To e'phasiEe, the +;1= Constitution declaresthat&

Sec. =. The pro'otion o( social justice to insurethe well/ being and econo'ic security o( all the

people should be the concern o( the State $rt. IIJ. Sec. 9. The State shall a2ord protection to labor,

especially to wor0ing wo'en, and 'inors, andshall regulate the relations between landownerand tenant, and between labor and capital inindustry and in agriculture. The State 'ayprovide (or co'pulsory arbitration $rt. FIJ.


19/98

The (oregoing constitutional guarantees in (avor o(labor institutionaliEed in Section ; o( $rticle ++ o(the +;G1 Constitution and re/stated as adeclaration o( basic policy in $rticle 1 o( the 7ew

*abor Code, thus& $rt. 1. Declaration o( basic policy.LThe State shall

a2ord protection to labor, pro'ote (ulle'ploy'ent, ensure eHual wor0 opportunitiesregardless o( se, race or creed, and regulate the

relations between wor0ers and e'ployers. TheState shall assure the rights o( wor0ers to sel(/organiEation, collective bargaining, security o(tenure, and just and hu'ane conditions o( wor0.e'phasis suppliedJ.


20/98

These constitutional principles cannot be i'pliedly repealed by therestrictive provisions o( $rticle +G1 o( th new *abor Code section =o( wor0'en5s Co'pensation $ct too0 e2ect june +8, +;


21/98

There is no ordinary statute can overrideconstitutional provision.It is there(ore patent thatgiving e2ct to social justic guarantees o( theConstitution, as i'ple'ented by the provisions o(

the 7ew Civil Code, is not an eercise o( thepower o( law 'a0ing but is rendering obedienceto the 'andates o( (unda'ental law.


22/98

Dissenting >pinions

!elencio/errera

Co'pensation and da'ages are synony'ous

The %C$ re'edy is eclusive

The %C$ proceedings are a nished transaction

ven assu'ing that the re'edies are selective, theheirs 'ade

their choice and have accepted th benets thereo(. I(they want to 'a0e a second eleection on the argu'entthat the rst one is 'isin(or'ed choic, they should

return the a'ounts they receive (ro' %C$. %hen the court givs e2ect not in accordance with the

intent o( the law'a0er, the court is unjustiablylegislating


23/98

Dissenting >pinions

6utierreE jr.

It should be the legislature not the court, whichshould re'ove the eclusionary provision o( the%C$

The %C$ is a co'pro'ise. The schedule o( co'pensation, the rates o(

pay'ent, the co'pensable injuries and diseases,the pre'iu's paid by e'ployers to the presentsyste', the actual stability o( the trust and 'anyother inter related parts have all been care(ullystudied be(ore the integrated sche'e wasenacted into law.


24/98

C>#T >3 $44$*S $7D!>*I7$

"4SAC>*>6IC$*

I7C$4$CITA"


25/98

#4B*IC >3 T4I*I44I7S,

vs.C>#T >3 $44$*S and

#>#ID* >*$I$7>!>*I7$, respondents.


26/98

Su''ary

The case at bar challlenges the decision 'ade bythe Court o( $ppeals granting the 'arriagebetween #eynaldo and #oridel !olina, oid on theground o( psychological incapacity under article19 o( the 3a'ily Code. The Supre'e courtreversed the decision and held that 'ereirreconcilable di2erences and conMict in thepersonality between the parties are not ground (orpsychological incapacity. %ith such diNculties by

di2erent court and lawyers in assertingpsychological incapacity, the Supre'e Court laiddown guidelines.


27/98

3acts&

#oridel and #eynaldo !olina were 'arris on $pril +:, +;n #eynaldo5s reply, he stated ad'itted thatthey could not livee together. owever,, he stated that their'isunderstandings and (reHuent Huarrels were due to


28/98

3acts&

#oridel strange behavior on insisting to 'aintainher group o( (riends even a(ter they were 'arried. #oridel5s re(usal to per(or' 'arital duties suchas coo0ing 'eals. 1. #oridel5s (ailure to run the

household and handle their nances.

The #TC rendered the judge'ent declaring their'arriage null and void. The >Nce o( solicitor6eneral, the petitioner led an appeal in the C$but denied hence raising it to Supre'e court


29/98

Issue&

%hether or not the 'ariage between #eynaldoand #oridel !olina, void on the grounds o(psychological incapacity.


30/98

eld&

The Supre'e Court reverses the decision 'ade by#TC and C$ 'a0ing the 'arriage between#eynaldo and #oridel subsists and re'ain valid.Irreconcilable di2erences and conMicting

personality do not constitute psychologicalincapacity. In *eouel vs C$, it stated thatpsychological incapacity conned too the 'ostserious cases o( personality disorders,de'onstrating insensitivity or inability to give

'eaning and signicance to the 'arriage. Thispsychologic condition 'ust eist at the ti'e the'arriage is celebrated nd characteriEed bygravity, juridical antecedence and incurability


31/98

eld&

In this case, it is clearly showed that thepsychological de(ect is not an incapacity butrather clinging towards diNculty, re(usal and orneglect.

The epert testi'ony 'ade by their epertwitness Dr Sison Showed no incurable psychiatricdisorder but a 'ere inco'patibility.

3acing with so 'any diNculties by trial courts inthe application o( $rticle 19 o( the (a'ily code,

The Supre'e Court laid down specic guidelinesin the interpretation and application o( the article


32/98

eld&

+. The burden o( proo( to show the nullity o( the 'arriagebelongs to the plainti2. $ny doubt should be resolved in (avor o(the eistence and continuation o( the 'arriage and against itsdissolution and nullity.

