Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Part 1. Constitution of The Philippines
Part 1. Constitution of The Philippines
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 1 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
Petitioner filed a petition before complete in itself and becomes operative
the Supreme Court to compel the GSIS to without the aid of supplementary or
allow it to match the bid of Renong enabling legislation, or that which
Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First Policy supplies a sufficient rule by means of
enshrined in §10, paragraph 2, Article XII which the right it grants may be enjoyed
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides or protected, is self-executing. Thus a
that “in the grant of rights, privileges, and constitutional provision is self-executing
concessions covering the national if the nature and extent of the rightS
economy and patrimony, the State shall conferred and the liabilities imposed are
give preference to qualified Filipinos.” fixed by the constitution itself, so that
they can be determined by an
HELD: A constitution is a system of examination and construction of its
fundamental laws for the governance and terms, and there is no language indicating
administration of a nation. It is supreme, that the subject is referred to the
imperious, absolute and unalterable legislature for action.
except by the authority from which it As against constitutions of the
emanates. It has been defined as the past, modern constitutions have been
fundamental and paramount law of the generally drafted upon a different
nation. It prescribes the permanent principle and have often become in effect
framework of a system of government, extensive codes of laws intended to
assigns to the different departments their operate directly upon the people in a
respective powers and duties, and manner similar to that of statutory
establishes certain fixed principles on enactments, and the function of
which government is founded. The constitutional conventions has evolved
fundamental conception in other words is into one more like that of a legislative
that it is a supreme law to which all other body. Hence, unless it is expressly
laws must conform and in accordance provided that a legislative act is necessary
with which all private rights must be to enforce a constitutional mandate, the
determined and all public authority presumption now is that all provisions of
administered. Under the doctrine of the constitution are self-executing. If the
constitutional supremacy, if a law or constitutional provisions are treated as
contract violates any norm of the requiring legislation instead of
constitution that law or contract whether self-executing, the legislature would have
promulgated by the legislative or the the power to ignore and practically nullify
executive branch or entered into by the mandate of the fundamental law. This
private persons for private purposes is can be cataclysmic.
null and void and without any force and In self-executing constitutional
effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the provisions, the legislature may still enact
fundamental, paramount and supreme law legislation to facilitate the exercise of
of the nation, it is deemed written in every powers directly granted by the
statute and contract. constitution, further the operation of
Admittedly, some constitutions are such a provision, prescribe a practice to
merely declarations of policies and be used for its enforcement, provide a
principles. Their provisions command the convenient remedy for the protection of
legislature to enact laws and carry out the the rights secured or the determination
purposes of the framers who merely thereof, or place reasonable safeguards
establish an outline of government around the exercise of the right. The
providing for the different departments of mere fact that legislation may supplement
the governmental machinery and and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
securing certain fundamental and violation of a self-executing
inalienable rights of citizens. A provision constitutional provision does not render
which lays down a general principle, such such a provision ineffective in the
as those found in Art. II of the 1987 absence of such legislation. The omission
Constitution, is usually not from a constitution of any express
self-executing. But a provision which is provision for a remedy for enforcing a
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 2 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
right or liability is not necessarily an specified circumstances an action may be
indication that it was not intended to be maintained to enforce such right
self-executing. The rule is that a notwithstanding the absence of any
self-executing provision of the legislation on the subject; consequently, if
constitution does not necessarily exhaust there is no statute especially enacted to
legislative power on the subject, but any enforce such constitutional right, such
legislation must be in harmony with the right enforces itself by its own inherent
constitution, further the exercise of potency and puissance, and from which
constitutional rights and make it more all legislations must take their bearings.
available. Subsequent legislation however Where there is a right there is a remedy.
does not necessarily mean that the Ubi jus ibi remedium.
subject constitutional provision is not, by In its plain and ordinary meaning,
itself, fully enforceable. the term patrimony pertains to heritage.
Respondents also argue that the When the Constitution speaks of national
non-self-executing nature of Sec. 10, patrimony, it refers not only to the
second par., of Art. XII is implied from the natural resources of the Philippines, as
tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the Constitution could have very well
the same section which undoubtedly are used the term natural resources, but also
not self-executing. The argument is to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
flawed. If the first and third paragraphs Manila Hotel has become a
are not self-executing because Congress landmark—a living testimonial of
is still to enact measures to encourage Philippine heritage. While it was
the formation and operation of restrictively an American hotel when it
enterprises fully owned by Filipinos, as in first opened in 1912, it immediately
the first paragraph, and the State still evolved to be truly Filipino. Formerly a
needs legislation to regulate and exercise concourse for the elite, it has since then
authority over foreign investments within become the venue of various significant
its national jurisdiction, as in the third events which have shaped Philippine
paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same history. It was called the Cultural Center
logic, the second paragraph can only be of the 1930’s. It was the site of the
self-executing as it does not by its festivities during the inauguration of the
language require any legislation in order Philippine Commonwealth, Dubbed as the
to give preference to qualified Filipinos in Official Guest House of the Philippine
the grant of rights, privileges and Government it plays host to dignitaries
concessions covering the national and official visitors who are accorded the
economy and patrimony. A constitutional traditional Philippine hospitality.
