NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 A. Nature of the Constitution 1. Definition o It is that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised. With particular reference to the Constitution of the Philippines: That written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic. o 6. Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution o 2. Purpose o o o Prescribe permanent framework of a system of government; Assign to several departments their respective powers and duties; Establish certain first principles on which the government is founded. 3. Classification o o o Written or unwritten. A written constitution is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents; while an unwritten constitution consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statutes of a fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common law Enacted (Conventional) or Evolved (Cumulative). A conventional constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler; while a cumulative constitution is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method Rigid or Flexible. A rigid Constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process; while a flexible Constitution is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation. 4. Qualities of a good written Constitution o o o Broad. Not just because it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers all persons and things within the territory of the State but because it must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency. Brief. It must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend. Definite. To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which could result in confusion and divisiveness among the people o 5. Essential parts of a written Constitution o o Constitution of Liberty. The series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights, e.g., Art. III. Constitution of Government. The series of provisions outlining the organization of the Page 1 of 6 government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration, and defining the electorate, e.g., Arts. VI, VII, VIII and IX. Constitution of Sovereignty. The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about, e.g., Art. XVII. o In Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, the Supreme Court made reference to the use of well- settled principles of constitutional construction, namely: First, verba legis. i. e., whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people’s consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have a common use. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis et anima. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers. Thus, in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317, it was held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision shall be examined in light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. Third, ut maais valeat auam pereat. i.e., the Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. In Civil Liberties Union, it was declared that sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. If, however, the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is available. Again in Civil Liberties Union, supra., it was held that while it is permissible to consult the debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. We think it safer to construe the Constitution from what “appears upon its face”. The proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof. In case of doubt, the provisions should be considered self-executing; mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive. NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 1. First, verba legis — whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people’s consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have a common use. 2. Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio leqis et anima — The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers. In construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished and the evils sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision shall be examined in light of the history of the times and the conditions and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. 3. Third, ut maais valeat auam pereat — the Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. ‣ NACHURA — Other rules on constitutional construction 1. If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is available — While it is permissible to consult the debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. We think it safer to construe the Constitution from what “appears upon its face”. The proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof. 2. In case of doubt, the provisions should be considered — a. Self-executing rather than not b. Mandatory rather than directory c. Prospective rather than retroactive. 7. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy A constitution is the charter creating the government. It has the status of supreme law, and when it asserts a certain right or lays down a certain principle of law or procedure, it speaks for the entire people as their supreme law and is full authority for all that is done in pursuance of its provisions. The fundamental conception or nature of a constitution is that of a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law of contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void, and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute or contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS) B. Brief Constitutional History 1. Malolos Constitution a. The Philippine Revolution of 1896. b. Proclamation of Philippine independence, at Kawit, Cavite, on June 12, 1898. c. Revolutionary Congress convened at Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan, on September 15, 1898. Three drafts were submitted, namely, the drafts of Pedro Paterno, Apolinario Mabini and Felipe Calderon. d. The Calderon proposal was reported to the Congress on October 8, 1898, and the Congress approved the proposed Constitution on November 29, 1898. e. President Emilio Aguinaldo approved the same on December 23, 1898; Congress ratified it on January 20, 1899. f. Aguinaldo promulgated the Constitution the following day, along with the establishment of the Philippine Republic on January 21, 1899. g. This was the first republican constitution in Asia, framed by a revolutionary convention which included 40 lawyers, 16 physicians, 5 pharmacists, 2 engineers and 1 priest. The Constitution recognized that sovereign power was vested in the people, provided for a parliamentary government, acknowledged separation of powers, and contained a bill of rights. 