Legal Method Essentials: A

Comprehensive Report
Parro, Maria Fatima L.
On a layman’s perspective, it would be very difficult to comprehend legal
terms and maxims unless you consult legal advice from a lawyer. The lawyer who
knows something about the constitution and its construction, judicial review, and
the case law and precedent.
THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS CONSTRUCTION
Based from Gatmaytan (2014), the constitution is the essential and
paramount law of the nation. There is a supremacy on this law wherein all other
laws need to abide by it. A law that serves as a permanent framework on the
government system along with its sovereign power, duties, and principles where
it originated. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, a certain law or
contract becomes null and void if it violates any constitutional provisions. It
expresses the sovereign will as well as governs the resolution of constitutional
issues (Nitafan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 78780, July 23,
1987).
According to Tribe (1988), there are six (6) modes of constitutional
construction – textualism, structural analysis, originalism, normative and
pragmatic approach, reliance on stare decisis, and the search for meaning through
a deliberately eclectic combination of the above approaches. Textualism talks
about the constitutional interpretation that parses its text narrowly. It freezes the
constitution in an earlier century which may render it as obsolete, interpreting it
by paying attention on its linguistic context only. Structural analysis focuses on
“reading across words” that looks on the physical arrangement or the structure of
the constitution’s text, it’s what the text shows but does not directly say. This is
shown when the text of the constitution is ambiguous or silent on a certain issue.
Originalism would look at the lawmaker’s intent and applies the constitution
based from what its framers intended it to be. It tends to supplement the text
(textualism) and structure (structural analysis) with original meaning or its original
intent (originalism). However, the disadvantages of this approach is that- 1) it
subordinates the ratified and enacted text of the constitution into purely
subjective and un-enacted intentions or the other state of the mind of a group of
people who have previously passed away for a long time, 2) it focuses on the
abstract intentions rather than on concrete expectations, 3) it has framers,
drafters, and ratifiers that does not always share a single purpose or set of
purposes for the language chosen, and 4) it has historical record of its intentions
and aims that the framers, drafters, and ratifiers that they did not share since it is
often dramatically inconclusive and at times downright contradictory to the text.
The normative and pragmatic approach speaks about the the elucidation of
meaning through attempts to discern which interpretation best accords with the
ethos or moral and political character and identity of the nation. The difficulty
encountered using this approach would be its unsuitable subjectivity. Reliance on
stare decisis (legal doctrine which obligates the courts to follow historical cases
while giving a ruling on the similar case) emphasizes the the judicial elaboration
of a decisional doctrine in order to derive answers to constitutional questions.
That the constitutional law contains provisions and a huge number of judicial
opinions which serves as the second set of constitutional text. The advantages of
this mode are its flexibility (ability to adapt to changes) and stability (requiring a
judge to follow its principled adjudication). Lastly, the search for meaning
through a deliberately eclectic combination of the above approaches, adhered by
the courts to certain convention when interpreting the Constitution. This affirms
that the primary source from which to ascertain the intent or purpose of the
Constitution is the language of the provision itself.
There are certain procedures for interpreting the constitution – verba legis,
ratio legis et anima, and ut magis valeat quam pereat. The plain-meaning rule,
“verba legis” or “verba legis non est recedendum, index animi sermo est”, from
the words of the statute, there shall be no departure, speech is the index of
intention which held that there must be a literal construction and interpretation
of the law that should focus on its ordinary meaning having an emphasis on the
words used in expressing the constitutional provisions that should meet the
Constitutional objectives that it wants to accomplish. The words of a statute
should be plain, clear, and free from ambiguity, given its literal meaning, and
applied without interpretation. The language of the law itself requires no
construction. The language of the constitution should be construed in its common
meaning. The term “ratio legis et anima” refers to the fact that when there’s an
ambiguity in the words of the constitution, it should be interpreted based from
the framers’ intent. Then, “ut magis valeat quam pereat” emphasizes that the
constitution should be interpreted as a whole (J.M. Tuason and Co.,Inc. vs. The
Land Tenure Administration, G.R. No. L-21064, February 18, 1970; Civil Liberties
Union vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991; Francisco vs.
House of Representatives, G.R. No., G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003; Nitafan
vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 78780, July 23, 1987; Chavez vs.
Judicial and Bar Council, G.R.No.202242, April 16, 2013; Chiongbian vs. De Leon,
G.R. No., G.R.No.L-2007, January 31,1949).

There are also rules in reading the constitution- 1) it is to be assumed that

the words in which constitutional provisions are couched to express the objective
sought to be attained, 2) the words are to be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed in which case the latter meaning prevails, 3)
because the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document, its languages much
as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common use, and 4)
the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the
power of the courts to alter it, on the premise that the framers and the people
mean what they say (J.M. Tuason and Co.,Inc. vs. The Land Tenure Administration,
G.R. No. L-21064, February 18, 1970).