provision may be self-executing in one For more than eight (8) decades
part and non-self-executing in another. Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to
On the other hand, Sec. 10, second the triumphs and failures, loves and
par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence
mandatory, positive command which is is impressed with public interest; its own
complete in itself and which needs no historicity associated with our struggle
further guidelines or implementing laws for sovereignty, independence and
or rules for its enforcement. From its very nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has
words the provision does not require any become part of our national economy and
legislation to put it in operation. It is per patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of
se judicially enforceable. When our the MHC comes within the purview of the
Constitution mandates that [i]n the grant constitutional shelter for it comprises the
of rights, privileges, and concessions majority and controlling stock, so that
covering the national economy and anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will
patrimony, the State shall give preference have actual control and management of
to qualified Filipinos, it means just the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the
that—qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. MHC cannot be disassociated from the
And when our Constitution hotel and the land on which the hotel
declares that a right exists in certain edifice stands.
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 3 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
Consequently, we cannot sustain evident that the act of respondent GSIS in
respondents’ claim that the Filipino First selling 51% of its share in respondent
Policy provision is not applicable since MHC comes under the second and third
what is being sold is only 51% of the categories of “state action.” Without
outstanding shares of the corporation, doubt therefore the transaction, although
not the Hotel building nor the land upon entered into by respondent GSIS, is in
which the building stands. The argument fact a transaction of the State and
is pure sophistry. The term qualified therefore subject to the constitutional
Filipinos as used in our Constitution also command.
includes corporations at least 60% of It should be stressed that while the
which is owned by Filipinos. This is very Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is
clear from the proceedings of the 1986 not yet the winning bidder. The bidding
Constitutional Commission. rules expressly provide that the highest
The penchant to try to whittle bidder shall only be declared the winning
away the mandate of the Constitution by bidder after it has negotiated and
arguing that the subject provision is not executed the necessary contracts, and
self-executory and requires implementing secured the requisite approvals. Since the
legislation is quite disturbing. The Filipino First Policy provision of the
attempt to violate a clear constitutional Constitution bestows preference on
provision —by the government itself—is qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the
only too distressing. To adopt such a line highest bid is not an assurance that the
of reasoning is to renounce the duty to highest bidder will be declared the
ensure faithfulness to the Constitution, winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents
For, even some of the provisions of the are not bound to make the award yet, nor
Constitution which evidently need are they under obligation to enter into
implementing legislation have juridical life one with the highest bidder. For in
of their own and can be the source of a choosing the awardee respondents are
judicial remedy. We cannot simply afford mandated to abide by the dictates of the
the government a defense that arises out 1987 Constitution the provisions of which
of the failure to enact further enabling, are presumed to be known to all the
implementing or guiding legislation. bidders and other interested parties.
Respondents further argue that ln the instant case, where a foreign
the constitutional provision is addressed firm submits the highest bid in a public
to the State, not to respondent GSIS bidding concerning the grant of rights,
which by itself possesses a separate and privileges and concessions covering the
distinct personality. This argument again national economy and patrimony, thereby
is at best specious. It is undisputed that exceeding the bid of a Filipino, there is no
the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be question that the Filipino will have to be
carried out with the prior approval of the allowed to match the bid of the foreign
State acting through respondent entity. And if the Filipino matches the bid
Committee on Privatization. As correctly of a foreign firm the award should go to
pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give
this fact alone makes the sale of the life and meaning to the Filipino First
assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a Policy provision of the 1987 Constitution.
“state action.” In constitutional For, while this may neither be expressly
jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct stated nor contemplated in the bidding
from the government are considered rules, the constitutional fiat is
“state action” covered by the Constitution omnipresent to be simply disregarded. To
(1) when the activity it engages in is a ignore it would be to sanction a perilous
“public function”; (2) when the skirting of the basic law.
government is so significantly involved This Court does not
with the private actors as to make the discount the apprehension that this
government responsible for his action; policy may discourage foreign investors.
and, (3) when the government has But the Constitution and laws of the
approved or authorized the action. It is Philippines are understood to be always
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 4 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
open to public scrutiny. These are given constitutional provision must adhere to
factors which investors must consider such basic concept. Protection of foreign
when venturing into business in a foreign investments, while laudable, is merely a
jurisdiction. Any person therefore policy. It cannot override the demands of
desiring to do business in the Philippines nationalism.
or with any of its agencies or The Manila Hotel or, for that
instrumentalities is presumed to know his matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any
rights and obligations under the commodity to be sold to the highest
Constitution and the laws of the forum. bidder solely for the sake of privatization.
