Lecture Notes: Subject Matter of Construction – Types of Laws: Constitution, Statutes,
Executive Issuances, Ordinances
I. Introduction
Understanding the various types of laws and their hierarchical relationships is
fundamental to statutory construction. Each type of law—Constitution, statutes,
executive issuances, and ordinances—has distinct characteristics and occupies a specific
position within the legal framework. Interpreting these laws accurately ensures that the
legal system functions cohesively and justly.
II. Types of Laws
1. Constitution
o Definition: The supreme law of the land, establishing the framework of
government, delineating the separation of powers, and enumerating
fundamental rights and freedoms.
o Characteristics:
Supremacy over all other forms of law; any law inconsistent with
the Constitution is deemed invalid.
Provides foundational principles guiding the creation and
interpretation of all other laws.
o Interpretation:
Originalism: Interprets the text as it was understood at the time of
enactment, focusing on the framers' original intent.
Living Constitutionalism: Views the Constitution as a dynamic
document that should adapt to contemporary societal values and
circumstances.
Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to invalidate statutes,
executive actions, or ordinances that conflict with constitutional
provisions, ensuring all laws conform to constitutional mandates.
2. Statutes
o Definition: Laws enacted by the legislative branch that prescribe general
rules of conduct.
o Characteristics:
Codified in official compilations (e.g., the United States Code).
Address a wide array of subjects, from criminal law to regulatory
frameworks.
o Interpretation:
Textualism: Emphasizes the importance of the statutory text itself,
interpreting words based on their ordinary meaning at the time of
enactment.
Purposivism: Considers the broader purpose and objectives that
the legislature intended to achieve with the statute, potentially
looking beyond the text to legislative history and context.
Page 1 of 6
Intentionalism: Focuses on discerning the specific intent of the
legislature regarding the issue at hand, often consulting legislative
records and debates.
Canons of Construction:
Plain Meaning Rule: If the statutory language is clear and
unambiguous, it should be applied as written.
Ejusdem Generis: When general words follow specific items
in a list, the general words are interpreted to include only
items of the same type as those listed.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: The mention of
specific items implies the exclusion of others not listed.
Noscitur a Sociis: A word is understood by the company it
keeps; ambiguous terms are interpreted in the context of
surrounding words.
3. Executive Issuances
o Definition: Directives issued by the executive branch, including executive
orders, proclamations, and administrative regulations, to implement and
enforce statutes.
o Characteristics:
Have the force of law when issued pursuant to statutory or
constitutional authority.
Can be subject to judicial review to ensure they do not exceed
granted powers or contravene existing laws.
o Interpretation:
Delegated Authority: Courts assess whether the executive issuance
falls within the authority granted by the legislature.
Consistency with Statutes: Executive orders and regulations must
align with existing statutes and cannot override legislative intent.
Reasonableness Review: Courts may evaluate the reasonableness
of executive actions, especially when they affect individual rights,
to ensure they do not violate due process.
4. Ordinances
o Definition: Laws enacted by local government entities, such as city
councils or county boards, to address issues within their jurisdiction.
o Characteristics:
Apply to specific localities and address local concerns, such as
zoning, public safety, and local taxation.
Must be consistent with both state and federal laws; cannot
contravene higher authority.
o Interpretation:
Scope of Authority: Courts determine whether the local
government acted within its delegated powers when enacting the
ordinance.
Consistency with Higher Laws: Ordinances must not conflict with
state or federal laws; any such conflict can render the ordinance
invalid.
Page 2 of 6
Local Context: Interpretation may consider the specific needs and
circumstances of the local community, provided they do not
infringe upon broader legal principles.
III. Hierarchical Relationship Among Types of Laws
Supremacy Clause: In many legal systems, the Constitution holds the highest
authority. Statutes, executive issuances, and ordinances must conform to
constitutional mandates.
Preemption Doctrine: Higher-level laws can preempt lower-level laws. For
example, federal statutes can preempt state laws, and state laws can preempt
local ordinances if conflicts arise.
IV. Principles of Statutory Construction Across Different Types of Laws
Harmonization: Courts strive to interpret laws in a manner that harmonizes
various provisions, avoiding conflicts and giving effect to all parts of the law.
Specificity: Specific provisions typically prevail over general ones when there is a
conflict, under the principle that the specific governs the general.
Legislative Intent: Determining the intent behind a law is crucial. Courts may look
beyond the text to legislative history, purpose, and context to interpret
ambiguous provisions.
V. Conclusion
Understanding the different types of laws and their hierarchical relationships is essential
in statutory construction. Courts employ various principles and tools to interpret these
laws, ensuring that each operates within its proper scope and in harmony with the
broader legal framework.
Eugenio v. Drilon (G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996)
I. Introduction
This case examines the retroactive application of remedial statutes, focusing on
Presidential Decree No. 957 (P.D. No. 957), known as the "Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers' Protective Decree." The Supreme Court's decision provides insights into
statutory construction principles, particularly regarding legislative intent and the
protective nature of certain laws.
II. Parties Involved
Petitioner: Florencio Eugenio, doing business under the name E & S Enterprises.
Respondents: Franklin M. Drilon (then Executive Secretary), Tomas B. Africa
(Administrator of the National Statistics Office), and the National Statistics Office.
