Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6: RULES OF LEGAL REASONING
RULES OF COLLISION
Laws and rules should not be interpreted in such a way that leads to
unreasonable or senseless consequences. In such a case, it is very important
to first remember the first order of business is to find ways in which one can
reconcile these conflicting provisions in order to arrive at a proper application
of the law with the end in view of ensuring that justice and equity is upheld.
Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus interpretandi. – To

interpret and to harmonize laws with laws is the best method of interpretation.
PROVISIONS
VIS-À-VIS PROVISIONS
It may happen that in a statute, conflicting clauses and provisions may

arise. If such situation may occur, the statute must be construed as a whole,
and attempts must first be made to reconcile these conflicting provisions on
order to attain the intent of the law.
To reiterate, in constructing a statute, courts should adopt a

construction that will give effect to every part of a statute, if at all possible,
expressed in the maxim, ut magis valeat quam pereat or that construction is to
be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute – its every word.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute

as a whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as
detached and isolated expressions, 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 harmonious whole.
LAWS VIS-À-VIS
THE CONSTITUTION
Statutes should be given, when every possible, a meaning that will not
bring them in conflict with the Constitution. It bears repeating that whenever
a law is in conflict with the Constitution, the latter prevails.
Indeed it is, for both under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two
methods of proposing amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution were
recognized, viz., (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members
and (2) by a constitutional convention. For this and the other reasons hereafter
discussed, we resolved to give due course to this petition.
NATIONAL INITIATIVE: If what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a

national law, or a law which only Congress can pass.
LOCAL INITIATIVE: If what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law,

ordinance, or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the governments
of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays
can pass.
LAWS
VIS-À -VIS LAWS
In our system of government, Congress oftentimes enacts laws whose

provisions, at first glance, are seemingly in opposition to previously enacted
laws. Where two statutes are of contrary tenor or of different dates but are of
equal theoretical application to a particular case, the case designed therefore
specially should prevail over the other. It is the accepted rule of statutory
construction that a specific provision of the statute prevails over a general
provision. It is also a rule that when there is a conflict between two clauses or
sections of the same statute, effect must be given to the last in the order of the
position, the latter overriding the earlier.
Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with the other

statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, which

means that the best method of interpretation is that which makes laws
consistent with other laws.
GENERAL LAWS
VIS-À -VIS SPECIAL LAWS
GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT: A general law does not nullify a

specific or special law.
Sometimes we find statutes treating a subject in general terms and

another treating a part of the same subject in particularly detailed or
specialized manner.
GENERALIS CLAUSULA NON PORRIGITIR AD EA QUAE ANTEA SPECIALITER

SUNT COMPREHENSA: A general clause does not extend to those things which
are previously provided for specially.
If both statutes are irreconcilable, the general statute must be give way
to the special or particular provisions as an exception to the general
provisions. Basic is the rule in statutory construction that where two statutes
are of equal theoretical application to a particular case, the one designed
therefore should prevail. It is a settled principle of construction that, in case
of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail
regardless of the dates of their enactment.
The High Court ruled in the negative. General laws are universal in
nature, it is a sole basis for it speaks for the common good, unless it is
otherwise stated; and special laws are said to have exception and not
everyone can adhere to its provisions also unless otherwise stated.
LAWS VIS-À -VIS

ORDINANCE
As previously stated, an ordinance is the local legislative measure

passed by the local legislative body of a local government unit. Examples of
local legislative bodies are the Sanguniang Panlunsod and Sanguniang
Panlalawigan. As such their power to legislate is delegated to them by the
Local Government Code.
The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions
including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not
only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
pass according to the procedure prescribed by the law, it must also conform to
the following substantive requirements:
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. Must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6. Must not be unreasonable.
It is basic that in case of conflict between an administrative order and the

provisions of the Constitutions, the latter prevails.
It is an elementary principle in statutory construction that a statute is

superior to an administrative directive and the former cannot be repealed or
amended by the latter.
A law, in the grand scheme of things, is considered higher than an