. The root cause o( the psychological incapacity 'ust be aJ'edically or clinically identied, bJ alleged in the co'plaint, cJsuNcientlyproven by eperts and dJ clearly eplained in thedecision.

$rticle 19 o( the 3a'ily Code reHuires that the incapacity 'ust

be psychological L not physical. although its 'ani(estationsandOor sy'pto's 'ay be physical. The evidence 'ust convincethe court that the parties, or one o( the', was 'entally orphysically ill to such an etent that the person could not have0nown the obligations he was assu'ing, or 0nowing the', couldnot have given valid assu'ption thereo(.


33/98

eld&

1. The incapacity 'ust be proven to be eisting at"the ti'e o( the celebration" o( the 'arriage.

:.Such incapacity 'ust also be shown to be

'edically or clinically per'anent or incurable. Suchincurability 'ay be absolute or even relative only inregard to the other spouse, not necessarilyabsolutely against everyone o( the sa'e se.

=. Such illness 'ust be grave enough to bringabout the disability o( the party to assu'e theessential obligations o( 'arriage.


34/98

eld&

9. The essential 'arital obligations 'ust be thosee'braced by $rticles 9< up to G+ o( the 3a'ilyCode as regards the husband and wi(e as well as$rticles 8, + and = o( the sa'e Code in

regard to parents and their children

G. Interpretations given by the 7ational $ppellate!atri'onial Tribunal o( the Catholic Church in the4hilippines, while not controlling or decisive, should

be given great respect by our courts.


35/98

eld


36/98

C. *egislative Intent, howascertained P ow 'ust *egislative Intent be ascertained

*egislative intent 'ust be ascertained (ro' the statute asa whole.

The object o( all interpretation and construction o(

statutes is to ascertain the 'eaning and intention o( the

legislature, to the end that the sa'e 'ay be en(orced. This legislative intent is pri'arily deter'ined (ro' the

language o( the statute.

OPTIMA STATULI INTERPRETATIX EST IPSUM

STATUTUM- The best interpreter o( the statute is thestatute itsel(.

%hat is o( prevailing i'portance is to discover thelegislative intent why the law is enacted.


37/98

The courtKs honest belie( that the legislature intended toenact a law di2erent to what it actually enacted is o( no'o'ent. 7either can the courts deter'ine whether thestatute is wise (or that is not its duty. Its duty is to nd out

the legislative intent, and this can be done by construingthe statute as a whole, by considering one part o( thestatute in relation to other parts, and by har'oniEing all theprovisions o( the statute whenever possible.

It is to be presu'ed that the purpose o( the legislature is to'a0e every part o( the statute e2ective.

UT RES MAGIS QUAM PEREAT- It is not enough that astatute should be given e2ect as a whole but that e2ectshould be given to each o( the provisions in the statute.

This rule applies to a'end'ents because it is presu'edthat the legislature, in 'a0ing changes in the law, nds thatthere is a necessity (or said a'end'ents. This is alegislative (unction which is beyond the do'ain o( thecourts.

i C (G 39 9!


38/98

Aisporna vs. CA (GR L-3949!Apri" #$ 9%#3 SCRA 4&9

'a)s*

>n G !arch and on + )une +;9;, a 4ersonal $ccident 4olicy was issued by 4erla Co'pania de Seguros,through its authoriEed agent #odol(o $isporna, (or a period o( + 'onths with the beneciary designatedas $na !. Isidro. The insured died by violence during li(eti'e o( policy. !apalad $isporna participatedactively with the a(ore'entioned policy. 3or reason uneplained, an in(or'ation was led against!apalad $isporna, #odol(oKs wi(e, with the City Court o( Cabanatuan (or violation o( Section +ctober +;G:. >n 8 Dece'ber +;G:, the >Nce o( the Solicitor 6eneral, representing theCourt o( $ppeals, sub'itted that $isporna 'ay not be considered as having violated Section +


39/98

ACT No. #4#/$7 $CT #ISI76 T I7S#$7C *$%S

$7D #6*$TI76 I7S#$7C BSI7SS I7 T 4I*I44I7IS*$7DS

A0,n)s

SECTION %9. 7o insurance co'pany doing business within the 4hilippine Islands, nor any agent

thereo(, shall pay any co''ission or other co'pensation to any person (or servicesin obtaining new insurance unless such person shall have rst procured (ro' theInsurance Co''issioner a certicate o( authority to act as an agent o( such co'panyhereina(ter provided.

7o person shall act as agent, subagent, or bro0er, in the solicitation or procure'ent

o( applications (or insurance, or receive (or services in obtaining new insurance anyco''ission or other co'pensation (ro' any insurance co'pany doing business inthe 4hilippine Islands, or agent thereo(, without rst procuring a certicate o(authority so to act (ro' the Insurance Co''issioner, which 'ust be renewedannually on the rst day o( )anuary, or within si 'onths therea(ter. Such certicateshall be issued by the Insurance Co''issioner only upon the written application o(persons desiring such authority such application being approved and countersignedby the co'pany such person desires to represent, and shall be upon a (or' approved

by the Insurance Co''issioner, giving such in(or'ation as he 'any reHuire. TheInsurance Co''issioner shall have the right to re(use to issue or renew and to revo0eany such certicate in his discretion. 7o such certicate shall be valid, however, inany event a(ter the rst day o( )uly o( the year (ollowing the issuing o( suchcerticate. #enewal certicates 'ay be issued upon the application o( the co'pany.

