CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION BOOK REVIEW

In partial fulfillment in the subject

Public International Law

Submitted by:

Danica Lou S. Flores

Submitted to:

Atty. Victor Tulalian

 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION BOOK REVIEW

This book tackles the constitution and different jurisprudence related therewith. It

discussed enormous jurisprudence that could actually help the readers to have a better

understanding in the application of the law. This book is consisting of Six Chapters, it

discussed different topics which particularly focused on the application and interpretation of

the Constitution.

Chapter I of the book talks about the Fundamental Premises of the Constitution. This

part of the book conferred about the framework of the constitution, its meaning and

definition and different doctrines which support its supremacy, as it is considered as the

Supreme Law of the Land. It is a good start to learn the basic if your intention is to

understand the Constitution, the latter was defined by different justices and scholars as the

fundamental law or basis of government. According to Chief Justice John Marshall “The

people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own

will, and lives only by their will.” 1 In relation to his statement, the people are the foundation

of the Constitution because of them it is enacted, the purpose of the Constitution is to

“prescribe the permanent framework of a system of government, to assign to the several

departments of their respective powers and duties, and to establish certain first fixed

principles in which government is founded.”2

1
Victor Tulalian, Constitutional Interpretation (Quezon City: Central Book Store, 2020), pg. 1
2
Ibid
 There are three branches of government, the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. The

power is equally distributed among the three of them to be able to maintain the check and

balance of the government. The Executive branch is the one who carries out and enforces the

law, the Legislative is the one who enacted the law, while the Judiciary is the one who

interprets the law.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the law enacted by the Congress

should be constitutionally permissible. Constitution, in its most general sense, is “that the

body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually

exercised.”3 To emphasized its superiority, statutes, executive order or regulations,

ordinances and treaties in conflict with the constitution are void and unenforceable.

Before our country entered into an agreement with foreign country the agreement

shall forthwith in accordance with the constitution. It is specifically provided under the

Philippine Constitution that “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective

unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.” Therefore,

before our President validly entered into an agreement with foreign country, such agreement

shall be in concurrence by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

Pursuant to the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, if a law – whether promulgated

by the legislative or by the executive branch – violates any norms of the constitution, that

law is null and void; it has no effect. For example, if the President entered into an agreement

3
Victor Tulalian, Constitutional Interpretation (Quezon City: Central Book Store, 2020), pg. 2
to other country allowing the citizen of such country to own the hundred percent of the

business venture here in the Philippines it is deemed null and void. The 1987 Philippine

Constitution provides that Filipinos must own majority or 60 percent of a company while

limiting foreign ownership to 40 percent. Also, under Section 19, Article II of the 1987

constitution “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy

effectively controlled by Filipinos.”4

Chapter II of this book discussed about the Judicial Power and The Judicial

Department, as I’ve said in my previous discussion, the power of the Judiciary is to interpret

the law. Hence, this is called as judicial power, the latter refers to the “authority exercised by

that department of government which is charged with the declaration of what the law is and

its construction.”5 This part of the book predominantly talks about the Judicial Department. It

is clearly stated in the constitution that the judicial power is exclusively vested on the

Supreme Court.

To correlate with our subject Public International Law, under Section 5, Article VIII

of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over

4
Arellano V. Busto, Constitution of the Philippines (Manila City: A.V.B. Printing Press, 2014), pg. 3
5
Victor Tulalian, Constitutional Interpretation (Quezon City: Central Book Store, 2020), pg. 8
 petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto, and habeas corpus.

Xxxx

(2) (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any

treaty, international or executive agreement, law,

presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,

ordinance, or regulation is in question.

Under the rule, respecting criminal offenses, “consuls are exempt from the local

jurisdiction for crimes committed by them in the discharge of their official functions. But

with regard to other offenses, they are fully subject to the local law and may be arrested,

prosecuted and punished in proper proceedings.” 6 In this case, the Supreme Court under Sec.

5, Article VII has the original jurisdiction over the consul who committed a crime outside of

his official function.

