STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION EXAM

I. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 2609, otherwise known as the Foreign Exchange
Margin Fee Law, the Central Bank of the Philippines issued on July 1, 1959, its Circular No. 95, fixing a
uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions which indicated in particular the importations of
"urea formaldehyde". Petitioner who imports separately urea and formaldehyde sought to avail of the benefit
granted by the said law but he was denied of it. The denial was based on the ground that his importation is not
covered by the afore-cited law which pertains only to importation of "urea formaldehyde" and not for separate
importations of urea and formaldehyde.

Resolve applying the statutory construction principles.

II. Petitioner was charged with two informations for knowingly making false or untruthful statement
in their application for voter’s registration relative to their place of residence and non – registration in other
areas, which are violations of Sections 10(g) and (j), in relation to Section 45(j) of RA 8189 or the Voter’s
Registration Act, to wit:
SEC. 10 – Registration of Voters. – xxx The application shall contain the following data: x x x (g) Periods of
residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration; x x x (j) A statement that the application is not a
registered voter of any precinct;

SEC. 45. Election Offense. – The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: x x x (j)
Violation of any of the provisions of this Act.

Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of Section 45(j) for being contrary to the fair notice
requirement Section 14(1) and Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as such penal provision is
vague on its face. Resolve applying the statutory construction principles.

III. On September 5, 1964, accused was proved to be in possession of a revolver without the
requisite license or permit. He, however, claimed to be entitled to exoneration because he had an appointment as
Secret Agent from the Provincial Governor of Batangas and an appointment as Confidential Agent from the PC
Provincial Commander, and the said appointments expressly carried with them the authority to possess and
carry the firearm in question, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Macarandang(1959) and People
vs. Lucero(1958) and not on the basis of the latest reversal and abandonment in People vs. Mapa (1967). Decide
the case.

IV. Accused is a tenant of the complainant. Accused was said to have violated Section 39 of the
Agricultural Tenancy Law for pre-threshing a portion of their respective harvests without complainant’s
consent. Accused argued however that that there is no law punishing him because at that time, the repealing
law, the Agricultural Reform Code was already in force.

Apply the applicable statutory construction principle in deciding the case.

V. In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to the JBC as two
representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of Representatives and one from
the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000
and 2001, decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one full vote
each.

Petitioner questioned this practice. Respondents argued that the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a
representative of Congress.” It is their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives,
are permanent and mandatory components of “Congress,” such that the absence of either divests the term of its
substantive meaning as expressed under the Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers,
requires that both houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its mandated duty which is to
legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks of “a representative from Congress,”
it should mean one representative each from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress. Respondents
further argue that petitioner has no “real interest” in questioning the constitutionality of the JBC’s current
composition. The respondents also question petitioner’s belated filing of the petition. Decide if this practice of
the JBC runs counter to the letter and spirit of the 1987 Constitution.