$ny person or co'pany violating the provisions o( this section shall be ned in thesu' o( ve hundred pesos. >n the conviction o( any person acting as agent,

subagent, or bro0er, o( the co''ission o( any o2ense connected with the business o(insurance, the Insurance Co''issioner shall i''ediately revo0e the certicate o(

C1ina 2anin0 Corpora)ion an Tan i5 Lion0 vs. on. 6,n,s"ao


40/98

Or),0a an 7i,n), Aa8an G.R. No. L-3494 :an. 3$ 9/3

A petition for certiorari to review the orders dated Mar. 4 and Mar. 27, 1972of the court of the rst instance of Manila in civil case no. 75138.

'ACTS

P >n Dec. +G, +;9


41/98

ISSUE

P %hether a ban0ing institution 'ay validly re(use to co'ply with acourt process garnishing the ban0 deposit o( a judg'ent debtor by

invo0ing the provisions o( #$ +:8=.

RULING;EL7 :. $ll $cts or parts o( $cts, Special Charters, ecutive >rders, #ulesand #egulations which are inconsistent with the provisions o( this $ct arehereby repealed.

SCTI>7 =. $ny violation o( this law will subject o2ender upon conviction, to

an i'prison'ent o( not 'ore than ve years or a ne o( not 'ore than twentythousand pesos or both, in the discretion o( the court.

2oar o? A5inis)ra)ors$ P1i"ippin, 7,),rans A5inis)ra)ion vs. on. :os, G.


43/98

oa o s a o s$ pp , , , a s s a o s o :os, G2a+)is)a an Ca"i)o 7. Gasi"ao G.R. No. L-3/%/ ',8. ##$ 9%#

resent case is a petition to review on certiorari the 27 !ct. 1973 civil case no. 9"45".

'ACTS

P !r. 6asilao is a veteran in good standing during %orld %ar II. Due to his service, he was

rendered disabled. The 4hilippine eterans $d'inistration 4$J, (or'erly the 4hilippineeterans Board, now 4hilippine eterans $2airs >Nce 4$>J, is an agency o( thegovern'ent charged with the ad'inistration o( di2erent laws giving various benets in(avor o( veterans and their orphans or widows and parents. It is 4$Ks job to i'ple'ent therules and regulations governing veteransK a2airs.

P >n )uly 1, +;==, !r. 6asilao led a clai' (or disability pension under sec. ; o( #$ 9=.$lleging he was su2ering (ro' 4TB which he incurred in the line o( duty. Due to (ailure toco'plete his supporting papers to bac0 his clai', petition was denied on Dec. +n $ug. n )an. +=, +;G, 'ore (unds were released to i'ple'ent(ully #$ =G=1 and pay in (ull the benets o( eteransK.

P The court ruled in (avor o( !r. 6asilao and that 4$ is ordered to 'a0e the pension o(petitioner e2ective in Dec. +


44/98

Issue&

+. The lower Court erred in ordering the petitioners to retroact thee2ectivity o( their award to respondent Calito . 6asilao o( (ull

benets under section ; o( #$ 9= to Dece'ber +


45/98

. #epublic $ct 9= is a veteran pension law which 'ust be accorded a liberal construction andinterpretation in order to (avor those entitled to the rights, privileges and benets grantedthereunder, a'ong which are the right to resu'e old positions in the govern'ent, educationalbenets, the privilege to ta0e pro'otional ea'inations, a li(e pension (or the incapacitated,pensions (or widow and children, hospitaliEation and 'edical care benets.

The purpose o( the law in granting veteran pensions is to co'pensate, as (ar as 'ay be, a classo( 'en who su2ered in the service (or the hardships they endured and the dangers they

encountered, and 'ore particularly, those who have beco'e incapacitated (or wor0 owing tosic0ness, disease or injuries sustained while in line o( duty. $ veteran pension law is, there(ore, agovern'ental epression o( gratitude to and recognition o( those who rendered service (or thecountry, especially during ti'es o( war or revolution, by etending to the' regular 'onetary aid.3or this reason, it is the general rule that a liberal construction is given to pension statutes in(avor o( those entitled to pension. Courts tend to (avor the pensioner, but such constructionalpre(erence is to be considered with other guides to interpretation, and a construction o( pensionlaws 'ust depend on its own particular language.

1. The third ground relied upon in support o( this 4etition involves the issue as to whether or not

the pay'ent o( increased pension provided in the a'endatory $ct, #.$. =G=1, could be ordered,even where there was no actual release o( (unds (or the purpose, although the law itsel(epressly provided (or an appropriation.

%e re(rain (ro' ordering the petitioner to pay the a'ount o( 4+8.88 per 'onth (ro' )anuary +,+;G that is due to the respondent by virtue o( the 'andate o( section ; o( #epublic $ct 9=, asa'ended by #epublic $ct =G=1, because the 6overn'ent has thus (ar not provided thenecessary (unds to pay all valid clai's duly approved under the authority o( said statute.

PThus the court ordered 4$ to 'a0e !r. 6asilaoKs pension e2ective Dec. +


46/98

D. 4ower to construe

Construction is ajudicial (unction.

It is the court that has the nal word as to what thelaw 'eans.

It construes laws, as to decide what the cases basedon the (act and the law involved.


47/98

4ower to Construe

*egislature cannot overrulethe judicial construction. It cannot preclude the courts (ro' the statutes (ro'

di2erent interpretations. *egislative - they enact laws.

ecutive - to eecute laws.