The Filipino First Policy is a We are not talking about an ordinary
product of Philippine nationalism. It is piece of property in a commercial district.
embodied in the 1987 Constitution not We are talking about a historic relic that
merely to be used as a guideline for future has hosted many of the most important
legislation but primarily to be enforced; events in the short history of the
so must it be enforced. This Court as the Philippines as a nation. We are talking
ultimate guardian of the Constitution will about a hotel where heads of states would
never shun, under any reasonable prefer to be housed as a strong
circumstances, the duty of upholding the manifestation of their desire to cloak the
majesty of the Constitution which it is dignity of the highest state function to
tasked to defend. It is worth emphasizing their official visits to the Philippines. Thus
that it is not the intention of this Court to the Manila Hotel has played and
impede and diminish, much less continues to play a significant role as an
undermine, the influx of foreign authentic repository of twentieth century
investments. Far from it, the Court Philippine history and culture. In this
encourages and welcomes more business sense, it has become truly a reflection of
opportunities but avowedly sanctions the the Filipino soul—a place with a history of
preference for Filipinos whenever such grandeur; a most historical setting that
preference is ordained by the has played a part in the shaping of a
Constitution. country.
Privatization of a business asset for This Court cannot extract rhyme
purposes of enhancing its business nor reason from the determined efforts of
viability and preventing further losses, respondents to sell the historical
regardless of the character of the asset, landmark—this Grand Old Dame of hotels
should not take precedence over in Asia—to a total stranger. For, indeed,
nonmaterial values. A commercial, nay the conveyance of this epic exponent of
even a budgetary, objective should not be the Filipino psyche to alien hands cannot
pursued at the expense of national pride be less than mephistophelian for it is, in
and dignity. For the Constitution whatever manner viewed, a veritable
enshrines higher and nobler nonmaterial alienation of a nation’s soul for some
values. Indeed, the Court will always defer pieces of foreign silver. And so we ask:
to the Constitution in the proper What advantage, which cannot be equally
governance of a free society; after all, drawn from a qualified Filipino, can be
there is nothing sacrosanct in any gained by the Filipinos if Manila Hotel
economic policy as to draw itself beyond —and all that it stands for—is sold to a
judicial review when the Constitution is non-Filipino? How much of national pride
involved. will vanish if the nation’s cultural heritage
Nationalism is inherent in the very is entrusted to a foreign entity? On the
concept of the Philippines being a other hand, how much dignity will be
democratic and republican state, with preserved and realized if the national
sovereignty residing in the Filipino people patrimony is safekept in the hands of a
and from whom all government authority qualified, zealous and well meaning
emanates. In nationalism, the happiness Filipino? This is the plain and simple
and welfare of the people must be the meaning of the Filipino First Policy
goal. The nation-state can have no higher provision of the Philippine Constitution.
purpose. Any interpretation of any And this Court, heeding the clarion call of
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 5 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
the Constitution and accepting the duty
state of Pennsylvania. But the contract
of being the elderly watchman of the
executed in Connecticut was confirmed
nation, will continue to respect and
by the Congress of Connecticut. The
protect the sanctity of the Constitution.
main issue is whether it the
confirmation by the Congress of
IN THE CASE OF MANILA PRINCE v.
Connecticut of the contract executed in
GSIS THE SC ENUMERATED THREE
Connecticut validates the contract.
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WHAT ARE THESE?
The U.S. Supreme Court said that the
1. To prescribe the permanent
Constitution is the work or the will of
framework of a system of
the people themselves in their original
government;
sovereign and unlimited capacity. While
2. To assign to the several
the law, on the other hand, is the work
departments their respective
or the will of the legislature in its
powers and duties and;
derivative or subordinated capacity.
3. To establish certain first fixed
The one is the work of the creator and
principles on which the
the other, the creature. So the
government is founded
Constitution fixes the limits of the
legislative authority and prescribes the
WHAT GIVES THE CONSTITUTION THE
orbit within which it must move. In
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUPREMACY
short, the Constitution is the sun of the
AND IMMUTABILITY?
political system around which all
● The Constitution is a written
legislative, executive, and judicial
instrument enacted by the direct
bodies must revolve. The Constitution
action of the people. This gives the
is the center of gravity. All
Constitution these characteristics
governmental acts must revolve around
because the Constitution is the act
the constitution. Any governmental act
of the sovereign themselves unlike
that does not conform to the
other governmental acts, be it
Constitution shall be stricken off from
legislative executive or judicial
the legal system.
acts, these are just acts of their
representatives.
The Constitution of a State is stable and
permanent, not to be worked upon by
WHAT MAKES THE CONSTITUTION SO
the temper of the times, nor to rise and
SPECIAL THAT IT CAN NEVER BE
fall with the tide of events;
WRONG?
notwithstanding the competition of
● Because it is by the direct action of
opposing interests, and the violence of
the people. It is immutable
contending parties, it remains firm and
because it is the direct action of
immovable as a mountain amidst the
the people unlike other
strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean
governmental acts which are acts
amidst the raging of the waves.
by the representatives of the
people.
