Avoiding Absurdity, Statutory Construction

1. Concept

“It is a general rule of statutory construction that a law should not be so construed as to produce an absurd result. he law does not intend an absurdity or that an absurd consequence shall flow from the enactment. Statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.” (Bansilan v. People, G.R. No. 239518, November 03, 2020, Per Peralta, C.J.)

“The presumption is against absurdity, and it is the duty of the courts to interpret the law in such a way as to avoid absurd results.” (People v. Villanueva, En Banc, G.R. No. L-15014, April 29, 1961, Per Reyes, J.B.L., J.).

“It is presumed that the legislature does not intend an absurdity, or that absurd consequences shall flow from its enactments. Such a result will therefore be avoided, if the terms of the act admit of it, by a reasonable construction of the statute.” (Verceles v. Diaz, En Banc, G.R. No. 24602, September 17, 1925, Per Romualdez, J., citing Oates vs. First National Bank of Montgomery, 100 U.S., 239; State vs. Clark, 29 N. L. Law, 96; Henry vs. Tilson, 17 Vt., 479; Gilkey vs, Cook, 60 Wis., 133; 18 N. W., 639.)