)udicial - interpretation and application.

I( the legislature 'ay declare what the law 'eans - it will

cause con(usion. It will be violative o( the (unda'entalprinciples o( what the constitution o( separation o( powers.

*egislative construction is called the resolution o(declaratory act.


48/98

4ower to Construe

%hen )udicialinterpretation 'ay be

set aside. Interpretations 'ay be set aside, the interpretation

o( statute or a constitutional provision by the courtsis not so sacrosanct as to be beyond 'odication

and nullication. The supre'e court itsel( 'ay, in appropriate case

'ay change and overrule itKs previous construction.


49/98

4ower to Construe

%hen courts 'ayconstrue statute. The court 'ay construe statute where there is

QDoubt and $'biguityR.

$'biguity - a condition where the word that has or'ore 'eanings

>nly when the law is a'biguous or doubt(ul.


50/98

4ower to Construe

Courts 'ay not construewhere the statute is clear. $ statute that is clear and una'biguous is not

susceptible o( interpretations.

3irst and (unda'ental duty o( court - $pply the law

Construction - very *ast (unction which the courtshould eercise.

Courts cannot enlarge or li'it the law i( it is clearand (ree (ro' a'biguity.

$ 'eaning that does not appear not is intended orreMected in the very language o( the statute cannotbe placed therein by construction.


51/98

4ower to Construe

#ulings o( the supre'ecourt part o( the legal

syste'. $rt.


52/98

4ower to construe

#ulings o( the Supre'e Courtpart o( the legal syste'. Stare decisis et non Huieta novere / when the Supre'e

court once laid down a principle o( law as applicable toa certain state o( (acts, it will adhere to that theprinciple and apply it to all (uture cases, where the (actsare substantially the sa'e.

3or the stability and certainty.

Supre'e court beco'es, to the etent applicable, the

criteria that 'ust control the actuations not only o(those called upon to abide thereby but also those duty/

bound to en(orce obedience

Supre'e court rulings are binding on in(erior courts.


53/98

4ower to Construe

)udicial rulings have notretroactive e2ect.

*e prospicit not repicit / the law loo0s (orward, notbac0ward.

#ationale retroactive application o( the law usuallydivest rights that have already beco'e vested ori'pairs the obligations o( contract and hence itKs

unconstitutional.


54/98

4ower to Construe

>nly Supre'e court en banccan 'odi(y or abandon theprinciple o( law, not anydivision o( the court. no division o( the court has the power to 'odi(y or

reverse a doctrine or principle o( law enunciated byeither another division o( the court o( the court en

banc, ecept the court itsel(.


55/98

4ower to construe

Courts 'ay issue guidelines inconstruing statute. In Construing a statute, the en(orce'ent o( which

'ay tread on sensitive areas o( constitutional rights,the court 'ay issue guidelines in applying thestatute, not to enlarge or restrict it but clearlydelineate what the law is.


56/98

. *i'itations on power to construe

Courts 'ay not enlarge norrestrict statutes. Courts are not authoriEed to insert into the law what they

thin0 should be in it or to supply what they the legislaturewould have supplied i( its intention had been called to theo''ision.

They should not by construction, revise even the 'ostarbitrary or un(air action o( the legislature, nor rewrite thelaw to con(or' to what they thin0 should be in the law.

7either should the courts construe statutes which areper(ectly vague (or itKs violation.

3ailure to accord persons (air notice o( the conduct to avoid.

*eave law en(orces unbridled discretion in carrying out itKsprovisions.


57/98

*i'itation on power to construe

Courts 'ay not enlarge norrestricts statutes. Two leading starts on judicial construction.

6ood (aith Co''onsense

$n utterly vague act on itKs (ace cannot be clariedby either a saving clause or by connection.


58/98

*i'itations on power to construe

Courts not to be inMuenceby Huestion o( wisdo'. Courts do not sit to resolve the 'erit o( conMicting

theories. Courts do not pass upon Huestion o( wisdo', justice

or epediency o( legislation, (or itKs not within theirprovince to supervise legislation and 0eep within thebounds o( co''onsense.

The court 'erely interpret regardless o( whether ornot the wise or salutary.

Aids in determining the intention of the legislature:


59/98

g g

1. Intrinsic Aids elements found in the law itself. Title expresses the subject matter of the law

Preamble state the reasons or the objectives of the enactment

ords! Phrases and "entences! #ontext intention of the legislature

must primaril$ be determined from the language of the statue

Punctuation

%eadings and &arginal 'otes

(egislative definition and interpretation

). *xtrinsic Aids +acts or matters not found in the law #ontemporaneous #ircumstances the conditions existing at the

time the law was enacted! the reason wh$ the law was enacted

Polic$

(egislative %istor$ of the "tatute

#ontemporaneous or practical construction *xecutive construction

(egislative construction

,udicial #onstruction

#onstruction b$ the bar and legal commentators

- Presumptions ased on logic or established


60/98

-. Presumptions ased on logic or established

provision of law /alidit$

#onstitutionalit$

0ood +aith

$gainst Injustice

$gainst Inconsistency

$gainst $bsurdity

$gainst In e2ectiveness $gainst Irrepealable *aws

$gainst I'plied #epeals

$gainst iolation o( 4ublic 4olicy

nowledge o( isting *aw

$cHuiescence to )udicial Construction

)urisdiction

$cting %ithin the Scope o( $uthority

$gainst iolation o( International *aw


61/98

Sa'ple cases&

oman #atholic Archbishop of &anila vs. "ocial "ecurit$ #ommission

20 (314564! )5 ,anuar$ 17819

+acts:

The #o'an Catholic $rchbishop o( !anila led with the Social SecurityCo''ission a reHuest that the all religious and charitable institutions andorganiEation operated by the #o'an Catholic $rchbishop o( !anila be ee'pted(ro' the co'pulsory coverage o( the Social Security *aw o( +;=:. The reHuestwas based on the clai' that the said $ct is a labor law and does not coverreligious and charitable institutions but is li'ited to businesses and activitiesorganiEed (or prot. The reHuest was denied by the Social Security Co''ission.