2. American Regime and Organic Acts a. The Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. The treaty of peace entered into between the US and Spain upon the cessation of the SpanishAmerican War. It provided, among others, for the cession of the Philippine Islands by Spain to the US. b. US President McKinley’s Instructions of April 7, 1900, to transform the military into a civil government as rapidly as conditions would permit. On September 1, 1900, the authority to exercise that part of the military power of the US President which is legislative in character was transferred from the military government to the Philippine Commission [first, the Schurman Commission, then, the Taft Commission]. c. The Spooner Amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill of March 2, 1901 provided that all military, civil and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine Islands shall be exercised in such manner x x x for the establishment of a civil government and for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion. On July 1, 1901, the Office of the Civil Governor was created, and the executive authority previously exercised by the military governor was transferred to the Civil Governor. d. The Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 continued the existing civil government, with the commitment from the US Congress to convene and organize Page 2 of 6 NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 in the Philippines a legislative body of their own representatives. On October 16,1907, the Philippine Assembly was convened to sit as the Lower House in a bicameral legislature, with the Philippine Commission as the Upper House. e. The Jones Law [Philippine Autonomy Act] of August 29, 1916. It superseded the Spooner Amendment and the Philippine Bill of 1902. It was the principal organic act of the Philippines until November 15,1935, when the Philippine Commonwealth was inaugurated (under the 1935 Constitution). It contained a preamble, a bill of rights, provisions defining the organization and powers of the departments of government, provisions defining the electorate, and miscellaneous provisions on finance, franchises and salaries of important officials. Executive power was vested in the Governor General, legislative power in a bicameral legislature composed of the Senate and House of Representatives, and judicial power in the Supreme Court, the Courts of First Instance and inferior courts. f. The Tydings-McDuffie Act [Philippine Independence Act] of March 24, 1934 authorized the drafting of a Constitution for the Philippines, the establishment of a Commonwealth Government and, after ten years, independence. 3. 1935 Constitution Japanese Occupation a. Pursuant to the authority granted under the Tydings-McDuffie Law, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 4125 (May 26,1934) calling for the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. b. Election of delegates: July 10, 1934; Constitutional Convention inaugural: July 30,1934. c. Draft Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on February 8, 1935; brought to Washington on March 18, 1935, and on March 23, 1935, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt certified that the draft constitution conformed substantially with the Tydings-McDuffie Law. d. The Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite held on May 14, 1935. e. The Philippine Commonwealth established under the Constitution was inaugurated on November 15, 1935; full independence was attained with the inauguration of the (Third) Philippine Republic on July 4, 1946. – f. The Constitution was amended in 1939: Ordinance appended to the Constitution, in accordance with the Tydings-Kocialkowski Act of August 7, 1939 [Resolution of Congress: September 15, 1939; Plebiscite: October 24, 1939] g. It was amended again in 1940: Changed President’s and Vice President’s term from six to four years, but no person shall serve as President for more than 8 years; changed the unicameral to a bicameral legislature; established an independent Commission on Elections [Resolution: April 11, 1940; Plebiscite: June 18, 1940] h. Another amendment was adopted in 1947: Parity Amendment, effective July 4, 1949, granting to Americans, for a period of twentyfive years, the same privileges as Filipinos in the utilization and exploitation of natural resources in the Philippines [Resolution: September 18, 1946; Plebiscite: March 11, 1947], See: Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1. 4. Japanese Occupation a. With the occupation of Manila, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces proclaimed, on January 2, 1942, the military administration over the territory occupied by the army, and ordered that “all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial institutions shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past”, and “all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before”. b. Order No. 1 of the Japanese Commander in Chief, on January 23, 1942, organized the Philippine Executive Commission. c. Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4, dated January 30 and February 6, 1942, respectively, continued the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Courts of First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts, with the same jurisdiction, in conformity with later instructions given by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Army in Order No. 3, dated February 20, 1942. d. October 14, 1943, the (Second) Philippine Republic was inaugurated, with Jose P. Laurel as President. 5. 1973 Constitution Case: o Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. L36142, March 31, 1973 o Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976 Page 3 of 6 a. Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1, March 16, 1967, increasing the membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180 b. RBH No. 2, March 16,1967, calling for a Constitutional Convention to revise the 1935 Constitution c. RBH No. 3, March 16, 1967, allowing members of Congress to sit as delegates in the Constitutional Convention without forfeiting their seats in Congress d. RBH 1 and RBH 3 were submitted to the people in a plebiscite simultaneously with local elections in November 1967, but both were rejected by the people. e. RBH No. 4, June 17, 1969, amending RBH No. 2, and authorizing that specific apportionment NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 of delegates to the Constitutional Convention and other details relating to the election of delegates be embodied in an implementing legislation f. Republic Act No. 6132: Constitutional Convention Act of 1970. o See Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28, where the constitutionality of the RA 6132 was challenged because it had to do with the calling of a Constitutional Convention but was not passed by % of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law, declaring that after Congress had exercised its constituent power by adopting RBH 2 and RBH 4, with the requisite % vote as required by the 1935 Constitution, it may, by simply exercising legislative power, pass a law providing for the details for the implementation of the resolutions passed in the exercise of its constituent power. g. Election of delegates: November 10, 1970; Constitutional Convention was inaugurated on June 1, 1971. o Attempt of the Constitutional Convention to submit for ratification one resolution (reducing the voting age from 21 to 18) in a plebiscite to coincide with the 1971 local elections was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702. The Court held that when a Constitutional Convention is called for the purpose of revising the Constitution, it may not submit for ratification “piecemeal amendments” because the 1935 Constitution speaks of submission of the proposed amendments in “an election” (in the singular), and also because to allow the submission would deprive the people of a “proper frame of reference”. h. Presidential Proclamation No. 1081, on September 21, 1972: Declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. i. Constitutional Convention approved the draft Constitution on November 29, 1972. j. On November 30,1972, President Marcos issued a decree setting the plebiscite for the ratification of the new Constitution on January 15, 1973; on December 17, 1972, issued an order suspending the effects of Presidential Proclamation 1081 in order to allow free and open debate on the proposed Constitution. o Planas v. Comelec, 49 SCRA 105, and companion cases (collectively known as the Plebiscite Cases) sought to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite. The cases were eventually dismissed for being moot and academic when President Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation 1102, declaring that the Constitution had been ratified and has come into force and effect. Page 4 of 6 k. On December 23, 1972, President Marcos announced the