Plain meaning: Verba Legis, Statutory Construction
“[W]hen the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for application. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or ‘speech is the index of intention.’ Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or ‘from the words of a statute there should be no departure.’” (Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010, Per Mendoza, J.)
“[W]en the law is clear and unambiguous, the court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. The courts can only pronounce what the law is and what the rights of the parties thereunder are. Fidelity to such a task precludes construction or interpretation, unless application is impossible or inadequate without it. Thus, it is only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.” (Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 228087, January 24, 2018, Per Gesmundo, J.)
“Parenthetically, the ‘plain meaning rule’ or verba legis in statutory construction enjoins that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation. This rule of interpretation is in deference to the plenary power of Congress to make, alter and repeal laws as this power is an embodiment of the People’s sovereign will. Accordingly, when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, courts cannot deviate from the text of the law and resort to interpretation lest they end up betraying their solemn duty to uphold the law and worse, violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers.” (Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 228087, January 24, 2018, Per Gesmundo, J.)
“[W] where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.” (Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, En Banc, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012, Per Mendoza, J.)
“[W]hen a statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, interpretation need not be resorted to.” (Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007, Per Chico-Nazario, J.)