Issue:

%hether the charitable institution and organiEation operated by the #o'anCatholic $rchbishop o( !anila be ee'pted (ro' the 'onthly contributions tothe Syste'.

ecision:

The decision of the "ocial "ecurit$ #ommission are hereb$ affirmed.

Section ; o( the Social Security *aw, as a'ended, provides that


62/98

Section ; o( the Social Security *aw, as a'ended, provides thatcoverage "in the Syste' shall be co'pulsory upon all 'e'bersbetween the age o( siteen and sity rears inclusive, i( they have been(or at least si 'onths a the service o( an e'ployer who is a 'e'bero( the Syste', 4rovided, that the Co''ission 'ay not co'pel any

e'ployer to beco'e 'e'ber o( the Syste' unless he shall have beenin operation (or at least two years and has at the ti'e o( ad'ission, i(ad'itted (or 'e'bership during the rst year o( the Syste'5soperation at least (ty e'ployees, and i( ad'itted (or 'e'bership the(ollowing year o( operation and therea(ter, at least si e'ployees ."

The ter' Qe'ployerR as used in the law is dened as any person,natural or juridical, do'estic or (oreign, who carries in the 4hilippinesany trade, business, industry, underta0ing, or activity o( any 0ind anduses the services o( another person who is under his orders as regardsthe e'ploy'ent, ecept the 6overn'ent and any o( its politicalsubdivisions, branches or instru'entalities, including corporationsowned or controlled by the 6overn'ent" par. VcW, see.


63/98

'ploy'ent , according to paragraph ViW o( saidsection


64/98

+acts:

4etitioner $le *. David, who is elected as a barangay chair'an on thesecond !onday o( !ay +;;: , led a petition to prohibit the holding o( thebarangay election scheduled on the second !onday o( !ay +;;G.

4etitionerscontend that under Sec. o( #epublic $ct 7o. 99=1, approvedon !ay 9, +;


65/98

intention is to grant barangay oNcials any ter',ecept three years@ otherwise, "there would be norhy'e or reason (or the (ra'ers o( the Constitution

to ecept barangay oNcials (ro' the three year ter'(ound in Sec. < o(J $rticle F o( the Constitution.Q

Issue&

+. %hich law governs the ter' o( oNce o(

barangay oNcial& #$ G+98 or #$ 99G;? . Is #$ G+98 inso(ar as it shortened such ter' to

only three years constitutional?

1. $re petitioners estopped (ro' clai'ing a ter'other than that provided under #$ G+98?.

Decision&

The petitions are devoid o( 'erit.

3irst Issue&


66/98

#$ G+98, the *ocal 6overn'ent Code, was enacted later than #$99G;. It is basic that in case o( an irreconciliable conMict between twolaws o( di2erent vintages, the later enact'ent prevails. The rationale issi'ple& a later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later legislativewill. It is to be presu'ed that the law'a0ers 0new the older law andintended to change it. In enacting the older law, the legislators could nothave 0nown the newer one and hence could not have intended to changewhat they did not 0now. nder the Civil Code, laws are repealed only bysubseHuent ones L and not the other way around.

Second Issue&

Sec.


67/98

2ARANGA> //CERTI'IE< LIST O' CAN


68/98


69/98

$. *iteral Construction

6eneral #ule

The intent o( the legislature is (ound in thelanguage o( the statute.

4resu'ption

The words e'ployed by the legislature in a

statute correctly epress its intention or will andpreclude the court (ro' construing it di2erently.


70/98


erba *egis 4lain !eaning #uleJ

%here the statute is clear, plain and (ree (ro'a'biguity, it 'ust be given its literal 'eaning and

applied without interpretation.

%here the law spea0s in clear and categoricallanguage, there is no roo' (or interpretation.

There is only roo' (or application.

*aw cannot be changed under the guise o(interpretation.


71/98


#easons

$ statute, being the will o( the legislature, shouldbe applied in eactly the way the legislature has

epressed itsel( clearly in the law.

The duty o( the court is li'ited to inHuiring intothe legislative intent and, once this is deter'ined,to 'a0ing said intent e2ective.

S$*$TI##$ v T


72/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B* C>#T >3

$44$*S'a)s

nriHue Salvatierra died intestate and without

any issue. e was survived by his legiti'atebrothers To'as, Bartolo'e, enancio and!acario, and sister !arcela, all surna'edSalvatierra. is estate consisted o( three 1Jparcels o( land - *ot 7u'bers = containing anarea o( +,++9 sH. '. 'ore or lessJ, 9containing an area o( G:; sH. '. 'ore or lessJand G containing an area o( 9G8 sH. '. 'oreor lessJ.

S$*$TI##$ v T


73/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B* C>#T >3

$44$*S >n !ay :, +;99, !acario Salvatierra

sold *ot 7o. 9 to his son, $nsel'o

Salvatierra by 'eans o( a deed o( sale.!eanwhile, !arcela, prior to her deathsold her +O= undivided share to herbrother, enancio.

