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