Statutory Construction Syllabus

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS
COURSE CODE:
COURSE TITLE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
COURSE CREDIT: 2 UNITS
COURSE PREREQUISITE/S: N/A
FACULTY: DARNIEL R. BUSTAMANTE
EMAIL ADDRESS:
TERM/ACADEMIC YEAR: FIRST SEMESTER SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021
DAY/TIME/ROOM/SECTION:
COURSE DELIVERY MODE: FULL ONLINE
CONSULTATION DAY/TIME:
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
A study of the different rules of statutory construction to prepare the student as he

or she attempts to discover and understand the meaning of the provisions of the
Constitution, various statutes, and the latter’s implementing rules. Before
studying the different rules of construction, this course will first equip the
student with sufficient knowledge about the process of lawmaking and the
hierarchy and classification of laws.
COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (“ELGAs”)
(A) Know and understand the process of lawmaking, the hierarchy of laws, and
the classification and interrelation of laws; (B) know and understand the different
rules of statutory construction; and (C) Develop: (i) student’s ability to apply
with ease the different rules of construction, (ii) student’s critical and analytical
thinking, (iii) student’s proficiency in written and oral communication, and (iv)
student’s logical reasoning and sound judgment.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (“LOs”):
1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

2. Comprehension/Understanding: describe, explain, identify, recognize
3. Application/Applying: choose, demonstrate, implement, perform
4. Analysis/Analyzing: analyze, categorize, compare, differentiate
5. Evaluation/Evaluating: assess, critique, evaluate, rank, rate
6. Synthesis/Creating: construct, design, formulate, organize, synthesize
Upon completion of the Statutory Construction course, the student is expected to be able to:
ELGAs LEARNING OUTCOMES (LOs)

Critical and analytical LO1. Explain the process of enacting a law, the hierarchy and
thinking classification of laws, and the different rules of statutory
Effective in written and construction.
1
oral communication LO2. Analyze/Criticize/Compare the application by the Court of the
Logical reasoning different rules of construction in the cases assigned.
Sound judgment LO3. Assess the applicability or inapplicability of a rule of
Exercise of proper construction on a given hypothetical or actual situation.
professional and ethical LO4. Apply the different rules of construction on a given situation.
responsibilities
ASSESSMENT/GRADING SYSTEM:
The student will be graded according to the following:
Percentage
(Weight is based
Requirements Based on the Learning Outcomes Scope of Work
on the
(“LO”) (Individual)
importance of
the LO)
LO1 Class recitations, Quizzes, Case Digests, Individual
LO2 and Discussion Individual
LO3 Individual
LO4
Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

Midterm Exams Individual 16.67%
Class Standing after Midterms Individual 33.33%
Final Exams Individual 33.33%
TOTAL 100%
LEARNING PLAN:
LEARNIN
G
LEARNING WEEK/ METHODS
RESOURCE DATE (activities
S (Schedule designed or
TOPIC/CONTENT (print and of each deployed by
(arrangement or sequence of the major topics is non-print Topic, the teacher
based on a logical order) materials Assign, to bring
and online/ Exam for about, or
open-access the entire create the
resources) semester) conditions
for
learning)
Course Introduction
 Course overview Syllabus 24 Aug. Lecture
 Course assignments 2020
 Course requirements Discussion
24 Aug.
MODULE 1: LEGISLATIVE POWER to 29
Aug.
I. Legislative Power in General, Where Syllabus 2020 Recitation
Lodged
Textbooks Case Study
2
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
1. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
2006 Supreme Discussion
2. Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640, Court
October 12, 1976 Decisions
II. Bicameralism
1. Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28

January 2000 Chavez v. Judicial and Bar
Council, G.R. No. 202242, April 16, 2013
2. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235

SCRA 630
III. Extent of and Limitations on Legislative

Power
1. In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

2. Ang Nars Party List v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 215746, [October 8, 2019]
3. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566,
November 19, 2013
4. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA
251
5. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate, G.R.
No. 19671, October 18, 2011, 659 SCRA
270
Syllabus 31 Aug. Recitation

MODULE 2: STATUTES AND THEIR to 12
ENACTMENT Textbooks Sept. Case Study
2020
I. Title of Bills Supreme Discussion
Court
1. Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496 Decisions
2. Giron v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179,
January 22, 2013
II. Formalities
1. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235

SCRA 630
2. PHILJA v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371,
3
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 203
III. Approval of Bills
1. Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No.