S$*$TI##$ v T


74/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B* C>#T >3

$44$*S >n Septe'ber :, +;9 S$*$TI##$ - %hole o( *ot 7o. G and1:: sH. '. o( *ot7o. 9

!acario Salvatierra now $7S*!> S$*$TI##$ -

S$*$TI##$ v T


75/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B*

C>#T >3 $44$*S Therea(ter, enancio sold the whole o( *ot 7o. G and a

+:; sH. '. portion o( *ot 9 to respondent spouses *ino*ongalong and 4aciencia !ariano *ongalong. The

*ongalongs too0 possession o( the said lots. It wasdiscovered in +;


76/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B*

C>#T >3 $44$*SIss+,

%hether *ino *ongalong and 4aciencia !ariano

*ongalong are entitled to the reconveyance o( +:;sH. '. o( *ot 7o. 9.>,s

S$*$TI##$ v T


77/98

S$*$TI##$ v. T>7>#$B*

C>#T >3 $44$*SR+"in0

The Supre'e Court (ound no a'biguity in the ter's and stipulations o( theetrajudicial partition. The ter's o( the agree'ent are clear and

uneHuivocal, hence the literal and plain 'eaning thereo( should beobserved. The applicable provision o( law in the case at bar is $rticle +1G8o( the 7ew Civil Code which states&

$rt. +1G8. I( the ter's o( a contract are clear and leave no doubt uponthe intention o( the contracting parties, the literal 'eaning o( itsstipulation shall control.

Contracts which are the private laws o( the contracting parties, should be(ullled according to the literal sense o( their stipulations, i( their ter's areclear and leave no roo' (or doubt as to the intention o( the contractingparties, (or contracts are obligatory, no 'atter what their (or's 'aybe,whenever the essential reHuisites (or their validity are present.

$4IS$7$7 76 !6$ !$766$6$%$ S$ !$7I*$#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A C#DIT 7I>7 I7C v !$7I*$


78/98

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A C#DIT 7I>7, I7C. v. !$7I*$

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A

'a)s In this 'anda'us petition dis'issed by the lower court,

petitioner/appellant would see0 a reversal o( such decisionrelying on what it considered to be a right granted by Section9 o( the #epublic $ct #$J 7o. 81, 'ore specically therst two paragraphs thereo(& "... +J $ 'e'ber o( acooperative 'ay, notwithstanding the provisions o( eistinglaws, eecute an agree'ent in (avor o( the co/operativeauthoriEing his e'ployer to deduct (ro' the salary or wagespayable to hi' by the e'ployer such a'ount as 'ay bespecied in the agree'ent and to pay the a'ount so

deducted to the co/operative in satis(action o( any debt orother de'and owing (ro' the 'e'ber to the co/operative.J pon the ee'ption o( such agree'ent the e'ployershall i( so reHuired by the co/operative by a reHuest in writingand so long as such debt or other de'and or any part o( itre'ains unpaid, 'a0e the clai'ant and re'it (orth with the

a'ount so deducted to the co/operative.R



79/98

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A C#DIT 7I>7, I7C. v. !$7I*$

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A

Iss+,

%hether #epublic $ct #$J 7o. 81, indeed, givesrst priority in the 'atter o( pay'ent to the

obligations o( e'ployees in (avor o( their creditunions. No



80/98

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A C#DIT 7I>7, I7C. v. !$7I*$

#$I*#>$D C>!4$7A

R+"in0 $s can be clearly seen, there is nothing in the provision o( #$ 81 which

provides that obligation o( laborers and e'ployees payable to credit unionsshall enjoy rst priority in the deduction (ro' the e'ployees5 wages andsalaries. The only e2ect o( #$ 7o. 81 is to co'pel the e'ployer to deduct(ro' the salaries or wages payable to 'e'bers o( the e'ployees5 cooperativecredit unions the e'ployees5 debts to the union and to pay the sa'e to the

credit union. In other words, i( #$ 7o. 81 had been enacted, the e'ployercould not be co'pelled to act as the collecting agent o( the e'ployees5 creditunion (or the e'ployees5 debt to his credit union but to contend that the debto( a 'e'ber o( the e'ployees cooperative credit union as having rst priorityin the 'atter o( deduction, is to write so'ething into the law which does notappear. In other words, the 'andatory character o( #$ 81 is only to co'pelthe e'ployer to 'a0e the deduction o( the e'ployees5 debt (ro' the latter5ssalary and turn this over to the e'ployees5 credit union but this 'andatory

character does not convert the credit union5s credit into a rst priority credit. I(the legislative intent in enacting pars. + and o( Sec. 9 o( #$ 7o. 81 wereto give rst priority in the 'atter o( pay'ents to the obligations o( e'ployeesin (avor o( their credit unions, then, the law would have so epressly declared.Thus, the epress provisions o( the 7ew Civil Code, $rticles :+, : and:: show the legislative intent on pre(erence o( credits.

a D4$#T# 3#>! *IT#$*


81/98

a. D4$#T# 3#>! *IT#$*I7T#4#T$TI>7

$B**$7$ vs. !$#$ 6.#. 7o. */GG98, ; !ay +;G:

3$CTS&

The petitioner, 3rancisco $bellana was prosecuted (or the cri'e o(physical injuries through rec0less i'prudence. The cri'inal case wasled at the City Court o( >Ea'is City, which (ound the accused guilty

as charged, da'ages in (avor o( the o2ended parties. 3rancisco$bellana appealed such decision to the C3I.