But our very own Supreme Court
disagreed. Our own Supreme Court said
ATTY GAB: In the case of Vanhorne v. that yes the Constitution should be
Dorrance which involves a land stable but a constitution should not
previously belonging to Indians. And stand still. So the Constitution must be
there were two conflicting deeds able to provide for every contingency.
disposing the land in question. One The Constitution must always be
executed in Pennsylvania and the other relevant.
in Connecticut. The land in dispute was
located in Pennsylvania and the
IF THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
Constitution of Pennsylvania requires
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IF AND IS
that any disposition of these types of
IMMUTABLE, CAN WE SAY THEN THAT
land required the concurrence of the
ALL RIGHTS EMANATE FROM THE
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 6 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
CONSTITUTION? SO MUCH SO THAT b. Evolved (Cumulative) — it is
NO RIGHT CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE the result of political
CONSTITUTION BREATHING LIFE TO evolution, not inaugurated
IT? at any specific time but
● It is not the beginning of a changing by accretion
community nor the origin of rather than by any
private rights. It is not the fountain systematic method.
of law nor the incipient state of 3. RIGID OR FLEXIBLE
government. It is not the cause but a. Rigid- is one that can be
the consequence of personal and amended only by a formal
political freedom. It confers no and usually difficult
right to the people. It is the process;
creator of their power, the b. Flexible- one that can be
instrument of their convenience. changed by ordinary
The Constitution does not create legislation.
any right. The right pre-exists
even before the Constitution was IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE
made. (Justice Cooley) CLASSIFICATION OF A CONSTITUTION
● There are rights that do not need AS WRITTEN/ UNWRITTEN DEPENDS
the constitution particularly the ON FORM?
right to health and the right to a ● No, both are in writing. Distinction
balanced and healthful ecology are is recognized as to sources in
natural rights which are inherent unwritten constitution have
in every human being. (Oposa v. scattered sources unlike written
Factoran) constitution.
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF So what then is the Philippine
THE CONSTITUTION? Constitution?
1. WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN ● The Philippine Constitution is a
a. Written — one whose written, enacted and rigid type of
precepts are embodied in constitution.
one document or set of
documents; HOW?
b. Unwritten — consist of ● It is embodied in a single
rules which have not been document, enacted by the
integrated into a single, Congress acting as Constitutional
concrete form but are Convention or Constitutional
scattered in various Assembly ratified by the Filipino
sources, such as statutes of people in a plebiscite called for
a fundamental character, such purpose.
judicial decisions,
commentaries of publicists, QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN
customs and traditions, and CONSTITUTION?
certain common law 1. BROAD- Not just because it
principles. provides for the organization of
2. ENACTED (CONVENTIONAL) OR the entire government and covers
EVOLVED (CUMULATIVE) all persons and things within the
a. Enacted (Conventional) — a territory of the State but because
conventional constitution is it must be comprehensive enough
enacted, formally struck off to provide for every contingency.
at a definite time and place 2. BRIEF- It must confine itself to
following a conscious or basic principles to be implemented
deliberate effort taken by a with legislative details more
constituent body or ruler; adjustable to change and easier to
amend.
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 7 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
3. DEFINITE- To prevent ambiguity unicameral/presidential form of
in its provisions which could result government
in confusion and divisiveness 5. After the 1943 constitution, we
among the people. revert back to 1935 constitution by
virtue of the issuance of Gen
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD McArthur. This was the 1973
WRITTEN CONSTITUTION? Constitution
1. Constitution of Liberty – The 6. Freedom Constitution came about
series of prescriptions setting through proclamation number 3. It
forth the fundamental civil and is bicameral form of government.
political rights of the citizens and 7. 1987 Constitution – bicam,
imposing limitations on the revision of 1935
powers of government as a means
of securing the enjoyment of those
ATTY GAB: Starting with Biak-na-Bato
rights. E.g. Art. III
Constitution. So this was effective on
2. Constitution of Government – The
November 15, 1897. It establishes a
series of provisions outlining the
revolutionary form of government.
organization of the government,
Followed by the Malolos Constitution
enumerating its powers, laying
which was effective on January 21, 1899.
down certain rules relative to its
It establishes parliamentary form of
administration, and defining the
government with unicameral Congress.
electorate, E.g. Arts. VI, VII, VIII
So both the government established
and IX
under the Biak-na-Bato and Malolos
3. Constitution of Sovereignty – The
Constitutions are the first in Asia. In
provisions pointing out the mode
Biak-na-Bato the revolutionary
or procedure in accordance with
government is the first revolutionary
which formal changes in the
government in Asia. In Malolos
fundamental law may be brought,
Constitution the parliamentary form of
E.g., Art. XVII
government established under this
Constitution is the first Democratic
CAN WE SAY THAT A FUNDAMENTAL
government in Asia.
