STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Sample Questions

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Prelim:
1. If I were to decide, I will uphold the position of the IBP. It is clear that
the Lawyer’s Code of Conduct and Responsibility requires a strict
confidentiality between the lawyers and their clients and it must be respected
by the BIR. -3
2. No. The accused must be convicted. General terms followed by

enumeration of things by a specific word, are not to be construed in their
wildest extent, but are still under the general term of its specific kind. -3
3. If I were the lawyer, my defense would be that the bayonet was used
bu the accused as necessary tools to earn a livelihood, that is in farming.
4. No. The payment of taxes by the son-in-law of PACQ will not legitimize
his business operation. The term “ does not permit” is mandatory since
negative terms are considered mandatory and that everyone should follow
what is mandated by the law. Therefore, PACQ’s son-in-law’s bossiness is
illegal for it does not follow what the law mandates.
5. YES. Bitoy’s argument is justifiable. The law is clear that the slaughter
of an animal.
YES. Bitoy’s argument is valid, Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat or interpretation
be sought which gives effect to the whole of the statute -its every word.
YES. Bitoy’s argument is valid. In interpreting a statute, care should be taken
that every word of the statute be given effect. -8
6. NO. The move is not legally proper. There must be a case filed before the
court so that proper decision will be given to Pecto.
7. NO. The respondent’s argument is not valid. The concept of “Exclusion

Unius, Exclusion Alterius” cannot be applied in this case since exclusion did not
happen in the case. The term “or any other forest products” signifies the
inclusion of lumber, for the term is the general terms that refer to the same kind
or particular thing mentioned.
8. YES. I will allow the redemption of the properties. A conflict between a

law, the one which better serves the purpose of the law should prevail. In this
case, the right of redemption of the brother of the defendant should prevail
because the right of the heir for his legitimate is given importance by the law. -3
9. Requisites for construction of statutes:

1. There must be a case filed before the court.
2. There must be vagueness or ambiguity in the statute.
3. The party filing before the court must be the proper party of interest.
4. Prayer for the proper resolution of the case.
Midterm:
1. The donation of the parcel of land, located at Puerto Reel, by Jose to

Alma was prohibited under the law. One must bear in mind the spirit and
purpose of the law which is to prohibit the donation of those who are married and
it also applies to common-law-marriage. -4
2. No. The defendant is not correct. In the case of US v De Guzman, the

court ruled that a convicted will only be barred from conviction if he or she
testified for the government. In this case, the defendant failed to do his duty as a
star witness. There is no double jeopardy because of his failure to testify for the
government.
3. NO. The will cannot be given a valid effect. In the case of testate-estate of
Tampoy, the court ruled that the conditions regarding the execution of a will is
very strictly construed. Every condition in the execution of a will must be given
effect, otherwise it will be entirely void.
4. A law is presumed not to cause injustice. Special laws, though has its own
character, cannot be used as a defense in cases wherein there is injustice.
Therefore, Tikoy can file an action for damages and the City of Manila is liable
for their negligence. -2
5. The arrest is valid. For implied repeals to be used as intrinsic aid, one
must first take into consideration the inconsistency between the new law and the
old law. The inconsistency must be clearly proven and that the old law is entirely
different from the new law. Therefore, the arrest is valid for it did not prove that
the new law already impliedly repealed the old law. -5
6. YES. I will grant the petition of the Roman catholic Archbishop since it is
clear in the definition by law that employers are limited to those who carry
activities for gain and profit. The activities of the archdiocese is not intended for
profit but rather for charities. In this case, the spirit and purpose of the law
shopuld prevail over the latter. -6
7. The sale is valid. In similar case, Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court

and Tecla Padua, laws are presumed not to cause injustice and that the letter of
the law shall not exalt the spirit and purpose of the law. -3
8. YES. Vicente can inherent the property left by Aurea Campos. Vicente,
being the son of Aurea Campus, is considered as a legitimate heir. The civil
code provides that legitimate heir cannot be denied of his inheritance. In
addition, property obligations is not extinguished by death and that the forced
heirs will be the one to continue the obligation.
Finals:
1. NO. Te defendant is not correct. In the case decide by the Supreme