It is clearly stated that the Supreme Court has the final authority to declare any law or

Presidential act unconstitutional. Even though the Supreme Court can actually nullify the

governmental actions it does not tantamount to “judicial supremacy” the former does not

possess any superiority over executive and legislative. The duty of the Supreme Court has

been assigned to it by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review it was solely vested to the

judicial branch alone. Thus, the constitution is not only the source of constitutional law, the

6
Isagani A. Cruz and Carlo L. Cruz, International Law (Quezon City: Central Book Supply, Inc., 2020) pg. 268
cases decided by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds is also consists of

constitutional law. The Supreme Court has the power to decide the whether the branch acted

beyond the scope of the constitution.

The Court cannot decide or hear on the validity or the constitutionality of a certain

law unless it falls under the requisites of Judicial Inquiry:

a. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the

exercise of judicial power;

b. The person challenging the act must have the standing to

question the validity of the subject act or issuance;

c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the

earliest opportunity; and

d. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of

the case, or the resolution of the constitutional question must

be necessary to the decision of the case. 7

If the following is the present, the court will not determine the constitutionality of the

law.

According to the decided case of Demetria vs. Alba, the judicial power of the

supreme court has seven (7) limitations, such as:

7
Victor Tulalian, Constitutional Interpretation (Quezon City: Central Book Store, 2020), pg. 16
a. The Court will not pass upon constitutionality of legislation

in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining because

to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort,

and as necessity in the determination of real earnest and

vital controversy between individuals;

b. The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law

in advance of the necessity of deciding it;

c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law

broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to

be applied;

d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question

although properly presented by the record, if there is also

present some other ground upon which the case may be

disposed of;

e. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon

complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its

operation;

f. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a

statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its

benefit; and

g. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in

question, an even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is

raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first

 ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly

possible by which the question may be avoided.8

The third chapter of the book is all about the Modes or Theories of Constitutional

Interpretation. It is important to learn the theories of the constitution for better appreciation

of it. Since the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land it serves as a vital role to

implement other rules such as, treaties, ordinances, and etc.,

Thomas M. Cooley once said that “The object of construction, as applied to a written

constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it.” 9 It is because the

people are the reason why there is a law. The constitution must be favorable to the rights of

the people, it should protect them from peril and harm.

There is a difference between construction and interpretation. Discovering what the

two really meant could actually help to have a better understanding in the application of law.

Construction is the drawing with respect to subjects that are beyond the direct expressions of

the text, from the elements known and given in the text, while interpretation is the process of

discovering the true meaning of the language used. 10 Interpretation is used when the Court

need to conforms with simple meaning of the legal text while Construction is used when

there is an ambiguity to the legal text of the case.

8
Ibid;
9
Ibid;
10
Ibid;
 Learning the abovementioned basic principles would actually help in understanding

the law better. In connection therewith, the principles could be use also in International Law,

to avoid misunderstanding and have a harmonious relationship.

It is evident that the constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary

by the very nature of the constitution. It is presumably a special characteristic of legislation

because the constitution has a peculiar characteristic which is distinct from other laws.

Constitutional Interpretation has been classified into two (2) dimensions, to wit:

“1. The application of the Constitution by government

officials; and

2. The normative analysis of this application by academic

commentators.”11

There are also modes of constitutional interpretation that could change the context of

Constitution, such as:

a. Textualism – it looks to the meaning of the constitution as they

would be interpreted by an average contemporary American

today.

b. Original Meaning -

c. Judicial Precedent – which generates and applies rules from

precedent

d. Pragmatism;

11
Ibid;
 e. Moral Reasoning – which balances the costs and benefits of a

proposed rule.

f. National Identity – which derives rules from those traditions that

are reflected in the US Constitutional practice;

g. Structuralism – which infers rules from the relationship that

constitution mandates between the structures it creates;

h. Historical Practices – which relies on the original intentions of

the ratifiers.

These modalities can also be use in interpreting the International Law. In relation

therewith,

The sources of law that the Court must apply are:

1. international treaties and conventions in force;

2. international custom; the general principles of law;

3. judicial decisions; and the

4. teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.

Moreover, if the parties agree, the Court can decide a case ex aequo et bono, i.e.,

without confining itself to existing rules of international law.

The abovementioned law is the sources of international law, constitutional

interpretation can possibly apply to comprehend the meaning of the law and jurisprudence

and appreciate the message of the author.

