25 January 2019

For: Sir ECL

From: JMF
RE: Opinions of Members of the Constitutional Convention are merely
instructive and not authoritative.

Since Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution is clear and

unambiguous, it is neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic
aids for its interpretation, such as the records of deliberation
of the constitutional convention, history or realities existing
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, changes in phraseology,
prior laws and judicial decisions, contemporaneous constructions, and
consequences of alternative interpretations.  It is only
then the intent of the framers does not clearly appear
in the text of the provision, as when it admits of more than one
interpretation, where reliance on such extrinsic aids may be made.  After
all, the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document, and it does not
derive its force from the convention that framed it, but from the people
who ratified it.|||  (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428 (Resolution), [June
19, 2018])

While it is permissible in this jurisdiction 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. Debates
in the constitutional convention "are of value as showing the views of the
individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but they
give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk,
much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave
that instrument the force of fundamental law. 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's understanding thereof . ||| (Francisco, Jr. v.
House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, 160277, 160292,
160295, 160310, 160318, 160342, 160343, 160360, 160362, 160370, 160376,
160392, 160397, 160403 & 160405, [November 10, 2003], 460 PHIL 830-1126)

These reasons collectively provide the justification

under the circumstances that lead us to the first and primordial rule
in constitutional construction, that is, the  text  of the  constitutional
provision applies and is controlling. Intent  of the Constitution's drafters
may only be resorted to in case of ambiguity, and after
examining  the  entire text  of  the Constitution. Even
then, the  opinion  of  a  member of  the  Constitutional Convention is
merely instructive, it cannot be considered conclusive of the  people's
intent.|||  (Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 &
221698-700 ( Brion Dissenting Opinion), [March 8, 2016])

Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as

showing the views of the individual members, and as
indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as
to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much
less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that
instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it [is] safer to
construe the constitution from what appears upon its face. "||| (Poe-
Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-700
(Perlas-Bernabe Dissenting Opinion), [March 8, 2016])