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.