There should be an emphasis on the constitution which should be

interpreted as a whole, words should also be understood as they are commonly
used with its ordinary meaning except for the technical terms that should govern.
I want to give emphasis on Gatmaytan (2014) stating that “the constitution is not
primarily a lawyer’s document wherein its language should be understood in the
sense that it may have in common use.” The law should also have a prospective
application since “lex prospicit, non respicit”, the law looks forward and not
backward. Gatmaytan (2014) held that while there are penal laws that were given
a retroactive application since it benefits the accused, the provisions under the
Constitution is different since it should be given a prospective application, unless
otherwise provided.

As what was previously mentioned, when the law is clear and is free from
doubt or ambiguity, there is no need for construction or interpretation, but there
is a need for its application. But, sometimes the court encounters difficulties in
interpreting the constitution since the words are somewhat ambiguous. In case of
ambiguity, there is a need to trace back the legislative history of the
Constitutional provisions, while tracking the intent of the framers of it, but
sometimes, the interpretation of these said provisions are made literal.
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” which emphasizes that the expression of a
thing is the exclusion of the other. (Sarmiento vs. Mison, GR. No. G.R. No.79974,
December 17, 1987; Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, August 15, 2000).

Statutes can be classified based from its operation as mandatory, directory,

declaratory, curative, substantive, remedial and penal. Mandatory statute gives
commands or prohibition that the people who were given the command have no
choice but to obey. Directory statute is more lenient or unrestricted in nature
than the mandatory ones and it emphasizes that no injury can result from
ignoring the commission of an act and there is the accomplishment of its purpose
other than what is prescribed, but, same results was attained. Declaratory statute
is decreed in order to declare the existing law without any additions or changes to
it since the right interpretation of it is somewhat suspicious or ambiguous.
Curative statute amends mistakes on former legal proceedings and makes them
valid for its anticipated purpose. Substantive statute defines rights and
responsibilities based from the facts of the case. A remedial statute benefits the
feebler part of the community wherein it convenes a new favor or remedy so as
to make a progress in the execution of a right of any individual or for reparation
of wrong and the exclusion of the effects of error in the previous law. Last but not
the least, a penal statute defines a criminal offense as well as gives prescription to
the punishment, penalty, or fine as a consequence of it.

In order to properly aid in the interpretation as well as shed a light on the

intent of the framers of the constitution, there is a need to have debates in the
constitutional convention on the deliberated provisions which are subjected to
ratification, but the deliberation process does not guarantee a definite
interpretation (Legaspi v. Minister of Finance, G.R. No.L-58289, July 24, 1982; La
Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. 127882, January 27, 2004;
Montejo vs. COMELEC, G.R.No. 118702, March 16, 1995).

Statutes have a pronounced weight in construction of the Constitution and

it serves as indicators of concurrent interpretation which is not essentially binding
or definite in courts. The doctrine of contemporaneous construction is a kind of
principle that is used in order to interpret statutes. According to Agpalo (2009),
this doctrine emphasizes that, “where there is doubt as to the proper
interpretation of a statute, the uniform construction placed upon it by the
executive or administrative officer charged with its enforcement will be adopted if
necessary to resolve the doubt. It is the true expression of the legislative purpose,
especially if the construction is followed for a considerable period of time.”

Also, not all provisions under the constitution are self-executing and
operative. According to Gatmaytan (2014), a provision is self-executing “if the
nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action.” An example of a provision under the 1987
constitution which is self-executing is Article 11 section 11 (“Accountability of
Public Officers”) that it is not a necessity for legislation to implement these
constitutional provisions while the provisions that are not self-executing are
Article 2 (“Declaration of Principles and State Policies”), Article 12 (“National
Economy and Patrimony”), and Article 13, section 3 (“Social Justice and Human
Rights”) which do not exemplify sensibly enforceable constitutional rights, but
provides procedures for legislation (Tañada vs. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2,
1997; Gamboa vs. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011; Manila Prince Hotel v.
GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3,1997).