 There are four main approaches to Constitutional Interpretation:

1. Contemporaneous Sources of Meaning – those sources of

meaning which existed at the time a constitutional provision was

ratified.

2. Subsequent events – these are the sub categories of judicial

construction of the Constitution.

3. Non-imperative considerations – involve arguments

concerning the consequences of a judicial construction from the

perspective of justice or sound social policy, and considerations

of politics.

4. Individual bias – involves consideration of general

interpretative bias and consideration of specific case bias, both

doctrinal bias and party bias.12

As I read the constitution page by page, I have not found any words nor principles

that could describe the rules or manner the Constitution should be interpreted. There is no

explanation how it should be presented, until the American and Philippine Jurisprudence

have been ruled on the various rules of modes in interpretating the Constitution, such as:

1. There is no room for the interpretation when the words of the

Constitution are clear;

2. The intent of both the framers and adopters is controlling;

12
Ibid;
 3. The Constitution should be construed as enduring for ages;

4. The Constitution should be construed as a whole;

5. The Constitution operates prospectively;

6. In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-

executing rather that non-self-executing.

7. Conflicting provisions should be reconciled.

8. Construction should be based in practicality and reasonableness;

9. Construction should be flexible;

10. The Constitution should be liberally construed;

11. Construction should be uniform and consistent;

12. Constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory;

13. Construction should observe the rule of necessary implication;

14. The rule of liberal construction applies to grammar,

composition, and punctuation;

15. Constitutional construction adopts the rules of ejusdem generis

and of noscitur a sociis.13

Let’s proceed to the Chapter IV, this chapter discussed the Maxims of Constitutional

Construction. According to the well-enshrined principle there are three legal maxims of

constitutional construction, such as:

1. Verba Legis, according to this maxim, the general rule is that the

words used in Constitution must be construed according to its

13
Ibid;
 common or ordinary meaning, except when technical terms are

employed.

2. Ratio Legis Est Anima, this maxim shall apply when there is an

ambiguity in the interpretation of the Constitution, it should be

construed based on the intent of the framers.

3. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat, according to this principle the

constitution must be interpreted as a whole.

In relation to the topic, the abovementioned legal maxims are also applicable in

interpreting the International Law. For example, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides

that Filipinos must own majority or 60 percent of a company while limiting foreign

ownership to 40 percent. Applying the legal maxim of verbal legis, foreign nationals are still

allowed to have a business here in the Philippines provided that the majority of the

Corporation is with 60 percent of Filipino national. The law is clear, and no need to interpret

on differently.

Chapter V is the compilation of the cases related to constitutional law. To give an you

an overview the compiled cases particularly related to constitutional interpretation and the

application of constitution. As a reader, I only choose the topic which is related to

International Law and focus my discussion on it.

 David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006 and Rizaldo Y. David vs Senate

Electoral Tribunal, et al., G.R. 221538, September 20, 2016 are the cases I would like to

discussed because these cases have a topic in relation to International Law.

In the case of David vs. Arroyo, the incumbent President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

issued Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5 declaring a state of

national emergency and call upon AFP to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless

violence in the country.

In relation therewith to the international, in defining terrorism, the Supreme Court

said that:

The majority correctly concludes that General Order No. 5 is generally

constitutional. However, they make an unnecessary distinction with

regard to “acts of terrorism”, pointing out that Congress has not yet

passed a law defining and punishing terrorism or acts of terrorism.

That may be the case, but does the majority seriously suggest that the

President or the State is powerless to suppress acts of terrorism until the

word “terrorism” is defined by law? Terrorism has a widely accepted

meaning that encompasses many acts already punishable by our general

penal laws. There are several United Nations and multilateral

conventions on terrorism, as well as declarations made by the United

Nations General Assembly denouncing and seeking to combat

terrorism. There is a general sense in international law as to what

constitutes terrorism, even if no precise definition has been adopted as

binding on all nations. Even without an operative law specifically

defining terrorism, the State already has the power to suppress and

punish such acts of terrorism, insofar as such acts are already

punishable, as they almost always are, in our extant general penal

laws. The President, tasked with the execution of all existing laws,

already has a sufficient mandate to order the Armed Forces to combat

those acts of terrorism that are already punishable in our Revised Penal

Code, such as rebellion, coup d’etat, murder, homicide, arson, physical

injuries, grave threats, and the like. Indeed, those acts which under

normal contemplation would constitute terrorism are associated anyway

with or subsumed under lawless violence, which is a term found in the

Constitution itself. Thus, long ago, the State has already seen it fit to

punish such acts.