LAW THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL
Followed by the 1935 Constitution
THE THREE ESSENTIAL PARTS IS NOT A
which was effective May 14, 1935.
CONSTITUTION?
Then the least known constitution is
● No it may still be considered as
the 1943 Constitution. This is the
constitution only that the
Constitution established during the
constitution will be lacking of
Japanese occupation. So there is a need
essential parts.
to promulgate a constitution during the
Japanese occupation in order to make
HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONS HAVE WE
the occupation as a belligerent
HAD SO FAR?
occupation because under the Hague
● 7 Constitutions
Convention there are several requisites
1. Biak-na-bato constitution; first
in order that military occupation can be
revolutionary constitution, it is a
considered as a belligerent occupation.
unicameral type of government
The first requisite is that there must be
2. Malolos constitution first
established civil government having
democratic constitution it is a
exercising control and supervision over
unicameral/parliamentary of
the armed hostilities. Second is that
government
there must be a widespread occupation
3. 1935 Constitution Unicameral,
of the territory and there must be
Presidential - May 14, 1935
serious and substantial conflicts -
changed to bicameral
armed conflicts be resolved of which is
4. 1943 Constitution a Japanese
uncertain. And lastly the willingness on
constitution during belligerent
the part of the parties to be governed
occupation, a
by the articles or the norms of war.
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 8 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
So after the 1943 Constitution of course requisites under the 1935 Constitution.
the 1935 Constitution was reinstated 3 said it substantially complied. One
because of that proclamation of General said I do not have any basis to form an
McArthur on October 23, 1944 because intelligent discussion. So if the Supreme
immediately after his return he Court declared that the ratification did
declared that all laws regulations and not comply with the requirements
processes in the Philippines than that of under the 1935 Constitution. Why did
the Commonwealth Government as null the Supreme Court still sustain the
and void which has in effect nullified constitutionality of the ratification?
the 1943 constitution. In one case in the That was because under the 1935
case of Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, constitution to declare an act
one of the questions raised in that case unconstitutional the Constitution
is what gives General McArthur the requires 2/3 vote of the members of
power to invalidate a constitution, what the Supreme Court. At that time the
gives him the power to declare that all Supreme Court is composed of 10
laws in the Philippines are not in other Justices with 1 Chief Justice. So which
than those of the Commonwealth means they need 8 votes in order to
Government. So the Supreme Court declare the ratification of the 1973
decided and and explain the concept of Constitution as unconstitutional. The
war. According to the Supreme Court ratification of the 1973 Constitution was
the Armed Forces of the occupying declared constitutional only by default
state can impose its will on the by failure of the Supreme Court to
occupied territory and there is no need obtain the necessary votes.
for a constitution or a law in order to So after the 1973 Constitution we have
confirm this power because this is a the Freedom Constitution which was
necessary consequence of war. In the effective on March 25, 1986. Following
same manner that the liberating forces the first peaceful revolution day. After
also have the power to declare the acts the success of EDSA Revolution 1. All
of the occupying state as null and void. laws in the Philippines including the
So this is the source of the power of Constitution are considered null and
General McArthur to declared the 1943 void. So at that time there is no law
constitution and to reinstate the 1935 effective except the words of the
constitution. President. That's why the Freedom
After the reinstatement of the 1935 Constitution was promulgated only by
constitution we have the 1973 Presidential Proclamation No. 3 which
Constitution. The ratification of the adopt certain provisions of the 1973
current 1973 Constitution was very Constitution for a period of 1 year.
controversial because unlike the
process mandated by the 1935
WHEN DID THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Constitution. The proposed 1973
TAKE EFFECT?
Constitution was submitted to the
● According to the case of De Leon
people through barangay citizens
v. Esguerra, it took effect on
assemblies and the voting is not
February 2 1987.
through secret ballot by but by a show
of hands. In Javellana v. Executive
NOT FEBRUARY 11 1987? WHY WHAT
Secretary, the Supreme Court through
HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY 11 AS
Chief Justice Conception noted the
DISTINGUISH FROM THE PLEBISCITE
defects of the ratification of the
IN FEBRUARY 2 1987?
Constitution. One of the each one of
● There was a proclamation
the questions decided by the Supreme
declaring the result of February 2
Court in that case is whether the
plebiscite and declaring the 1987
ratification of the 1973 Constitution
constitution as duly ratified.
complied with the 1935 Constitution.
The result of the voting was 6 Justices
HOW DID THE SC RULE IN DE LEON v.
said no it did not comply with the
ESGUERRA REGARDING THE
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 9 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
EFFECTIVITY OF THE 1987 prohibition to review the order of the
CONSTITUTION? governor.