Court, the court ruled that in interpreting a statute, one should not deviate on the
language of the law. A fishpond operator is one who operates a fishpond. The
function is synonymous to what a manager does. The law is clear, there is no
need for interpretation.
2. NO. The argument of Xanthermo is not justifiable. In a a case decided by

the Supreme Court, it ruled that one has jurisdiction in any cases located in their
area. City X has jurisdiction over Xanthermo since their business is situated
under their jurisdiction. Therefore, the argument of Xanthermo is not valid. -2
3. I will disallow the petition for adoption of Spouses X and Y. If the adoption
is allowed, this will cause injustice to the grandchildren in terms of their legitimes.
The reason for the civil code provision, ART 335 is to avoid injustice that will
occur. One who does not know the reason behind the law does not know the law
at all. Therefore I will disallow the petition for adoption. -5
4. YES. The insurer is liable. In insurance laws, it must be liberally construed

for the insured and strictly construed for the insurer. Since the insured could not
temporarily use his hands because of the fire accident, he should be given the
money. This is to avoid injustice to him. Therefore, the insurer is liable. -4
5. NO. The court’s denial of the petition is not correct. In the case of Alfon v.
Court of Appeals, one must take note that the word “principally” is not to be
construed as “exclusively”. Petitioner has the right to use her mother’s name.
6. A penal law is given retroactive application where it is favorable to a

convict who is not a habitual delinquent. The revised penal code provides that a
person is deemed to be habitual delinquent if ten years prior prior to his
conviction, he is not convicted of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto,estafa or falsification.
7. NO. The argument of Ching Lung is not correct. It must be noted that in
statutory construction, naturalization law is strictly construed for the applicant. A
naturalized person is different from a natural person. Ching Lung’s naturalization
is exclusive to him. It means that it cannot be given to others nor be the reason
for others to have the same rights as him. Therefore the argument of Ching Lung
is not correct.
8. NO. I will not allow Aglipay’s petition. In the case of Aglipay v. Ruiz, the
court ruled that the issuance of postage stamps has incidental benefit t tourism.
Laws should be construed as to upheld the reason of law. Therefore, I will deny
Aglipay’s petition.
9. YES. The rerouting is legal justifiable. In the case of Lagman v. City of

Manila, the court ruled that general laws should not nullify specific or special law
- generalia specialibus non deforma. Therefore, the rerouting is legal justifiable.
-2
10. YES. The argument of the prosecution is valid. It must be noted that in
statutory construction, the spirit and reason of the law must prevail over the
letter. The law was enacted for the purpose that people should not engage in
cockfighting activities, whether it be in a cockpit or anywhere - for the law will
result to absurdity. Therefore, the argument of the prosecution is valid.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Sample Questions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Sample Questions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 Sample Questions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main principles of statutory construction discussed in the document?

What case was cited regarding the definition of a 'fishpond operator'?

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

2. No. The accused must be convicted. General terms followed by

7. NO. The respondent’s argument is not valid. The concept of “Exclusion

8. YES. I will allow the redemption of the properties. A conflict between a

9. Requisites for construction of statutes:

1. The donation of the parcel of land, located at Puerto Reel, by Jose to

2. No. The defendant is not correct. In the case of US v De Guzman, the

7. The sale is valid. In similar case, Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court

1. NO. Te defendant is not correct. In the case decide by the Supreme

2. NO. The argument of Xanthermo is not justifiable. In a a case decided by

4. YES. The insurer is liable. In insurance laws, it must be liberally construed

6. A penal law is given retroactive application where it is favorable to a

9. YES. The rerouting is legal justifiable. In the case of Lagman v. City of

You might also like