The private respondents as the o2ended parties led a separate andindependent civil action (or da'ages at the C3I o( !isa'is>ccidental. The petitioner, then, sought (or the dis'issal o( suchaction principally on the ground that there was no reservation (or

the ling thereo( in the City Court o( >Ea'is City. It was argued bythe petitioner that ling o( a separate and independent civil action isnot allowable at the stage where the cri'inal case is already onappeal Sec +, #ule +++, #ules o( CourtJ.

The respondent judge, onorable 6eroni'o !arave denied thepetition.

$B**$7$ vs. !$#$ 6.#. 7o. */


82/98

GG98, ; !ay +;G:

ISS& %hether the o2ended parties 'ay le a separate and

independent civil action (or da'ages while the cri'inalcase is already on appeal.

#*I76&

The petitioner5s literal reading o( Section +, #ule +++& ?That a separate civil action can be legally led andallowed by the Court only at the institution, or the rightto le such separate civil action reserved or waived, atsuch institution o( the cri'inal action, and never appeal

to the net higher court,? had (ailed the' to ta0e intoaccount the rule as to a trial de novo (ound in SectionG, #ule +1& ?$n appealed case shall be tried in allrespects anew in the C3I as i( it had been originallyinstituted in that Court.?

4$#$S vs C>!*C


83/98

4$#$S vs. C>!*C6.#. 7o. +1+9;, : 7ove'ber +;;9

3$CTS&

The petitioner, Danilo 4aras was the incu'bent 4unongBarangay o( 4ula, Cabanatuan City who won the last regularlocal election in +;;:. $ petition (or his recall was led by the

registered voters o( the barangay. The recall election was seton +;;9 but was opposed by the petitioner invo0ing SectionG:bJ o( #.$. 7o. G+98& ?7o recall shall ta0e place within oneyear (ro' the date o( the oNcial5s assu'ption to oNce or oneyear i''ediately preceding a regular election.? 4etitionerinsists that the scheduled recall election was barred as the

S election was set on the rst !onday o( !ay +;;9.

ISS&

%hether the S election 'ay be considered as a regularelection.

4$#$S vs. C>!*C6 # 7 +1+9; : 7 b


84/98

6.#. 7o. +1+9;, : 7ove'ber+;;9 #*I76&

The evident intent o( Section G: is to subject anelective oNcial to recall election once during his

ter' o( oNce. Thus, subscribing to petitioner5sinterpretation o( the phrase regular local electionto include S election will unduly circu'scribe theprovision o( the *ocal 6overn'ent Code on recall(or there will never be as such.

B ecutive Construction


85/98

Types o( ecutive Interpretation

+. Construction by an eecutive orad'inistrative

oNcer directly called to interpret the

law

!ay be epressed - interpretation e'bodied in a

circular, directive, or regulation

!ay be i'plied - practice or 'ode o(

en(orce'ent o( not applying the statute to certain

situations or o( applying it in a particular 'anner

B. ecutive Construction



86/98

. Construction by the Secretary o()ustice in his capacity as the chie(legal adviser o( the govern'ent

1. Interpretation handed down inan adversary proceeding in the

(or' o( a ruling by aneecutiveoNcer eercising Huasi/judicialpower.




87/98

Basic rule on ecutive Construction

#ules and regulations issued by eecutiveor ad'inistrative oNcers pursuant to, andas authoriEed by, law have the (orce and

e2ect o( lawsThus, interpretation by those charged with

their en(orce'ent is entitled to greatweight by the Court in the latterKs rules

and regulations $n ad'inistrative agency has the power to

interpret its own rules and suchinterpretation beco'es part o( the rules


vs. ureau o a or


88/98

#elationsThe court still and should respectthe conte'poraneousconstruction placed upon a

statute by the eecutive oNcerswhose duty is to en(orce it, andunless such interpretation is

clearly erroneous will ordinarily becontrolled thereby.

%hen ecutive Construction is


89/98

%hen ecutive Construction isnot given weight

%here there is no a'biguity in the law

%here the construction is clearly

erroneous %here strong reason to the contrary

eists

%here the court has previously giventhe statute a di2erent interpretation

4hil. $pparel %or0ersK nion vs


90/98

ppa e o e s o s7*#C

There was no grant o( said increases yet,despite thecontrary opinion epressed in theletter o( the ndersecretary o( *abor. It 'ustbe noted that the letter was based on a

wrong pre'ise or representation on the parto( the co'pany. The construction oreplanation o( *abor ndersecretary is notonly wrong as it was purely based on a'isapprehension o( (acts, but also unlaw(ulbecause it goes beyond the scope o( the law.

The Supre'e Court set aside the decision o(the co''ission, and ordered the co'pany topay, in addition to the increased allowance

provided (or in 4D ++1.

