Statutory Construction vs Judicial Legislation

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full texts of the cases cited. Xie xie!

Reviewer by Chester B Cabalza

When is it construction and when is it judicial legislation?

To declare what the law shall be is a legislative power, but to declare what the law is or has been, is judicial. However, the court “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law. The Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of the existing law and jurisprudence. (Floresca v. Philex Mining; Republic v. CA and Molina)

1. Floresca v. Philex Mining
Does CFI (RTC) have jurisdiction over the complaint?

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Code which provides that: “No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.” It argues that the application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court’s application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. Yet, the Court argues that the Court can legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code. However, even the legislator himself recognizes that in certain instances, the court “do and must legislate” to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply.

2. Republic v. CA and Molina
Guidelines presented by the court.

The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new ground (in addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to assail the validity of a marriage, namely, "psychological incapacity." In addition to resolving the present case, the court finds the need to lay down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code. In the present case, it appears to that there is a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations of the respondent spouse. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. Hence, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of this case vis-a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. For psychological incapacity to foster, three characteristics should manifest, that include gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.

B. How must legislative intent be ascertained?

How must legislative intent be ascertained?

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. (Aisporna v. CA; China Bank v. Ortega; PVA Board of Administrators v. Bautista)

1. Aisporna v. CA
Legislative intent of the Insurance Act: whether an insurance subagent or proxy covered in section 189 of Insurance Act.

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. In the present case, the first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or broker in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance Commissioner; while the second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of the section; while the third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation.


2. China Bank v. Ortega
Whether a banking institution can validly refuse a court process garnishing the bank deposit invoking the provisions of R.A. No. 1405 (An Act prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry into, Deposits with any Banking Institution)

In gist of the pertinent provisions of RA 1405, Sec. 2., that although transactions with banking institutions in the Philippines is absolutely confidential, there is an exception upon written permission of depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of the competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. In the present case, China Bank is at default because the court merely required the bank to inform the court whether or not the defendant had a deposit with the bank for the purposes of garnishment issued by the court. However, the disclosure is purely incidental to the execution process.

3. PVA Board of Administrators v. Bautista
Whether plaintiff is entitled to the pension from 1955 instead of from 1968.

The purpose of Congress in granting veterans pensions is to compensate, as far as may be, a class of men who suffered in the service for the hardships they endured and the dangers they encountered, and more importantly, those who have become incapacitated for work owing to sickness, disease or injuries sustained while in the line of the duty. R.A. No. 65 (Veteran’s Bill of Rights) or veteran pension law is therefore, a governmental expression of gratitude to and those who rendered service for the country, by extending to them regular monetary aid. If the pension awards are made effective only upon approval of the application, then the noble and humanitarian purposes for which the law had enacted could easily be thwarted or defeated.