Doctrine of Last Antecedent

• The general rule is that qualifying words restrict

or modify only the words or phrases to which

they are immediately associated.

• In other words, in the absence of legislative

intent to the contrary, preferential and qualifying

words and phrases must be applied only to their

immediate antecedent, and not to the other

remote or preceding words or association of

words.

• This rule of legal hermeneutics is commonly

known as the Doctrine of Last Antecedent.

• In simple terms, the Doctrine of last Antecedent

means that a qualifying words or phrase should

be understood as referring to the nearest

antecedent.

• The maxim expressive of this rule is ad

proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur

sentetic, or relative words refer to the nearest

antecedents, unless the context otherwise

requires.

• The use of comma to separate an antecedent

from the rest exerts a dominant influence in the

application of the doctrine of last antecedent.

Thus, it has been held that the qualifying effect

of a modifying words or phrase will be confined

to its immediate antecedent if the latter is

separated by a comma from the other

antecedents.

• This rule, however, is neither controlling nor

inflexible. Thus, where several words in a statute

are followed by a general expression which is

applicable as much to the first and other words

as to the last, the natural construction of the

language demands that the expression be read

as applicable to all.

• In addition, Doctrine of last antecedent will not

be adhered to where extension to a more remote

antecedent is clearly require by a consideration

of the entire act.

• In Pangilinan v. Alvendia, where a statute defines a word

“tenant” as a “person who, himself and with the aid

available from within his immediate farm household,

cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by

another, ” and the phrase “immediate farm household” as

members of the family of the tenant, and such other

person or persons, whether related or not, who are

dependent upon him for support and who usually help

operate the farm enterprise ,”

• the term “members of the family of the tenant ” includes

tenant’s son, son-in law and grand son even they though

they are not dependent upon him for support and living

separately from him because the qualifying phrase “who

are dependent upon him for support” refers only to the

last antecedent, namely “such other person or persons,

whether related to the tenant or not” and because the

absence of a clear and categorical imperative, the court

will not construe statutes in a sense consistent with the

rational unity of the Filipino family.

• The doctrine of last Antecedent is subject to the

exception that where the intention of the law is

to apply to the phrase all antecedents embraced

in the provision, the same should be extensive to

the whole.

• The principle of last antecedent is merely an aid

to the construction of statutes and will not be

adhered to where the extension to a more remote

antecedent is clearly required by a consideration

of the entire act. Slight indication of legislative

intent so to extend the relative term is sufficient

• The Doctrine of Last Antecedent only applies

when:

• (1) there is ambiguity or doubt on the face of the

statute, (2) there is difficulty interpreting the

qualifying words of a sentence, the rule is to

apply the relatives “which,” “such,” said,” and

other relative or limiting words and phrases to

such terms or clauses as shall immediately

precede them, rather than such as are more

remote

• The Doctrine does not also apply where the

intention is not to qualify the antecedent at all

Reddendo Singula Singulis

• A variation of the Doctrine of Last Antecedent is

the rule of reddendo singular singulis.

• The maxim means referring each to each;

referring each phrase or expression to its

appropriate subject, or let each be put in proper

place, that is, the words should be taken

distributively.

• This maxim finds justification in our use of the

English language. If this, or some other principle

closely allied to it, were not used, many

legislative enactments would be filled with

inconsistencies. By the virtue of it, if the sense of

the statute so requires, and in order to further

the intent of the legislature, the various words,

clauses and phrases are to be taken

distributively.

• Sutherland states the rule as follows: Where a

sentence contains several antecedents and

several consequents thy are to be applied to the

subjects to which they appear by context most

properly to relate and to which they are most

applicable.

• Thus, where several words importing power,

authority, and obligation are found at the

commencement of a clause, it is not necessary

that each of the words apply to the several

branches of the clause. It may be construed

reddendo singular singulis and the words giving

power and authority limited to particular

subjects and those of obligation applied to others

• A good example is the wording of Article 31 of

the Family Code of the Philippines, which read as

follows:

“Art.31. A marriage in articulo mortis between

passengers or crew members may also be

solemnized by a ship captain or by a ship captain or

by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea

or the plane is in flight, but also during

stopovers at ports of call.”

• The phrase “may also be solemnized by the ship

captain” refers to the phrase “while the ship is at

sea”. The phrase “or the plane is in flight” refers

to the “airplane pilot”. The more appropriate

connection, however, would be “may also be

solemnized: by the airplane pilot “while the plane

is in flight.” The phrase “but also during

stopovers at ports of call” refers to the ship

captain and airplane pilot.

REFERENCES:

• Agpalo,R.(2009). “Statutory Construction”. Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore Inc.

 • Alcantara, S. (1997). “Statutory Construction”. Quezon

City Philippines: The Philippines Labor Relations Journal, p.88

• Crawford, Statutory Construction, Sec. 194, pp. 332-334

• Francisco, V. (1968). “Statutory Construction, Third Edition”. Manila Philippines: East Publishing, pp.87-88.

• Sibal, JA. (1994). “Statutory Construction”. Quezon City Philippines: Central Professional Books, Inc., p.97

• Suarez, R. (2007). “Statutory Construction”. Manila Philippines: Rex Bookstore, pp. 177-178.