Statutes: Legislative intent, Statutory Construction
“The cardinal rule of statutory construction requires the court to give effect to the general legislative intent if that can be discovered within the four corners of the Act. When the object intended to be accomplished by the statute is once clearly ascertained, general words may be restrained to it and those of narrower import may be expanded to embrace it, to effectuate the intent. Along with this fundamental principle is another, equally well-established, that such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted, as will give effect to all provision of the statute.” (2 Lewis’ Sutherland, Statutory Construction, pp. 662, et seq.; In re Allen [1903], 2 Phil., 630; Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 287, cited in Borromeo v. Mariano, En Banc, G.R. No. L16808, January 3, 1921, Per Malcolm, J.)
“In the interpretation and construction of a statute the intent of the law-maker should always be ascertained and given effect, and courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the Legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the spirit of the Act.” (Torres v. Limjap, En Banc, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931, Per Johnson, J.)
“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, G.R. No. L-39419, April 12, 1982, Per De Castro, J.)