L-20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 486
2. Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA
251
IV. Evidence of Enactment of Laws
a.) Enrolled Bill Theory
1. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, L-1223, March 5,

1947, 78 Phil. 1 (1947)
2. Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255,
August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268
b.) Journal Entry Rule
1. Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, April

30, 1974, 56 SCRA 714
Syllabus 14 Sept. Recitation

MODULE 3: CONSTITUTIONAL to 19
CONSTRUCTION Textbooks Sept. Case Study
2020
I. Constitution, Definition and Supreme Discussion
Characteristics Court
Decisions
1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.
122156, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408
II. General Principles of Construction
1. Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66

Phil. 259 (1938)
III. Aids to construction
1. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive

Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
4
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
2. Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department
of Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51 (1990)
3. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)
4. Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 (1985)
IV. Ordinary Sense v. Technical Sense
1. Ordillo v. Commission on Elections, 192

SCRA 100 (1992)
2. Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461
(1947)
V. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-

Executing
1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.

122156, 3 February 1997.
2. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
161872, April 13, 2004
VI. Mandatory v. Directory
1. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)

2. Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 28196,
November 9, 1967
VII. Prospective v. Retroactive
1. Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222

(1996)
2. Co v. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692
(1991)
Syllabus 21 Sept. Recitation
MODULE 4: EFFECTIVITY OF STATUTES to 3 Oct.
Textbooks 2020 Case Study
I. When the Constitution Becomes
Effective Supreme Discussion
Court
1. Alfredo M. de Leon v. Hon. Benjamin B. Decisions
Esguerra, G.R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987
II. When Statute Becomes Effective
5
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
1. Civil Code, Article 2
2. Administrative Code, Book I, Chapter 5,
Section 18
Sections 24 – 25
4. Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, 29
December 1986
5. Philippine Veterans Bank v. Vega, G.R.
No. 105364, 28 June 2001
III. When Statute Becomes Effective
1. Administrative Code, Book VII, Sections

2–9
2. Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915
April 24, 1985
3. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix
Feeds Corporation, G.R. No. 179579, 1
February 2012
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel
J. Lhuillier Pawnshop, Inc., G.R. No. 150947,
15 July 2003
IV. When Local Ordinance Takes Effect
1. Local Government Code, Sections 54 – 59

2. Municipality Of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty
Corporation, G.R. No. 127820, 20 July
1998
3. Bagatsing v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 41631, 17
December 1976
V. Manner of Computing Time
1. Civil Code, Article 13

Section 31
Section 28
4. National Marketing Corp. v. Tecson, G.R.
No. 29131, 27 August 1969
5. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Primetown Property Group, Inc., G.R. No.
6
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
162155, August 28, 2007
6. PNB v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 134
(1993)
Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. 28841,
24 July 1983
VI. Effectivity of Laws Until Repealed
1. Concept of Temporary Statutes

2. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No.
L-5, 17 September 1945
3. William F. Peralta v. The Director of
Prisons, G.R. No. L-49, 12 November 1945
4. Anastacio Laurel v. Eriberto Misa, G.R.
No. L-409, 30 January 1947
Syllabus 5 Oct. to Recitation
MODULE 5: CONSTRUCTION AND 9 Oct.
INTERPRETATION Textbooks 2020 Case Study
I. Definition Supreme Discussion

Court and
1. Caltex (Phils.), Inc. v. Palomar, G.R. No. Court of Quiz
19650, 29 September 1966 Appeals
Decisions
II. Purpose of Construction
1. City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100,

28 February 1969
III. When construction is resorted to
1. Garcia v. Social Security Commission,

G.R. No. 170735, 17 December 2007
IV. Executive Construction
1. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix

Feeds, G.R. No. 150947, 15 July 2003
2. Victorias Milling Co. Inc. v. Social
Security Commission, 4 SCRA 627
V. Judicial Construction
7
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
A. Basis, Extent, and Limitations
1. Article VIII, Section 1 and Section 4 of the

1987 Constitution
2. Record of the Constitutional Commission,
434-436 (1986)
3. Endencia v. David, 93 Phil. 696 (1953)
4. Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 15
September 1989
B. Requisites for Judicial Review
1. Southern Hemisphere Engagement

Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
G.R. No. 178552, 5 October 2010
2. David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 3 May
2006
C. Effect of Unconstitutionality
1. Article 7, New Civil Code

2. Peralta v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 95832, 10 August 1992
3. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San
Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No.
187485, 8 October 2013
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July
1, 2014
12 Oct to
MID-TERM EXAMINATIONS 17 Oct.
2020
Syllabus 19 Oct. Recitation

MODULE 6: LITERAL INTERPRETATION 19 to Oct.
AND DEPARTURE THEREFROM Textbooks 24 2020 Case Study
A. Literal Interpretation Supreme Discussion

Court
I. Verba Legis Decisions
8
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
1. TRADE AND INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, G.R. No. 182249, March
5, 2013 (Application of the rule)
II. Dura lex sed lex
1. OLYMPIO REVALDO v. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 170589,
April 16, 2009
2. ARNEL SAGANA v. RICHARD A.
FRANCISCO, G.R. No.161952, October 2,
2009
B. Departure from literal interpretation
I. Statutes must be capable of

interpretation
1. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19,
1997
II. Ratio legis et anima
1. RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO
ERMITA, G.R. No. 180050, April 12,
2011
2. ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R.
No. 203766, April 2, 2013
III. Literal import must yield to

intent
1. AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIPMENT

COMPANY v. JOSE B. LINGAD, G.R.
No. L-26406, October 31, 1969
9
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
2. UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO, 15 Phil.
85 (1910)
3. SY TIONG SHIOU v. SY CHIM and
FELICIDAD CHAN SY, G.R. No. 174168,
March 30, 2009
IV. Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa

lex
1. B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR v. GEN.

RENATO S. DE VILLA, G.R. No. 93177,
August 2, 1991
V. Supplying legislative
omission
1. GOVERNOR RODOLFO C. FARINAS

v. MAYOR ANGELO M. BARBA, G.R.
No. 116763, April 19, 1996
VI. Construction to avoid

absurdity
1. PARAS v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

123169, 4 November 1996
VII. Construction in favor of
right and justice
1. KAREN E. SALVACION v. CENTRAL
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION and GREG
BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT, G.R. No.
94723, August 21, 1997
VIII. Law does not require the
impossible
1. PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR. v. PNOC, G.R.

No. 170943, September 23, 2008
10
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
IX. Number and gender of words
1. SANTILLON v. MIRANDA, G.R. No.

19281, June 30, 1965
MODULE 7: IMPLICATIONS
I. Necessary Implications
1. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR)
v. UNITED PLANNERS
CONSULTANTS, INC., G.R. No. 212081,
February 23, 2015
2. SUGBUANON RURAL BANK, INC. v.

HON. UNDERSECRETARY
BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, G.R. No.
116194, February 2, 2000 Syllabus
Recitation
II. Grant of power includes incidental Textbooks 26 Oct. to
power Oct. 30 Case study
Supreme 2020
1. CARMELO F. LAZATIN v. HRET, G.R. Court Discussion
No. 84297, December 8, 1988 Decisions
2. CEMCO HOLDINGS, INC. v.

NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES,
INC., G.R. No. 171815, August 7, 2007
III. What cannot be done directly

cannot be done indirectly
1. TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD
WATER DISTRICT, G.R. No. 166471,
March 22, 2011
Syllabus 3 Nov. to Recitation
MODULE 8: INTERPRETAION OF WORDS 20 Nov.
AND PHRASES Textbooks 2020 Case Study
11
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
I. In General Supreme Discussion
Court
1. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. Decisions
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148560,
19 November 2001.
2. JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR. v.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, G.R. No.
203335, 11 February 2014.
II. General rules of interpretation
1. ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 190779, 26 March
2010
2. MUSTANG LUMBER, INC. v. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 104988,
18 June 1996.
III. Where the law does not distinguish
1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

DAISY R. YAHON, G.R. No. 201043,
June 16, 2014
2. VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL

CENTER (VCMC) v. ERMA YBALLE,
G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014
IV. Disjuntive and Conjunctive Words
1. ANTONIO D. DAYAO v. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 193643, January 29, 2013
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ANTONIO COMADRE, G.R. No.
153559, June 8, 2004
3. GONZALES v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

28196, November 9, 1967
V. Noscitur a sociis
12
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)

ISIDRO FLORES, G.R. No. 188315,
August 25, 2010
2. CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE

SANTIAGO, G.R. No. L-8238, May 25,
1955
VI. Ejusdem generis
1. EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN

LOOP HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., G.R. No. 189755,
July 4, 2012
2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v.
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 33471,
January 31, 1972.
VII. Expressio unius est exclusion

alterius and casus omissus
1. SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING

CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No.
147749, June 22, 2006
2. COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSN.,
INC. v. TORRES, G.R. No. 132527, July
29, 2005
3. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF
THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v.
PROVINCE OF CEBU, G.R. No.
141386, November 29, 2001
VIII. Reddendo singula singulis
1. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, G.R. No.
193459, February 15, 2011
2. CITY OF MANILA v. LAGUIO, G.R.
13
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
No. 118127, April 12, 2005
IX. Provisos, Exceptions and Saving

Clauses
1. RICARDO FERNANDEZ v. NLRC, G.R.

No. 106090, February 28, 1994
2. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA
DE SEGUROS, G.R. No. L-14880, April
29, 1960
3. ARENAS v. CITY OF SAN CARLOS,

G.R. No. 34024, April 5, 1978
4. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA v. C. A.

IMPERIAL, G.R. No. L-17222, March 15,
1921
5. ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. COURT

OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 125359,
September 4, 2001
6. BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 159268, October 27,
2006
Syllabus 23 Nov. Recitation

MODULE 9: STATUTES CONSTRUED AS A to 28
WHOLE AND IN RELATION TO OTHER Textbooks Nov. 2020 Case Study
STATUTES
Supreme Discussion
Court
I. Statutes construed as a whole Decisions
1. AQUINO v. QUEZON CITY, G.R. No.

137534, August 3, 2006
2. LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v.
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007
14
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)

LUISITO D. BUSTINERA, G.R. No.
148233, June 8, 2004
MODULE 10: MANDATORY AND

DIRECTORY STATUTES
1. Article 5, New Civil Code
2. ACOSTA v. ADAZA, G.R. No. 168617,

February 19, 2007
3. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. v. COMELEC, G.R.

Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010
4. FLORANTE S. QUIZON v. COMELEC,

G.R. No. 177927, February 15, 2008
Syllabus 1 Dec. to Recitation
MODULE 11: STRICT OR LIBERAL 9 Dec.
CONSTRUCTION Textbooks 2020 Case Study
I. Statutes strictly construed Supreme Discussion

Court
A. Penal laws Decisions Quiz
1. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA

GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010
2. GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 180700,
March 4, 2008
B. Statutes in derogation of rights
1. HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN v.