● The effectivity of the constitution
should be reckoned on the date of ISSUE: Whether the designation was valid
ratification through a plebiscite.
HELD: The main issue resolved in the
WHAT IS THE DANGER SOUGHT TO BE judgment at bar is whether the 1987
AVOIDED BY THE SC IN DECLARING Constitution took effect on February 2,
THAT THE DATE OF THE PLEBISCITE 1987, the date that the plebiscite for its
MUST BE THE DATE OF THE ratification was held or whether it took
PROCLAMATION OF THE effect on February 11, 1987, the date its
CONSTITUTION? ratification was proclaimed per
● The danger sought to be avoided is Proclamation No. 58 of the President of
a situation where the President the Philippines, Corazon C. Aquino. The
can conveniently delay the thrust of the dissent is that the
effectivity of the Constitution by Constitution should be deemed to "take
refusing to issue the necessary effect on the date of its ratification shall
proclamation. So this is the reason have been ascertained and not at the time
why in the case of De Leon v. the people cast their votes to approve or
Esguerra, the Supreme Court was reject it." This view was actually proposed
very emphatic in saying that the at the Constitutional Commission
Constitution takes effect on the deliberations, but was withdrawn by its
date of the plebiscite itself. proponent in the face of the
"overwhelming" contrary view that the
Constitution "will be effective on the very
DE LEON v. ESQUERRA
day of the plebiscite." The record of the
FACTS: On May 17, 1982, Alfredo De Leon proceedings and debates of the
won as Brgy. Captain and other Constitutional Commission fully supports
petitioners won as Councilmen of Brgy. the Court's judgment. It shows that the
Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. Under the clear, unequivocal and express intent of
Barangay Election Act of 1982, their terms the Constitutional Commission in
of office shall be six years, which unanimously approving (by thirty-five
commenced on June 7, 1982 up to June 7, votes in favor and none against) the
1988. On Feb. 8, 1987, while the petitioners aforequoted Section 27 of Transitory
still have one year and four months, Gov. Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution was
Benjamin Esguerra of Rizal Province, that "the act of ratification is the act of
issued a memorandum designating voting by the people. So that is the date of
Florentino Magno as the new Brgy. the ratification" and that "the canvass
Captain and other respondents as the thereafter [of the votes] is merely the
new Councilmen of the said barangay. mathematical confirmation of what was
The respondents relied on the Provisional done during the date of the plebiscite and
Constitution of 1986, which grants the the proclamation of the President is
governor to appoint or designate new merely the official confirmatory
successors within the one year period declaration of an act which was actually
which ended on Feb. 25 1987. They also done by the Filipino people in adopting
contended that the terms of office of the the Constitution when they cast their
petitioners were already been abolished votes on the date of the plebiscite."
and that they continued in office simply The Court next holds as a
because no new successors were consequence of its declaration at bar that
appointed yet; and that the provision in the Constitution took effect on the date
the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of its ratification in the plebiscite held on
of office of Barangay officials up to six February 2, 1987, that: (1) the Provisional
years must have been deemed repealed Constitution promulgated on March 25,
for being inconsistent with the 1986 must be deemed to have been
Provisional Constitution. Petitioners superseded by the 1987 Constitution on
instituted an original action for
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 10 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
the same date February 2, 1987 and (2) by WHEN THERE ARE DOUBTS AS TO
and after said date, February 2, 1987, WHETHER THE PROVISION IN THE
absent any saying clause to the contrary CONSTITUTION IS SELF-EXECUTING
in the Transitory Article of the OR NON-SELF-EXECUTING,
Constitution, respondent OIC Governor ACCORDING TO THE SC IN MANILA
could no longer exercise the power to PRINCE HOTEL, THE DOUBT SHOULD
replace petitioners in their positions as BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF WHAT?
Barangay Captain and Councilmen. ● In favor of self-executing
Hence, the attempted replacement of character of the constitution
petitioners by respondent OIC Governor's
designation on February 8, 1987 of their WHAT IS THE REASON GIVEN BY THE
successors could no longer produce any SC IN ADOPTING THIS RULE?
legal force and effect. While the ● To rule otherwise would give
Provisional Constitution provided for a Congress the authority to defeat a
one-year period expiring on March 25, mandatory provision by its refusal
1987 within which the power of to provide for an implementing
replacement could be exercised, this law. One good example is the
period was shortened by the ratification provision against political dynasty
and effectivity on February 2, 1987 of the which unfortunately the
Constitution. Had the intention of the constitution grants the power to
framers of the Constitution been congress to define what is political
otherwise, they would have so provided dynasty which means that unless
for in the Transitory Article, as indeed and until the Congress enacts a
they provided for multifarious transitory law defining political dynasty, that
provisions in twenty six sections of Article provision remains in the cold
XVIII, e.g. extension of the six-year term reaches of the constitution.
of the incumbent President and ● A provision is self-executing when
Vice-President to noon of June 30, 1992 the nature and extent of the rights
for purposes of synchronization of conferred and the liabilities
elections, the continued exercise of imposed are fixed by the
legislative powers by the incumbent constitution itself. If it is a non self
President until the convening of the first executing provision there must be
Congress, etc. an express indication in the
constitutional provision.