ordinance, thus the latter cannot repeal nor amend the former. An
administrative rule of regulation cannot contravene the law on which it is
based.
RULES OF INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION
INTERPRETATION: Refers to how a law or more importantly a provision

thereof, is to be properly applied. Refers to the drawing of the true nature,
meaning and intent of the law through an examination of its provisions.
CONSTRUCTION: The process of using tools, aid, references extant from the
law in order to ascertain its nature, meaning and intent.
VERBA LEGIS: Word of the law. It refers to the plain meaning of the law. This
simply means that the law is couched on simple and understandable language
that a normal person would understand.
It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that where the words
and phrases of a stature are not obscure or ambiguous, its meaning and the
intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed,
and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction.
SEMPER IN DUBIIS BENIGNIORA PRAEFERANDA: In doubtful matters the more

liberal (constructions) are to be preferred.
RULES OF JUDGEMENT
The only entity empowered by the Constitution to interpret and

construe laws is the judicial branch of the government. Thus, we often
encounter the adage that judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law. Supreme Court and all other
lower courts have the power to construe and interpret the law.
Note, however, that the court may exercise its power of judicial review
only if the following requisites are present:
1. An actual and appropriate case and controversy exists;
2. A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question;
3. The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity;
and
4. The constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case.
CARDINAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEEDINGS:
A. There must be a right to hearing, which includes the right to present

one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof;
B. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
C. The decision must have some basis to support itself;
D. The evidence must be substantial;
E. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
F. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy,
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; and
G. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such manner as would allow the parties to know the various
issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
High Court has cautioned against evisceration – it declared that – there is

need of confining familiar language of a statute to its usual signification.
While statutory construction involves the exercise of choice, the temptation
to roam at will and rely on one’s predilections as to what policy should
prevail is to be resisted. The search must be for a reasonable interpretation.
It is best to keep in mind the reminder from Holmes that “there is no canon
against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they
obviously means.” To paraphrase Frankfurter, interpolation arrived at does
violence to the statutory language in its total context.
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Rules of procedure, be it at the judicial or quasi-judicial level refers to

the process of how a litigant would protect his right through the
intervention of the court or any other administrative body.
Depending on which for a one goes to would determine how the rules of
procedure would be interpreted – either liberally or strictly.
Note that – administrative rules of procedure are generally given liberal

construction.
When strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the

petition, the strict application of the rules of procedure may be relaxed, in
the exercise of its equity jurisdiction
“The liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may not be

invoked if it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause undue
delay in the administration of justice. Indeed, it cannot be gainsaid that
obedience to the requirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to
expect fair results therefrom.”

Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 6: RULES OF LEGAL REASONING

Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus interpretandi. – To

It may happen that in a statute, conflicting clauses and provisions may

To reiterate, in constructing a statute, courts should adopt a

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute

NATIONAL INITIATIVE: If what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a

LOCAL INITIATIVE: If what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law,

In our system of government, Congress oftentimes enacts laws whose

Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with the other

Interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, which

GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT: A general law does not nullify a

Sometimes we find statutes treating a subject in general terms and

GENERALIS CLAUSULA NON PORRIGITIR AD EA QUAE ANTEA SPECIALITER

LAWS VIS-À -VIS

As previously stated, an ordinance is the local legislative measure

It is basic that in case of conflict between an administrative order and the

It is an elementary principle in statutory construction that a statute is

A law, in the grand scheme of things, is considered higher than an

RULES OF INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION

INTERPRETATION: Refers to how a law or more importantly a provision

SEMPER IN DUBIIS BENIGNIORA PRAEFERANDA: In doubtful matters the more

The only entity empowered by the Constitution to interpret and

CARDINAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE

A. There must be a right to hearing, which includes the right to present

High Court has cautioned against evisceration – it declared that – there is

Rules of procedure, be it at the judicial or quasi-judicial level refers to

Note that – administrative rules of procedure are generally given liberal

When strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the

“The liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may not be

You might also like