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review is the power to declare a law, treaty, international or

executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation which is vested upon the judiciary specifically the courts which shall
uphold the constitutional supremacy (Article 8, section 1 and section 4(2), 1987
Constitution). Take note that the court cannot exercise its power of judicial
review over a bill since it’s not yet a law.
The concept of political question doctrine signifies the separation of
powers wherein the Judicial branch of the government is not allowed to decide
on questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government. The term “political
question” is a question of policy. These are "those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative
or executive branch of government. It limits the courts' power to the
determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action
is being questioned.". In the 1987 constitution, it limits the use of the Political
Question Doctrine, but promotes judicial review (Tañada vs.Cuenco, G.R.No. L-
10520, February 28, 1957).
The requisites to a judicial review are- 1) an actual case or controversy (an
existing case that is ripe for determination which power cannot be exercised in
vacuo) calling for the exercise of judicial power; 2) the person challenging the act
must have "standing" to challenge it; he must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement; 3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at
the earliest possible opportunity; and 4) the issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota of the case.
When the case is a moot, it shall possibly be dismissed (ex. case questioning
the constitutionality of the impeachment of Justice Corona). A case is moot if: 1)
there is a grave violation of the Constitution; 2) the situation has an exceptional
character and the paramount public interest is involved; 3) the constitutional
issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public; or 4) the case is capable of repetition but has evaded review.
Gatmaytan (2014) emphasized that despite the presence of a case or
controversy, the court can refuse to conduct a judicial review except if the person
initiating the constitutional question has a locus standi (“legal standing”,
"personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or
will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged") on the matter. There should also be ways regarding the query of
unconstitutionality was directly elevated in the proceedings of the court as an
earliest opportunity. Then, a lis mota which is the “cause of the suit or action”.
If an act is unconstitutional, it is not considered as a law. Definitely there
should be a conformity with the constitutional provisions otherwise, it is null and
void. The operative fact doctrine recognizes the nullification of the law but
sustains its effects. Thus, Gatmaytan (2014) emphasizes that the court follows
the doctrine "when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law”. But, when a given statute
becomes partial unconstitutional, you may disregard the unconstitutional and
retain the constitutional without affecting its contents and validity. This concept is
inclusive under the separability clause at the end part of each law.

CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT

The disputes among the two (2) opposing parties are resolved by the courts
through the provisions under the law. As mentioned a while ago, the law should
be interpreted based from the intent of its framers and when the Supreme Court
gives a ruling, the lower court should abide by it which is binding to the doctrine
of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”).
Speaking about the doctrine of res judicata (“a matter decided”), this
particular concept emphasizes that when a final judgment is rendered by the
court upon a case, it is no longer subject to an appeal and litigating for the second
time is prohibited. The requisites of the doctrine of res judicata conforms that- 1)
the former judgment or order must be final; 2) the judgment or order must be on
the merits; 3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; and 4) there must be, between the first and the
second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action
(elements: 1) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest
in both actions; 2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and 3) the identity in the two particulars is such that
any judgment which may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration). On
the other hand, the doctrine of litis pendentia is the principle wherein any of the
parties is forbidden to vex or infuriate the other about the same matter and for
the same cause of action (Yap vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.186730, June 13,
2012).
The doctrine of the law of the case permits rehearing. This principle is
binding on both the trial court’s decision as well as with the decision of the Court
of Appeals (Rule 39, Section 47 (b) and (c), Rules of Court, “Effect of Judgment or
Final Orders”). In this doctrine, the initial decision of the lower court is not yet
final and the accused can file an appeal to the court for the reversal and/or
change of its initial decision.
There are different forms of inconsistencies on the decisions of the
Supreme Court which are sweetheart defense and judicial flip-flopping. The
sweetheart defense is the last-ditch, desperate, and hopeless defense of the
accused in order to exonerate him from a rape case and is an oft-abused
justification that tests the patience of the court, that though the victim and the
rapist are lovers, it does not excuse the latter from the consequences of the
commission of the crime (People vs. Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299, October 6, 2008;
People vs. Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, February 23, 1996).
Then, the judicial flip-flopping occurs when the Supreme Court justices
don’t agree with regards to the correct interpretation of the law. Also, the
judgments which have been declared and final and executory were reopened and
reversed despite settled jurisprudence that it can’t be modified especially with
respect to the decision of the higher court (League of Cities of the Philippines v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, April 12,2011).
Among all the concepts previously discussed, let us be reminded that it’s
normal and usual for courts to commit mistakes since even the DNA
(Deoxyribonucleic acid) has a natural tendency to commit mistakes. But like the
DNA, there’s a must to have repair mechanisms in courts so as to mend the minor
errors committed especially when it results from wrongful interpretation of the
provisions under the law which is different from what the framers of the law
intends it to be.
Note: I have not modified some of the texts while writing this comprehensive
review so as not to alter the real message and intent of the framer of Legal
Method Essentials, Atty. Gatmaytan.

References:
Agpalo, R.E. (2009).Statutory Construction.Quezon City: Rex Printing Company,
Inc.
Gatmaytan, D.B. (2014). Legal Method Essentials 2.0. Quezon City: University of
the
Philippines, College of Law.