MANDALUYONG, G.R. No. 135087,
March 14, 2000
2. PHILACOR CREDIT CORPORATION v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, G.R. No. 169899, February
15
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
06, 2013
REVENUE v. KUDOS METAL
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 178087, May
5, 2010
4. MAPULO MINING ASSOCIATION v.
HON. FERNANDO LOPEZ, G.R. No. L-
30440, February 7, 1992
C. Statutes granting privileges
REVENUE v. PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
G.R. No. 140230, December 15, 2005
2. RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, G.R.
No. 138298, November 29, 2000
3. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
KERRY LAO ANG, G.R. No. 175430,
June 18, 2012
D. Exceptions and provisos
REVENUE v. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, CENTRAL VEGETABLE
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., G.R. No.
107135, February 23, 1999
2. GEOLOGISTICS, INC. v. GATEWAY
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, G.R.
Nos. 174256-57, March 25, 2009
II. Statutes Liberally Construed
1. RE: APPLICATION FOR

SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS
UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946, A.M.
No. 14155-Ret., November 19, 2013
2. MARIA OBRA v. SSS, G.R. No. 147745,
April 9, 2003
16
LEARNIN
G
for
learning)
3. IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF
MICHELLE P. LIM, G.R. Nos. 168992-93,
May 21, 2009
4. THE COCA-COLA EXPORT
CORPORATION v. CLARITA P.
GACAYAN, G.R. No. 149433, December
15, 2010
5. REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD v. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 165155, Apr 13, 2010
REVENUE v. BASF COATING, G.R. No.
198677, November 26, 2014
7. RAMON A. SYHUNLIONG v.
TERESITA RIVERA, G.R. No. 200148,
June 4, 2014
Dec. 10-
FINAL EXAMINATIONS 17, 2020
TEXTBOOKS:
1. Statutory Construction by Ruben Agpalo (latest Edition)

2. Canons of Statutory Construction by Dennis B. Funa
POLICIES:
1. Attendance will be checked every meeting.

2. Students who are called to recite but are absent/disconnected shall get a grade of 60.
3. Students who missed a quiz will get a grade of 60.
4. Students are strictly prohibited from recording the online class.
Prepared by:
DARNIEL R. BUSTAMANTE
Faculty, College of Law
Approved by:
17
Atty. Marciano G. Delson
Dean, College of Law
18

Statutory Construction Syllabus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statutory Construction Syllabus

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

Statutory Construction Syllabus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COURSE TITLE: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

COURSE CREDIT: 2 UNITS

COURSE PREREQUISITE/S: N/A

FACULTY: DARNIEL R. BUSTAMANTE

TERM/ACADEMIC YEAR: FIRST SEMESTER SCHOOL YEAR 2020-2021

COURSE DELIVERY MODE: FULL ONLINE

A study of the different rules of statutory construction to prepare the student as he

COURSE GOALS: Expected College of Law Graduate Attributes (“ELGAs”)

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES (“LOs”):

1. Knowledge/Remembering: define, list, recognize

ELGAs LEARNING OUTCOMES (LOs)

The student will be graded according to the following:

Class standing before Midterms Individual 16.67%

1. Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, 28

2. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235

III. Extent of and Limitations on Legislative

1. In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534

Syllabus 31 Aug. Recitation

1. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235

III. Approval of Bills

1. Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No.

IV. Evidence of Enactment of Laws

a.) Enrolled Bill Theory

1. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, L-1223, March 5,

b.) Journal Entry Rule

1. Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, April

Syllabus 14 Sept. Recitation

II. General Principles of Construction

1. Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, 66

III. Aids to construction

1. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive

IV. Ordinary Sense v. Technical Sense

1. Ordillo v. Commission on Elections, 192

V. Self-Executing vs. Non-Self-

1. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No.

VI. Mandatory v. Directory

1. Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957)

VII. Prospective v. Retroactive

1. Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222

II. When Statute Becomes Effective

III. When Statute Becomes Effective

1. Administrative Code, Book VII, Sections

IV. When Local Ordinance Takes Effect

1. Local Government Code, Sections 54 – 59

V. Manner of Computing Time

1. Civil Code, Article 13

VI. Effectivity of Laws Until Repealed

1. Concept of Temporary Statutes

I. Definition Supreme Discussion

1. City of Baguio v. Marcos, G.R. No. 26100,

III. When construction is resorted to

1. Garcia v. Social Security Commission,

IV. Executive Construction

1. Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix

1. Article VIII, Section 1 and Section 4 of the

B. Requisites for Judicial Review

1. Southern Hemisphere Engagement

1. Article 7, New Civil Code