STATUTORY COSTRUCTION OUTLINE WITH CASESby: Atty. Edgardo Bojos Luardo, Jr.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLESa. Statutory Constructioni. Definitionii. Importanceb. Construction vs. Interpretationc. When Construction is Necessaryi. Purpose of Construction: to determine spirit of the law/legislative intent in case of ambiguity of the statuteCASES: Federation of Free Farmers vs. CA, 107 SCRA 352Manila Jockey Club Inc. vs. GAB, 127 Phil 151ii. Effect when the text of the statute utterly fails to express the legislative intent d. Determine Legislative Intent from the text of the law itself, within the context of the whole CASE:Aisporna vs. CA, 113 SCRA 459e. Power to Construe: Judicial Functioni. Separation of Powersii. Interrelationship/Overlap of Powers1. Executive and Legislative Powers a. Executive rule-making power (delegated legislative power)b. Administrative supervision of its own departments by each House of Congress2. Executive and Judicial Powersa. Executive Agencies With Quasi-Judicial Functionsb. Executive Contemporaneous Construction of Statutesc. SC admin supervision of all courts and personnel3. Judicial and Legislative Powersa. Judicial Legislation (See Article 9, NCC)i. Limitation on Judicial Power to ConstrueCASE: Floresca vs. Philex Mining 136 SCRA 506b. Legislative Interpretation thru interpretative clause prescribing rules of constructioniii. Power of Judicial Review: Requisites1. Existence of appropriate case (actual case or controversy)2. Locus standi (legal standing)3. Constitutional question raised at the earliest opportunity4. Necessity of deciding the constitutional questioniv. Declaration of unconstitutionality of statutes1. Effect2. Partial unconstitutionality: separable provisions/with separability clausea. ExceptionCASE: Lidasan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 19673. Doctrine of Relative of ConstitutionalityCASE:Central Bank Employees Assn., Inc. vs. BSP, 446 SCRA 299v. Reversal of Judicial Constructionvi. Promulgation: Operative Act for the Effectivity of a DecisionCASE:Limkaichong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178831-32, July 30, 2009See also Araneta vs Dinglasan [on the effect of the death of a justice (Justice Perfecto) who voted in a decision that was promulgated after he died]vii. Rulings of the SC (in construing a statute)1. Part of Legal System (See Art. 8, NCC)2. Generally, no retroactive effect 3. NEW: Cannot be undone by Congress by re-enacting a provision previously declared unconstitutionalCASE: Sameer Oversees Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139. August 5, 2014

f. Subjects of Constructioni. Constitutionii. Statutes1. Basic Rules of Construing/Interpreting Specific Statutesa. Political Lawsi. Election LawsCASE:Villanueva vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 352Rulloda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154198, January 20, 2003ii. Local Government Code (See Section 5, RA 7610)iii. Expropriation lawsiv. Naturalization lawsb. Labor and Social LegislationCASES:Manahan vs. ECC, 104 SCRA 198Villavert vs. ECC, 110 SCRA 223Del Rosario and Sons vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 669c. Penal Statutes: strictly against the State; liberally in favor of the accusedCASES:Pp. vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197d. Tax Lawsi. Those imposing taxes and custom dutiesii. Those granting exemptionse. Civil Lawi. Family Lawii. Wills and Successioniii. Obligations and Contracts (Read Art. 1370-1379, NCC)iii. Ordinancesiv. Rules of CourtII. STATUTESa. Definitionb. Distinguished fromi. Constitutionii. Ordinancesiii. Administrative ordersc. Classificationi. According to duration: permanent vs. temporaryii. According to time of applicability: prospective vs. retroactiveiii. According to operation: declaratory; curativeiv. According to compliance requirement: mandatory vs. directoryv. According to WON rights are given: substantive vs. non-substantive (remedial)vi. According to form: affirmative vs. negativevii. According to WON there is a penal provision: penal vs. non-penald. Enactment (How a bill becomes a law)i. Legislative power: vested on Congress (See Sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution)ii. Procedure (See Sec 24, 25, 26 and 27, Art. VI of the Constitution)iii. Authentication of bill before being sent to the Presidente. Enrolled Bill doctrinef. Parts of Lawi. Title1. One subject, one bill rulea. Rationaleb. Effect of non-complianceii. Enacting clauseiii. Preamble (seldom included)iv. Body (purview) of the Statutev. Separability Clauseg. Effectivity (See Art. 2, Civil Code) i. Publication requirementCASES: Tanada vs. Tuvera (original decision), 136 SCRA 27 (1985)Tanada vs. Tuvera (resolution of the M.R.), 146 SCRA 446 (1986)Phil. Veterans Bank Employees Union vs. Vega, GR No. 