1
DONA M. VALBUENA
Constitutional Law II
1.
May 29, 2021
Discuss the principles of constitutional construction or interpretation of
constitutional provisions in accordance with settled jurisprudence.
The general principles of constitutional construction or interpretation are the
following:
a. Verba legis - Whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms
are employed. This is a plain language meaning rule or the language
and meaning of the words used must be taken as it is.
b. Ratio legis est anima- Words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.
c. Ut magis valeat quam pereat - The Constitution should be interpreted
as a whole. This is to interpret the Constitution as a whole and not
to splice or slice each sentence or tenses to suit the whims and
caprices of the interpreter.
In Chavez versus JBC the Court discussed that “one of the primary and basic in
statutory construction is that 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. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional construction that the
language employed in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed. As much as possible, the words of the Constitution
should be understood in the sense they have in common use.”
The composition of the Judicial and Bar Council is provided under Section 8,
Article VIII of the Constitution, viz:
xxx “Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision
of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary
of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of
the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of
four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first
appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor
of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the
private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and
shall keep a record of its proceedings.
2
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget
the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the
Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may
assign to it.” xxx
The bone of contention in Chavez versus JBC was allowing two representatives from
the Congress to sit as members of the Judicial and Bar Council and have one vote
each, hence altering the Constitutionally prescribed number of members from seven
(7) to eight (8) members. This has been the practice since 1994 until Francisco
Chavez brought the issue before the Court.
To settle the issue and set a jurisprudence, the Court held that the current numerical
composition of eight (8) members of the JBC is unconstitutional. The Court applied
the plain language rule wherein it is clear that the meaning of the law is “a
representative from the Congress.” Within the context of the law, it is only prescribed
for only one member from the Congress.
2.
Discuss the process of constitutional amendments vis-à-vis constitutional
revision. Cite jurisprudence or legal provisions.
The Constitution provides provisions for amendments or revisions under
Article XVII, viz:
xxx” Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number
of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener
than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the
electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof
shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
3
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of
the petition.”
The 1987 Constitution has been described as a rigid constitution. The keys to unlock
it and open itself for amendments or revisions are difficult and not doable in a multiparty system and attempts to amend or revise it had been proven futile.
To proceed with our discussion, we have to distinguish amendments from revisions.
An amendment is a formal or official change made to a law, contract, constitution, or
other legal document. It is based on the verb to amend, which means to change for
better. Amendments can add, remove, or update parts of these agreements.
(Wikipedia)
Revision on the other hand is defined by Ballotpedia as:
A constitutional revision is a holistic and fundamental change to a state constitution,
in contrast to a constitutional amendment, which amend specific articles or sections
of a state's constitution.
In laymen’s language, the constitutional amendment is focus on adding, remove or
update parts of the constitutional provisions. Among the favorites of the proponents
of the amendments are the constitutional term limits and the 60%-40% ownership in
foreign investments which favors Filipino majority ownership.
There are three different ways to amend the present Philippine Constitution.
1. 3/4 votes of both houses (House of Representatives and Senate) for a
Constituent Assembly
2. 2/3 votes of both houses (House of Representative and Senate) to call for
Constitutional Convention subject to the approval of the electorate; and
3. People’s initiative to amend the constitution with at least 12% of the total
voting population and with each district represented by 3% of its total
voting population.
Unless both legislative bodies will convene either as Constituent Assembly or
Constitutional Convention subject to the approval of the electorates and there will be
enabling law for Section 2 of Article XVII, amendment or revision of the 1987
Constitution is farfetched.
Jurisprudence have been cleared on the matter regarding people’s initiative through
Lambino versus COMELEC and Santiago versus COMELEC. Both rulings have been
consistent on the infirmity of the enabling law which does not specify guidelines or
processes in case of a constitutional amendment.
4
3.
Discuss ratification case of the constitution.
1973 Constitution
The landmark ratification case was the Javellana versus the Executive Secretary. This
pertains to the question of validity of the 1973 Constitution or the so-called Martial
Law Constitution which was a product of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Due
to the unfortunate event of the declaration of Martial Law through Presidential
Proclamation 1081, ratification through a plebiscite was not carried out by the
COMELEC. The ratification instituted through citizens assemblies thru viva voce.
The subsisting law then was the 1935 Constitution which called for vote cast in the
ratification of the 1973 Constitution. Enabling law for viva voce law was instituted
through Presidential Decree and the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was done
through Proclamation.
The Court held that the manner of ratification was void, however the validity of the
Marcos Constitution was determined thru 4-4-2 vote. The validity of the process of
ratification of the 1973 Constitution was legalized thru 2/3 majority vote of the
Supreme Court Justices. Thus the 1973 Constitution was in force and effect or was
legalized thru a SC ruling.
1987 Constitution
The 1987 Constitution was a product of 1986 Constitutional Commission with fortyeight (48) members. The constitution of this commission was a product of the
Provisional or Freedom Constitution under Article V (Adoption of a New
Constitution), viz:
Section 1. Within sixty (60) days from date of this Proclamation, a Commission shall
be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution. The Commission shall be
composed of not less than thirty (30) nor more than fifty (50) natural born citizens of
the Philippines, of recognized probity, known for their independence, nationalism and
patriotism. They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors
of society.
Section 2. The Commission shall complete its work within as short a period as may be
consistent with the need both to hasten the return of normal constitutional government
and to draft a document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino
people.
Section 3. The Commission shall conduct public hearings to ensure that the people will
have adequate participation in the formulation of the New Constitution.
Section 4. The plenary sessions of the Commission shall be public and fully recorded.
Section 5. The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President
who shall fix the date for the holding of a plebiscite. It shall become valid and effective
upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite which shall be held
within a period of sixty (60) days following its submission to the President.
5
The time line under these provisions were followed and the 1987 Constitution
was presented to President Corazon Aquino. It was presented to the Filipino
people for ratification on a National Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987 with
the following numbers:
Number of votes
Affirmative votes 16,622,111 (76.30%)
Negative votes
4,953,375 (22.74%)
Abstentions 209,730 (0.96%)
On February 11, 1987, through Proclamation No. 58, Aquino announced the
results of the plebiscite and proclaimed the 1987 Philippine Constitution
ratified. It took effect the same day.
4. Discuss the doctrine of political question in relation to justiciable issues. Can RTC
Resolve constitutional issue on statute.
A political question refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive branch of the
Government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of
a particular measure to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of government."
They have two aspects: (1) those matters that are to be exercised by the people in their
primary political capacity and (2) matters which have been specifically delegated to
some other department or particular office of the government, with discretionary
power to act.
Justiciable issues are types of matters that a court can adjudicate. Requisites are
plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor
violative of the political question doctrine. The courts are duty-bound to examine
whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within the
limits of its jurisdiction or in excess of its discretion. The judicial power to review coequal branches of government is under its expanded jurisdiction granted through
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The RTC has the power to resolve constitutional issue on statue subject to appeal or
final ruling by the Supreme Court.
5.
Discuss the constitutional rights of due process.
Article III of the Constitution provides the Bills of Rights. Section 1 and 13
specifically provides for the provision of constitutional due process, to wit:
6
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 14. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
The State guaranteed due process in laws and legal proceedings which in plain
languages is fairness in all aspect of laws and legal proceedings. It is a basic
principle that the State must respect all of a person’s legal rights on his life,
property and basic freedom.
Due process has two branches procedural and substantive.
Substantive refers to the intrinsic validity of the law, i.e. basic rights.
Procedural due process is based on the principle that renders judgment only after
trial and based on evidence presented. In a plain language the right to a fair trial.