IS THE DECISION NOT VIOLATIVE OF
DUE PROCESS, IN THE SENSE THAT RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE
DURING THE PLEBISCITE THE PEOPLE CONSTITUTION
STILL DOES NOT KNOW IF THE 1. Determine Self-Executing vs. Non
CONSTITUTION WILL BE RATIFIED? Self-Executing Provisions (Manila
● No. It is the Constitution itself that Prince Hotel Case Doctrine)
provides for its effectivity. The ● Admittedly, some
Constitution, being the constitutions are merely
fundamental law of the land, it is declarations of policies and
to be upheld, unless later amended principles. Their provisions
or revised. Moreover, it is the command the legislature to
people themselves that enact laws and carry out
participated in the plebiscite. the purposes of the framers
Hence, unlike in the case of who merely establish an
ordinary legislative enactments, it outline of government
cannot be said that they were providing for the different
deprived of due process, departments of the
considering that during the governmental machinery
plebiscite, they already know of and securing certain
the contents/ possible contents of fundamental and
the “would be Constitution.” inalienable rights of
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 11 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
citizens. A provision which Constitution should be
lays down a general considered self-executing
principle, such as those rather than non
found in Art. II of the 1987 self-executing x x x x
Constitution, is usually not Unless the contrary is
self-executing. But a clearly intended, the
provision which is provisions of the
complete in itself and Constitution should be
becomes operative without considered self-executing,
the aid of supplementary as a contrary rule would
or enabling legislation, or give the legislature
that which supplies a discretion to determine
sufficient rule by means of when, or whether, they
which the right it grants shall be effective. These
may be enjoyed or provisions would be
protected, is subordinated to the will of
self-executing. Thus a the lawmaking body, which
constitutional provision is could make them entirely
self-executing if the nature meaningless by simply
and extent of the right refusing to pass the
conferred and liability needed implementing
imposed are fixed by the statute
constitution itself, so that 3. Specific Tools of Constitutional
they can be determined by Construction (Francisco v. House
an examination and of Representatives Case
construction of its terms, Doctrines)
and there is no language ● NOTE: use of the tools must
indicating that the subject be one after the other, in
is referred to the short the three must be used
legislature for action. successively
2. In Case of Doubt, Constitutional ● Verba legis non est
Provisions are Self- Executing recedendum that is,
(Manila Prince Hotel Case wherever possible, the
Doctrine) words used in the
● Hence, unless it is expressly Constitution must be given
provided that a legislative their ordinary meaning
act is necessary to enforce except where technical
a constitutional mandate, terms are employed. It is to
the presumption now is be assumed that the words
that all provisions of the in which constitutional
constitution are provisions are couched
self-executing. expressed the objective
● If the constitutional sought to be attained. They
provisions are treated as are to be given their
requiring legislation ordinary meaning except
instead of self-executing, where technical terms are
the legislature would have employed in which case the
the power to ignore and significance thus attached
practically nullify the to them prevails. As the
mandate of the Constitution is not
fundamental law. This can primarily a lawyer’s
be cataclysmic. That is why document, it being essential
the prevailing view is, as it for the rule of law to be
has always been, that-X x x obtained that it should ever
x in case of doubt, the be present in the people’s
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 12 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
consciousness, its language [provisions of the
as much as possible should Constitution], they
be understood in the sense permitted, if not willed, that
that they have in common said provision should
use. function to the full extent
● Where there is ambiguity, of its substance and its
ratio legis est anima. The terms, not by itself alone,
words of the Constitution but in conjunction with all
should be interpreted in other provisions of that
accordance with the intent great document.
of its framers. A foolproof
yardstick in constitutional WHY IS THAT VERBAL LEGIS IS USED
construction is the AS A TOOL FOR CONSTRUCTION?
intention underlying the ● Because it is not a lawyer’s
provision under document; people must
consideration. Thus, it has understand since it is created by
been held that the Court in and for the people
construing a Constitution
should bear in mind the UNDER RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA, CAN
object sought to be THE COURTS USE SECONDARY
accomplished by its MATERIALS OR EXTRANEOUS
adoption, and the evils, if MATERIALS LIKE THE DELIBERATIONS
any, sought to be prevented OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
or remedied. A doubtful COMMISSION, DECISIONS OF THE
provision will be examined SUPREME COURT AND OTHER
in the light of the history of SECONDARY MATERIALS?
the times, and the ● NO. Under the second tool, the
conditions and courts of justice must limit their
circumstances under which judicial gaze within the four
the Constitution was corners of the Constitution. The
framed. The object is to intent of the framers of the
ascertain the reason which Constitution must be interpreted
induced the framers of the according to the provisions of the
Constitution to enact the Constitution themselves.