I2AA E5p"o,,s Union v. Inion06# *=:+=, 1 >ctober +;


91/98

6# *=:+=, 1 >ctober +;Nce I in

!anila. Conciliation having (ailed, and upon the reHuest o( bothparties, the case was certied (or arbitration on G )uly +;G=. >n =$ugust +;G=, *abor $rbiter #icarte T. Soriano rendered a decision inthe above/entitled case, granting petitionerKs co'plaint (or pay'ento( holiday pay. #espondent ban0 did not appeal (ro' the saiddecision. Instead, it co'plied with the order o( the *abor $rbiter by

paying their holiday pay up to and including )anuary +;G9. >n +9 Dece'ber +;G=, 4residential Decree


92/98

3acts&

>n 18 $ugust +;G9, the nion led a 'otion (or a writ o( eecution toen(orce the arbiterKs decision o( = $ugust +;G=, which the ban0opposed. >n +< >ctober +;G9, the *abor $rbiter, instead o( issuing awrit o( eecution, issued an order enjoining the ban0 to continue payingits e'ployees their regular holiday pay. >n +G 7ove'ber +;G9, the ban0appealed (ro' the order o( the *abor $rbiter to the 7*#C. >n 8 )une+;Gn + 3ebruary +;G;, the ban0 led with the >Nce o( the!inister o( *abor a 'otion (or reconsiderationOappeal with urgent prayerto stay eecution. >n +1 $ugust +;G;,s the 7*#C issued an orderdirecting the Chie( o( #esearch and In(or'ation o( the Co''ission toco'pute the holiday pay o( the IB$$ e'ployees (ro' $pril +;G9 to thepresent in accordance with the *abor $rbiter dated = $ugust +;G=. >n

+8 7ove'ber +;G;, the >Nce o( the !inister o( *abor, through Deputy!inister $'ado 6. Inciong, issued an order setting aside the resolutionen banc o( the 7*#C dated 8 )une +;G


93/98

Issue&

%hether the !inistry o( *abor is correct in deter'ining that 'onthly paid e'ployees areecluded (ro' the benets o( holiday pay.

,"*3ro' $rticle ; o( the *abor Code, as a'ended by 4residential Decree


94/98

6# */::G+G, < $ugust +;n 8 !ay +;G=, the Chartered Ban0 'ployees $ssociation, in representation o( its

'onthly paid e'ployeesO'e'bers, instituted a co'plaint with the #egional >Nce I,Depart'ent o( *abor, now !inistry o( *abor and 'ploy'ent !>*J against CharteredBan0, (or the pay'ent o( +8 unwor0ed legal holidays, as well as (or pre'iu' andoverti'e di2erentials (or wor0ed legal holidays (ro' + 7ove'ber +;G:.

Both the arbitrator and the 7ational *abor #elations Co''ission 7*#CJ ruled in (avoro( the petitioners ordering the ban0 to pay its 'onthly paid e'ployees the holiday pay

and the pre'iu' or overti'e pay di2erentials to all e'ployees who rendered wor0during said legal holidays.

>n appeal, the !inister o( *abor set aside the decision o( the 7*#C and dis'issed thepetitionerKs clai' (or lac0 o( 'erit basing its decision on Section , #ule I, Boo0 III o(the Integrated #ules and 4olicy Instruction ;, clai'ing the rule that QI( the 'onthly paide'ployee is receiving not less than 4:8, the 'ai'u' 'onthly 'ini'u' wage, andhis 'onthly pay is uni(or' (ro' )anuary to Dece'ber, he is presu'ed to be alreadypaid the +8 paid legal holidays. owever, i( deductions are 'ade (ro' his 'onthly

salary on account o( holidays in 'onths where they occur, then he is still entitled to the+8 paid legal holidays.R

Issue&

%hether the !inistry o( *abor is correct in 'aintaining that 'onthly paid e'ployeesare not entitled to the holiday pay nor all e'ployees who rendered wor0 during saidlegal holidays are entitled to the pre'iu' or overti'e pay di2erentials

eld&


95/98

eld&

In the present case, the provisions o( the *abor Code on the entitle'ent to thebenets o( holiday pay are clear and eplicit, it provides (or both the coverage o(and eclusion (ro' the benet. In 4olicy Instruction ;, the Secretary o( *abor wentas (ar as to categorically state that the benet is principally intended (or dailypaid e'ployees, when the law clearly states that every wor0er shall be paid theirregular holiday pay.

It is the role o( the )udiciary to rene and, when necessary, correct constitutionalandOor statutoryJ interpretation, in the contet o( the interactions o( the threebranches o( the govern'ent, al'ost always in situations where so'e agency o(the State has engaged in action that ste's ulti'ately (ro' so'e legiti'ate areao( govern'ental power. Section , #ule I, Boo0 III o( the #ules to i'ple'ent the*abor Code and 4olicy Instruction was declared null and void in IB$$ v. Inciong,and thus applies in the case at bar. Since the private respondent pre'ises itsaction on the invalidated rule and policy instruction, it is clear that the e'ployeesbelonging to the petitioner association are entitled to the pay'ent o( +8 legal

holidays under $rticles


96/98

C. #ule vs. >pinion

%hat is the di2erence between

a rule and an opinion?

7i)orias Mi""in0 vs Soia" S,+ri)Co55ission


97/98

Co55ission

'a)s*>n >ctober +=, +;=Ncial 6aEette.

>verruling these objections, the Social Security Co''ission ruled thatCircular 7o. is not a rule or regulationthat needed the approval o(the 4resident and publication in the >Ncial 6aEette to be e2ective but a'ere ad'inistrative interpretation o( the statute, a 'ere opinionas tohow the law should be construed.

Iss+,*%hether Circular 7o. is a rule or regulation

,"*There is a distinction between an ad'inistrative rule and an


98/98

ad'inistrative interpretation. %hen an ad'inistrative agencypro'ulgates rules and re(ulation, it Q'a0esR a new law with the(orce and e2ect o( a valid law, while when it renders an opinion, or

gives a state'ent o( policy@ it 'erely interprets a pre/eisting law. Circular in Huestion was issued by the Social Security

Co''ission in view o( the a'end'ent o( the provisions o( theSocial Security *aw dening the ter' Qco'pensationR. In Sec

group 1 - statutory construction report

Documents