postponement of the plebiscite, but it was only on January 7, 1973, that General Order No. 20 was issued, directing that the plebiscite scheduled on January 15,1973, be postponed until further notice, and withdrawing the order of December 17, 1972, suspending the effects of Pres. Proclamation 1081 which allowed free and open debate on the proposed Constitution. l. On December 31, 1972, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86, organizing the Citizens Assemblies to be consulted on certain public issues; and on January 5, 1973, issued Presidential Decree No. 86-A, calling the Citizens Assemblies to meet on January 10-15, 1973, to vote on certain questions, among them: “Do you approve of the new Constitution?” and “Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?” m. On January 17, 1973, President Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1102, declaring that the new Constitution had been ratified by the Citizens Assemblies, and “has thereby come into force and effect”. o The validity of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was challenged in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, and companion cases (collectively known as the Ratification Cases). The basic issues and the votes of the SC justices were: (1) Whether the validity of Proclamation 1102 is a political or a justiciable question - Six justices said it is justiciable, three said it is political, and one justice qualified his vote. (2) Whether the new Constitution was validly ratified (with substantial if not strict compliance) conformably with the 1935 Constitution - Six justices said no, three said there was substantial compliance, and one qualified his vote. (3) Whether the people had acquiesced in the new Constitution (with or without valid ratification) - Four justices said the people had already accepted the new Constitution, two said that there can be no free expression by the people qualified to vote of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed Constitution under martial law, one said he is not prepared to state that a new Constitution once accepted by the people must be accorded recognition independently of valid ratification, and three expressed their lack of knowledge or competence to rule on the question because under a regime of martial law with the free expression of opinions restricted, they have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have accepted the Constitution. (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief - Six justices voted to dismiss the petitions, NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 n. o. p. q. r. while four were for giving due course to the petitions. (5) Whether the new Constitution is already in force - Four said yes by virtue of the people’s acceptance of the same, four said they could not with judicial certainty whether or not the people had accepted the Constitution, and two declared that the new Constitution is not in force, “with the result that there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force”. The SC decision concluded: “Accordingly, by virtue of the majority of six votes x x x. with four dissenting votes x x x all of the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.” The 1973 Constitution was amended in 1976: Package often (10) amendments, proposed by Marcos on September 2, 1976, without specifying the particular provisions being changed. This package contained the infamous Amendment No. 6. The amendments were ratified in a plebiscite held on October 16, 1976. o In Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333, where the authority of President Marcos to propose amendments to the Constitution was challenged, the high tribunal said: “If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative powers of the interim (National) Assembly (which was never convened), there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the functions of the Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, though peculiar, to its gross legislative power x x x (W)ith the interim Natiional Assembly not convened and only the President'and the Supreme Court in operation, the urge of absolute necessity renders it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.” The Constitution was amended again on January 30, 1980: Restored original retirement age of judges to 70 years of age Another amendment was adopted on April 7, 1981: Restored the presidential system, while retaining certain features of the parliamentary system; granted natural-born Filipinos who had been naturalized in a foreign country the right to own a limited area of residential land in the Philippines Still another amendment was made on January 27,1984: Provided for new rules on presidential succession, replaced the Executive Committee with a revived Office of the Vice President, and changed the composition of the Batasan Pambansa Snap presidential election of 1986. A petition to prohibit the holding of the snap election was filed with the SC in Philippine Bar Association v. Comelec, 140 SCRA 455. But the petition was dismissed because considerations other than legal had already set in, the candidates were in the thick of the campaign, and the people were already looking forward to the election. February 22-25,1986: EDSAI People’s Revolution. See: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986, where the Supreme Court held that the Cory Aquino government was not only a de facto but a de jure government. o s. C. 1987 Constitution Page 5 of 6 Case: o Lawyer’s League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986 o Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003 o De Leon v. Esguerra, G. R. No. 78059, August 31, 1987 1. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution a. Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 1986, announcing that she (Corazon Aquino) and Vice President Laurel were assuming power. b. Executive Order No. 1 [February 28, 1986] c. Proclamation No. 3, March 25,1986, announced the promulgation of the Provisional [Freedom] Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a new Constitution. It adopted certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution, contained additional articles on the executive department, on government reorganization, and on existing laws. It also provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission to be composed of 30-50 members, to draft a new Constitution. See: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino, G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986; In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160. i. As stated in Proclamation No. 3, the EDSA revolution was “done in defiance of the 1973 Constitution”. The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – PART 1 government in the Philippines, assumed under international law [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)]. ii. During the interregnum, after the actual take-over of power by the revolutionary government (on February 25, 1986) up to March 24, 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution), the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during this interregnum, a person could not invoke an exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a Constitution nor a Bill of Rights [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10]. 2. Adoption of the Constitution a. Proclamation No. 9, creating the Constitutional Commission of 50 members. b. Approval of draft Constitution by the Constitutional Commission on October 15, 1986. c. Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. d. Proclamation No. 58, proclaiming the ratification of the Constitution. 3. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite when the people ratified the Constitution [De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602]. Page 6 of 6