Page 3 of 6
III. Case Background
Florencio Eugenio sold subdivision lots to buyers, including a certain Palmiano. Due to
Eugenio's failure to develop the subdivision as promised, Palmiano ceased installment
payments. Eugenio sought to cancel the sale, while Palmiano sought refunds. The
Executive Secretary ordered refunds, applying P.D. No. 957, which protects subdivision
lot buyers. Eugenio contested this, arguing P.D. No. 957 should not apply retroactively to
contracts executed before its enactment.
IV. Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner (Eugenio): Argued that P.D. No. 957 should not apply retroactively to
contracts executed before its enactment.
Respondents: Maintained that P.D. No. 957 was applicable to the case to protect
the buyer's interests.
V. Decisions of the Lower Courts
The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents, applying P.D. No. 957 to protect the
buyer's interests.
VI. Provisions of Law in Question
Presidential Decree No. 957: Aimed to protect buyers of subdivision lots and
condominium units from fraudulent practices and manipulations by developers,
sellers, and operators.
VII. Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the retroactive application of P.D. No. 957, emphasizing the
legislative intent to protect buyers from exploitative practices by subdivision developers.
The Court noted that the decree's provisions support its retrospective enforcement to
address non-compliance and protect buyers' interests.
VIII. Lessons in Statutory Construction
Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that the intent of the law is paramount
in statutory construction. P.D. No. 957 was enacted to protect buyers from
unscrupulous developers, and this protective intent justified its retroactive
application.
Remedial Statutes: Remedial statutes, such as P.D. No. 957, are designed to
correct existing laws or address specific issues. These statutes are generally given
retroactive effect to fulfill their intended purpose.
Protection of the Weaker Party: The decision highlights the judiciary's role in
safeguarding the interests of vulnerable parties, in this case, subdivision lot
buyers, by ensuring that protective laws are effectively enforced.
Page 4 of 6
This case underscores the importance of legislative intent and the protective nature of
remedial statutes in statutory construction. It illustrates how courts interpret laws to
ensure that their purpose is achieved, even if it requires retroactive application.
Government of the Philippine Islands v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
(G.R. No. 44257, November 22, 1938)
I. Introduction
This landmark case addresses the constitutional requirement that legislative acts must
embrace only one subject, which should be expressed in their titles. The Supreme Court's
interpretation in this case provides valuable insights into statutory construction
principles.
II. Parties Involved
Plaintiff/Appellant: Government of the Philippine Islands.
Defendants/Appellees: Several banking institutions operating in the Philippines,
including:
o The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation.
o The National City Bank of New York.
o The Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China.
o The Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
o The Bank of the Philippine Islands.
o The Peoples Bank & Trust Co.
o The China Banking Corporation.
o The Philippine Trust Co.
o The Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank.
III. Case Filed
The Government sought to recover the total annual expenses of the Bureau of Banking
by imposing assessments on all banking institutions subject to inspection by the Bank
Commissioner. These assessments were proportionate to each institution's average total
assets relative to the combined assets of all such institutions during the year in question.
IV. Contentions of the Parties
Defendants/Appellees:
o Argued that Section 11 of Act No. 4007 was unconstitutional because its
subject matter was not expressed in the Act's title, violating Section 3 of
the Jones Law.
o The National City Bank of New York further contended that:
There was a misjoinder of parties defendant.
Section 11 did not impose any tax upon national banking
associations, a category to which it belonged.
Page 5 of 6
V. Decisions of the Lower Courts
Trial Court: Sustained the demurrers filed by the appellees, ruling that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action because the statutory provision in
question was unconstitutional.
Court of Appeals: There was no intermediate ruling by a Court of Appeals; the
case was directly appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
VI. Provisions of Law in Question
Section 3 of the Jones Law: Mandated that no bill enacted into law shall embrace
more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill.
Section 11 of Act No. 4007: Required all banking institutions subject to inspection
by the Bank Commissioner to reimburse the government for the total annual
expenses of the Bureau of Banking, proportionate to their average total assets
relative to the combined assets of all such institutions during the year in question.
VII. Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 11 of Act No. 4007,
interpreting the title of the Act—"An Act to reorganize the departments, bureaus and
offices of the Insular Government, and for other purposes"—as sufficiently
comprehensive to include provisions related to the Bureau of Banking. The Court
emphasized a reasonable, not technical, construction of legislative titles, allowing for a
broad understanding that encompasses the general objective of the statute without
detailing every means to achieve that objective.
VIII. Lessons in Statutory Construction
Reasonable Interpretation of Legislative Titles: Constitutional provisions
requiring a statute's subject to be expressed in its title should be construed
reasonably, not narrowly or technically. It is sufficient if the title is comprehensive
enough to reasonably include the general objective of the statute, without
needing to detail every means or end necessary to achieve that objective.
Avoidance of Legislative Impediment: Overly restrictive interpretations of title
requirements can impede proper legislation. A balanced approach ensures that
legislative intent is honored without imposing unnecessary constraints that could
hinder effective lawmaking.
Title as an Indication of Purpose: The title of an act does not need to serve as an
abstract or index of its contents. Instead, it should provide a clear indication of
the act's purpose, encompassing provisions germane to the general subject
expressed.
This case underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting legislative provisions and
ensuring adherence to constitutional requirements concerning legislative processes.
Page 6 of 6