105364, June 28, 2001 (deviation from Tanada vs. Tuvera)ii. Prospective operation of laws (Art. 4, Civil Code)1. No effect on pending actions2. Exception to prospectivitya. Procedural lawsb. Express provision on retroactive application (Art. 4, supra)c. Penal laws favorable to accused (See Art. 22, RPC)i. If already convictedii. If detention prisoner (case is still pending)h. Amendmenti. Coverage: only specific provisionsii. Form1. Generally, express2. Amendment by implicationa. Legislative intent to repeal, found in a statement in the later act that any provision of law inconsistent therewith is modified accordinglyb. Irreconcilable repugnancy between the provisions of a prior and a later lawiii. Construction of amendmentsCASE: Estrada vs. Caseda, 84 Phil 791 (1949)iv. Operation of amendments1. Generally, prospective2. Exception: express provision on retroactivitya. Exception to the exception: when vested rights are impairedv. Effect on jurisdiction of courtsvi. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act i. Revision and Codificationi. Construction: harmonize the different provisions of the revised statute or codeii. Effect of omission of provision/s of the old laws1. Generally: what is omitted is deemed repealed2. Exception: revised statute or code provides otherwiseiii. Effect of change in phraseologyj. Repealsi. Civil Code provision on repeals [Art. 7 (1), NCC]ii. Distinguished from Amendmentsiii. General Rule: Non-retroactive applicationCASE:Tac-an vs. CA, 137 SCRA 803iv. Forms of repeal1. Express repeal2. Implied repeala. Presumption Against Implied RepealsCASE: National Power Corporation vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)b. Categories of implied repeali. Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws with similar subject matter1. RequisitesCASES: Villegas vs. Subido, GR No. L-31711, Sept 30, 1971 (41 SCRA 190)Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 ii. Later law covers whole subject of an earlier law AND is clearly intended as a substitute1. Implied repeal because of revision or codificationCASE: Pp. vs. Almuete, 69 SCRA 410 2. Implied repeal by re-enactment3. Nature of repealing clause (All laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly): predicated on substantial (irreconcilable) conflict between prior and later lawsv. Earlier law vs. later law1. Irreconcilable inconsistency of two laws: later law prevailsCASE:David vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 90 (1997)2. Earlier special law vs. later general lawa. Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does not repeal earlier special law)CASE: Laguna Lake Devt Authority vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995b. Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed an exception to the later general law CASE: Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)c. Exceptionsi. Later general enactment intended to cover the whole subject and to repeal the all prior laws inconsistent therewithCASE: Gaerlan vs. Catubig, 17 SCRA 376 (1966)ii. Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates specific ruleCASE: City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22 SCRA 276 (1968)iii. manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the earlier special lawCASE: City Govt of San Pablo vs. Reyes, 305 SCRA 353 (1999)3. Earlier general law vs. later special law a. Effect: partial repeal of earlier general lawCASE: Lagman vs. City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579 (GR L-23305, June 30, 1966)vi. Effect of Repeal1. On when repealed law is rendered inoperative: date repealing act takes effect2. On jurisdiction already acquired by courts: not lost by subsequent repeal or expiration of the law giving the jurisdictiona. But courts are to use the prevailing law in disposing of the merits of the casei. Exception: where vested rights are impaired 3. On contracts previously had under the repealed law4. On taxes assessed under the repealed tax law5. On municipal offices under the old charter of an LGUvii. Effect of Repeal or Declaration of Unconstitutionality of Repealing lawCASE:JG Summit Holdings vs. CA, GR No. 124293, Nov. 20, 2000(See however the Resolutions on the MR dated Sept 24, 2003 and Jan 31, 2005)viii. Only a law can repeal another law (NEW)CASE:Palanca v. CA, G.R. No. 106685, December 2, 1994, reiterated in Sameer Oversees Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139. August 5, 2014

III. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULESa. Ratio Legis: Spirit of the law/Legislative Intent as the Primary Objecti. As expressed in the literal reading of the text1. Verba legis (literal or plain meaning rule)CASES: IBAA Employees Union vs. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663Chartered Bank Employees Association vs. Ople, 138 SCRA 273a. Dura lex sed lexCASES:Pascual vs. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561Aguila vs. CFI, 160 SCRA 352i. Inapplicability in criminal casesCASE: Pp vs. Santayana, 74 SCRA 25 in relation to Pp vs. Mapa, 20 SCRA 1164ii. As determined through Construction1. General Rule: Statute must be capable of construction, otherwise inoperativeCASE:Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 1062. Specific Rulesa. Mens Legislatoris: Ascertain spirit/intent/purpose of the lawCASES: Prasnik vs. Republic, 98 Phil 665Matabuena vs. Cervantes, 38 SCRA 284King vs. Hernandez, 114 SCRA 730Bustamante vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 61US vs. Toribio, 15 Phil 85Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520Planters Assn vs. Ponferrada, 317 SCRA 4631. When literal import must yield to spirit/intentCASE: Villanueva vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 353 (Read the dissent of Justice Aquino for the caveat on this rule)2. When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceasesCASE: Comendador vs. De Villa, GR No. 93177, August 2, 1991People v. Almuete, supra b. ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe statute as a wholei. Harmonize and give effects to all provisions whenever possible; reconcile apparently conflicting provisionsCASES:National Tobacco Admin vs. COA, 311 SCRA 755 (1999)Republic vs. CA, 263 SCRA 758 (1996)Dreamwork Contruction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009ii. Special vs. general provisions in one statute1. Earlier special law vs. later general lawa. Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does not repeal earlier special law)CASE: Laguna Lake Devt Authority vs. CA, 251 SCRA 42 (1995)b. Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed an exception to the later general law CASE: Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)c. Exceptions Later general enactment intended to cover the whole subject and to repeal the all prior laws inconsistent therewithCASE: Gaerlan vs. Catubig, 17 SCRA 376 (1966) Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates specific ruleCASE: City of Manila vs. Teotico, 22 SCRA 276 (1968) manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the earlier special law CASE: City Govt of San Pablo vs. Reyes, 305 SCRA 353 (1999)2. Earlier general law vs. later special law a. Effect: partial repeal (amendment) of earlier general lawCASE: Lagman vs. City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579 (1966)c. Construe Statute in Relation to the Constitution and Other Statutesi. Supremacy of the Constitution1. But when statutes admit of two constructions, one constitutional and the other unconstitutional, construction in favor of constitutionality should be favouredCASE: De la Cruz vs. Paras, GR No.42591, July 25, 1983ii. Statutes in Pari Materia1. Harmonized to form a consistent and coherent systemCASE: Vda. de Urbano vs. GSIS, GR No. 137904, Oct 19, 2001Cabada vs. Alunan, 260 SCRA 828 (1996)Declarador v. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208 August 18, 2006 a. If cannot be reconciled, earlier one gives way to later oneCASE: Naga City vs. Agna, GR No. 36049, May 31, 1976d. When the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguishCASE:Ramirez vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590 (1995)Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 767 (1997)e. Meaning of Words and Phrasesi. Statutory definitionCASE: Victorias Milling vs. Social Security Commission, 114 SCRA 555 (1962)ii. Ordinary sense of the words vs. technical or legal meaningCASES:Mataguina Integrated Wood vs. CA, 263 SCRA 490 (1996)Mustang Lumber vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996)iii. General words construed generally1. foreigner CASE: Gatchalian vs. COMELEC, 35 SCRA 435 1970)2. governmentCASE: C & C Commercial vs. NAWASA, 21 SCRA 984 (1967)3. national governmentCASE: Central Bank vs. CA, 63 SCRA 431 (1975)iv. Specific words1. May vs. ShallCASES:Director of Lands vs. CA, 276 SCRA 276 (1997)Capati vs. Ocampo, 113 SCRA 799 (1982)a. When shall is construed as may and vice versaCASES:PCFI vs. NTC and PLDT, 131 SCRA 200 (1984) (But see dissent of Abad Santos, J.)Berces vs. Guingona, 241 SCRA 539 (1995)2. Or vs. AndCASE:GMRC vs. Bell Telecom, 271 SCRA 790 (1997)US vs. dela Sabta, 9 Phil 22 (1907)Hda. Luisita Inc. vs. PARC, G.R. No.171101, Resolution, November 22, 2011Gonzales v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967Romulo v. HDMF, G.R. No. 131082, June 19, 2000

3. Principally/Primarily vs. ExclusivelyCASES:Alfon vs. Republic, 97 SCRA 859 (1980)Floresca vs. Phillex Mining, 136 SCRA 142 (1985)Chavez vs. NHA, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 20074. Term vs. TenureCASE:Appari vs. CA, 127 SCRA 231 (1984)5. EveryCASE: NHC vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-64313 January 17, 1985