Moreover, General Order No. 5 cannot redefine statutory crimes or

create new penal acts, since such power belongs to the legislative alone.

Fortunately, General Order No. 5 does not assume to make such

redefinitions. It may have been a different matter had General Order No.

5 attempted to define “acts of terrorism” in a manner that would include

such acts that are not punished under our statute books, but the order is

not comported in such a way. The proper course of action should be to

 construe “terrorism” not in any legally defined sense, but in its general

sense. So long as it is understood that “acts of terrorism” encompasses

only those acts which are already punishable under our laws, the

reference is not constitutionally infirm.

In the case of David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, Senator Grace Poe is a foundling

whose biological parents are unknown, she was found in in abandoned Parish Church of Jaro

Iloilo. She was adopted by Sps. Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces. Sometime in October 27

1991 she married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Lamanzares, they lived in United States and

both granted a US citizenship. In 2005 Grace Po decided to return to the Philippines. On July

7, 2006, Grace Poe took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, and

sometime on 2006, she filed a petition for Retention and/or Reacquisition of Philippine

citizenship through R.A. 9225.

In this the foundling issue was discussed in relation to international law. The supreme

court said that:

Treaties are "international agreements] concluded between state| in

written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a

single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its

particular designation." Under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987

Constitution, treaties require concurrence by the Senate before they

became binding:
SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and

effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of

the Senate.

The Senate's ratification of a treaty makes it legally effective and binding

by transformation. It then has the force and effect of a statute enacted by

Congress. In Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the

Philippines v. Duque III, et al.:

Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the

sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The

transformation method requires that an international law be transformed

into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local

legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere

constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force

of domestic law.

Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation

pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides

that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective

unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the

Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go

through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed

 into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. (Emphasis

supplied)

Following ratification by the Senate, no further action, legislative or

otherwise, is necessary. Thereafter, the whole of government—including

the judiciary—is duty-bound to abide by the treaty, consistent with the

maxim pacta sunt servanda.

Accordingly, by the Constitution and by statute, foundlings cannot be the

object of discrimination. They are vested with the rights to be registered

and granted nationality upon birth. To deny them these rights, deprive

them of citizenship, and render them stateless is to unduly burden them,

discriminate them, and undermine their development.

In the issue of citizenship, Justice Perlas-Bernabe have a dissenting opinion,

according to her:

Finally, it bears stressing that they jus sanguinis principle of citizenship

established in the 1935 Constitution was subsequently carried over and

adopted in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, notwithstanding the

existence of any treaty or generally accepted principle of international

law which purportedly evince that foundlings are accorded natural-born

citizenship in the State in which they are found, the same, nonetheless,

could not be given effect as it would contravene the Constitution. To

 recall, should international law be adopted in this jurisdiction, it would

only form part of the sphere of domestic law. Being relegated to the same

level as domestic laws, they could not modify or alter, much less prevail,

over the express mandate of the Constitution. In this relation, I deem it

fitting to echo the point made by Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-

De Castro, likewise in her Separate Opinion before the SET:

Citizenship is not automatically conferred under the international

conventions cited but will entail an affirmative action of the State, by a

national law or legislative enactment, so that the nature of citizenship, if

ever acquired pursuant thereto, is citizenship by naturalization. There

must be a law by which citizenship can be acquired. By no means can

this citizenship be considered that of a natural-born character under the

principle of jus sanguinis in the Philippine Constitution.

Chapter VI is all about the power of Judicial Review, this chapter discussed its origin,

varieties, the question of Judicial Review and also discussed that the Power is not Political

but Judicial.

Of course, when we say Judicial Review, the first case that comes up to our mind is

the landmark case of Marburry vs. Madision, the US supreme court categorically said that “a
law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that the courts, as well as the other

departments, are bound by that instrument.”14

I recommend this book for better understanding about Constitutional Interpretation, I

enjoyed reading this book because the author excellently complied all the topics that could

help the readers to comprehend each topic well.

14
Ibid