v. Specific Phrases/Clauses1. Provisosa. Purpose: to limit application of provision; or to except something therefrom; or to qualify or restrain its general application; or exceptionally, to enlarge instead of restrict Exception: to enlarge an otherwise limited phraseCASE: U.S. vs. Sto. Nino, 13 Phil 141 (1909)b. What a proviso qualifies: only the phrase immediately preceding itCASE: ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 678 (1994) ExceptionCASE: Arenas vs. San Carlos City, 82 SCRA 3182. Exceptionsa. Distinguished from provisosb. Illustrations CASES: Meralco vs. PUEA, 79 SCRA 409 (1947) Tolentino vs. Secretary, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)vi. Associated Words1. Noscitor A Sociis (where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous, consider the company of words in which it is associated to ascertain the correct construction)CASES:Buenaseda vs. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645 (1993)Magtajas vs. Pryce, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)2. Ejusdem Generis (literally: same kind or species; general word or phrase that follow an enumeration of particular and specific words, which are of the class or kind, are restricted only to things or cases of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned)CASES:Pp. vs. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212 (1995)NPC vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542 (1992)Republic vs. Migrino, 189 SCRA 289 (1990)a. LimitationsCASES: Colgate-Palmolive vs. Jimenez, 1 Phil 267 (1961)RC Archbishop of Manila vs. SSC, 1 SCRA 10 (1961)3. Expressio Unios est Exclusio Alterius (opposite of the doctrine of necessary implication: express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others)CASES:Santos vs. Pano, 120 SCRA 8 (1983)Samson vs. CA, 145 SCRA 654 (1986)Catu v. Rellorasa, A.C. No. 5738, February 19, 2008LimitationsCASES: Gomez vs. Ventura, 54 Phil 726 (1930)Javellano vs. Tayo, 6 SCRA 1042 (1962) 4. Cassus Omissus (a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally)CASES:Pp. vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684 Lopez vs. CA, 100 Phil 8505. Doctrine of last antecedent (qualifying words restrict or modify only words or phrases to which they are immediately associated)CASES:Pangilinan vs. Alvendia, 101 Phil 794 (1957)Florention vs. PNB, 98 Phil 959 (1956)a. LimitationCASE: Mapa vs. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76 (1989)b. Variation: Reddendo Singula Singulis (refer each word or phrase to its appropriate object, i.e., antecedents and consequences must be read distributively)CASE: Pp. vs. Tamani, 55 SCRA 153 (1973)Amadora vs. CA, 160 SCRA 315 (1988)3. Rules on Implicationsa. Doctrine of Necessary Implication (what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed; opposite of the rule of expressio unios est exclusio alterius)CASES:Chua vs. CSC, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)Batungbakal vs. National Development Co., 93 Phil 182 (1953)

IV. AIDS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTIONa. Public Policy sought to be implementedCASES:Tinio vs. Francis, 98 Phil. 32 (1955)Cajiuat vs. Mathay, 124 SCRA 710 (1983)b. Presumptionsi. Of Constitutionality/Validity of StatutesCASES: NHA vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245 (1983)Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)ii. Of the Beneficial Operation of StatutesCASES: CIR vs. S.C. Johnson and Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 (1999)Sesbreno vs. CBAA, 270 SCRA 360 (1997)iii. Of Prospective ApplicationCASES:Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 317 (1997)Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997)iv. In favor of right and justiceCASE:Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)v. Against AbsurdityCASES: Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 (1974)vi. Against Injustice CASES:Amatan vs. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995)Ursua vs. CA, 256 SCRA 147 (1996)vii. Against Implied RepealsCASES:NPC vs. Province of Lanao del Sur, 264 SCRA 271 (1996)Velunta vs. Chief, Philippine Constabulary, 157 SCRA 147 (1988)c. Intrinsic Aidsi. TitleCASES: City of Baguio vs. Marcos, 27 SCRA 342 (1969)Ebarle vs. Sucaldito, 156 SCRA 803 (1987)ii. PreambleCASES:Pp. vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978)Pp. vs. Echavez, 95 SCRA 663 (1980)iii. Body of the statute1. Context of the whole textCASE:CIR vs. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992)2. Punctuation marksCASES:Agcaoili vs. Sunguitan, 48 Phil 678 (1926)Pp. vs. Subido, 66 SCRA 545 (1975)iv. Head notes and epigraphs of sections CASE:Pp. vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499 (1933)d. Extrinsic Aidsi. Legislative History1. Presidents message to the LegislatureCASE:Camacho vs. CIR, 80 Phil 848 (1948)2. Explanatory Note of the author/sCASE:Nepomuceno vs. Ocampo, 95 Phil 292 (1954)3. Committee Reports on the legislative investigations and public hearings4. Sponsorship Speech5. Debates and DeliberationsCASES:Palanca vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 125 (1920)Phil. Assn. of Govt Retirees, Inc. vs. GSIS, 121 Phil 1402 (1965)Disini v, Secretary, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014 (re provision on cybersex) 6. Changes in the phraseology before final approvalCASES:Akbayan vs. COMELEC, GR No. 147066, March 26, 2001CIR vs. CTA, 224 SCRA 665 (1993)7. Amendment by deletionCASE:Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287 (1999)8. Prior laws from which the statute is basedCASES:Director of Lands vs. Abaya, 63 Phil 559 (1936)Salaysay vs. Castro, 98 Phil 364 (1956)9. Origin of Adopted StatuteCASE:Pp. vs. Pagpaguitan, 315 SCRA 226 (1999)a. LimitationsCASE:Procter & Gamble vs. Commissioner of Customs, 23 SCRA 691 (1968)ii. Contemporary Construction1. Executive Constructiona. Kindsi. construction by an executive/administrative officer called to implement the lawCASE:San Miguel Corp. vs. Inciong, 103 SCRA 139 (1981)ii. by the DOJ Secretary in his capacity as Chief legal adviser of the government(See Sec. 83, Revised Administrative Code)CASE: Maceda vs. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771 (1991)iii. by an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial functionb. Weight: entitled to great weightCASES:Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. CA, 203 SCRA 504 (1991)Phil. Sugar Central vs. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil 143 (1927)i. erroneous construction: does not bind the courts; does not preclude judicial correction nor does it create rights; exceptionCASES:Legaspi vs. Mathay, 68 SCRA 253 (1975)ABS-CBN vs. CTA, 108 SCRA 142 (1981)2. Legislative Interpretation CASE:Endencia vs. David, 93 Phil 696 (1953)iii. Stare decisisCASES:Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655 (1993)Pp. vs. Macadaeg, 91 Phil 410 (1952)1. Ratio decidendi vs. obiter dictumCASE:Delta Motors vs. CA, 276 SCRA 212 (1997)2. Limitations of stare decisisCASE: Koppel (Phils.), Inc. vs. Yatco, 77 Phil 496 (1946)

V. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTIONa. Primary purpose: to ascertain the intent or purpose of the framersCASES: JM Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970)Co vs. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)b. Rules of Constitutional Constructioni. Applicability of the rules of Statutory ConstructionCASE:Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)ii. No ambiguity: Verba legis 1. Give ordinary meaning to the wordsCASES:Tano vs. Socrates, 278 SCRA 154 (1997)Ordillo vs. COMELEC, 192 SCRA 100 (1992)a. Exception: where technical terms are employed2. Words are used in a broad sense to cover all possible contingenciesiii. Ambiguity exists1. Rulesa. Ratio Legis Est Anima: Consider intent of the framers/object to be accomplishedCASE:Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance, 115 SCRA 418 (1982)Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)b. ut magis valeat quam pereat: construe the constitution as a wholeCASE: Daro Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Phils., G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011c. Self-executing rather than needs an implementing statuteCASE:Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997)d. Mandatory rather than directoryCASE: Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)e. Prospective rather than retroactiveCASES:Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil 285 (1945)Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 (1996)2. Aids in Constitutional Constructiona. Intrinsic Aidi. Language of the constitution itselfii. Interpret Constitution as wholeCASES:Peralta vs. COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30 (1978)Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra (construction of Sec. 24, Art. VI, Constitution) b. Extrinsic Aidsi. History or realities at the time of the adoption ii. Object sought to be accomplishediii. Proceedings/debates of the ConventionCASES: Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)Montejo vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)iv. Changes in the phraseologyCASE:Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)v. Previous laws and judicial decisionsCASE:Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil 567 (1950), particularly the dissent of Justice Ozaetavi. Consequences of alternative (more than one) constructionsCASE:Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51 (1983)vii. Contemporaneous construction and writingsCASES:De Los Santos vs. Mallari, 87 Phil 289 (1950)Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946)