particular provision and the ● Courts of justice cannot use
purpose sought to be secondary materials as secondary
accomplished thereby, in materials are only available if all
order to construe the whole the three tools were exhausted
as to make the words and the use of the three tools did
consonant to that reason not elicit the meaning and the
and calculated to effect that definition of the doubtful provision
purpose. of the Constitution
● Finally, ut magis valeat
quam pereat. The words of IS THE PREAMBLE A FORMAL PART OF
the Constitution should be THE CONSTITUTION?
interpreted as a whole. The ● NO. It is only an introduction to
members of the the 1987 Constitution
Constitutional Convention ● The preamble does not confer any
could not have dedicated a civil or political rights. It does not
provision of our impose any legal obligation but
Constitution merely for the tells us who are the authors of the
benefit of one person Constitution, what are the
without considering that it objectives, goals, and the
could also affect others. aspirations of the authors of the
When they adopted Constitution. So this gives the
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 13 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
spirit or the intent of the framers October 2003, a day after the House
of the Constitution and can be a Committee on Justice voted to dismiss it,
useful tool in interpreting doubtful the second impeachment complaint was
provision of the Constitution filed with the Secretary General of the
House by House Representatives against
IN CASE OF DOUBT THE RULE SHALL Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE SELF founded on the alleged results of the
EXECUTIVE CHARACTER OF THE legislative inquiry initiated by
CONSTITUTION. WHY? above-mentioned House Resolution. The
● to rule otherwise the Supreme second impeachment complaint was
Court said the mandatory and accompanied by a "Resolution of
obligatory provision of the Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at
constitution will be made to least 1/3 of all the Members of the House
depend on the whims and caprices of Representatives. Various petitions for
of the Congress and the Congress certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
can conveniently defeat a were filed with the Supreme Court
constitutional mandate by refusal against the House of Representatives, et.
to issue the necessary al., most of which petitions contend that
implementing legislation. the filing of the second impeachment
complaint is unconstitutional as it violates
the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of
FRANCISCO v. HOR
the Constitution that "[n]o impeachment
FACTS: On 28 November 2001, the 12th proceedings shall be initiated against the
Congress of the House of Representatives same official more than once within a
adopted and approved the Rules of period of one year."
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings,
superseding the previous House ISSUE: Whether the power of judicial
Impeachment Rules approved by the 11th review extends to those arising from
Congress. On 22 July 2002, the House of impeachment proceedings
Representatives adopted a Resolution,
which directed the Committee on Justice HELD: To determine the merits of the
"to conduct an investigation, in aid of issues raised in the instant petitions, this
legislation, on the manner of Court must necessarily turn to the
disbursements and expenditures by the Constitution itself which employs the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the well-settled principles of constitutional
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). On 2 construction. First, verba legis non est
June 2003, former President Joseph E. recedendum, that is, wherever possible,
Estrada filed an impeachment complaint the words used in the Constitution must
(first impeachment complaint) against be given their ordinary meaning except
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and where technical terms are employed.
seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Thus, in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land
Court for "culpable violation of the Tenure Administration, this Court,
Constitution, betrayal of the public trust speaking through Chief Justice Enrique
and other high crimes." The complaint Fernando, declared: We look to the
was endorsed by House Representatives, language of the document itself in our
and was referred to the House Committee search for its meaning. We do not of
on Justice on 5 August 2003 in course stop there, but that is where we
accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI begin. It is to be assumed that the words
of the Constitution. The House in which constitutional provisions are
Committee on Justice ruled on 13 October couched express the objective sought to
2003 that the first impeachment be attained. They are to be given their
complaint was "sufficient in form," but ordinary meaning except where technical
voted to dismiss the same on 22 October terms are employed in which case the
2003 for being insufficient in substance. significance thus attached to them
Four months and three weeks since the prevails. As the Constitution is not
filing of the first complaint or on 23
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 14 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
primarily a lawyer’s document, it being not itself alone, but in conjunction with all
essential for the rule of law to obtain that other provisions of that great document.
it should ever be present in the people’s If, however, the plain meaning of
consciousness, its language as much as the word is not found to be clear, resort
possible should be understood in the to other aids is available. In still the same
sense that they have in common use. case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
What it says according to the text of the Secretary, this Court expounded: While it
provision to be construed compels is permissible in this jurisdiction to
acceptance and negates the power of the consult the debates and proceedings of
courts to alter it, based on the postulate the constitutional convention in order to
that the framers and the people mean arrive at the reason and purpose of the
what they say. Thus these are the cases resulting Constitution, resort thereto may
where the need for construction is be had only when other guides fail as said
reduced to a minimum. proceedings are powerless to vary the
Where there is ambiguity, ratio terms of the Constitution when the
legis est anima. The words of the meaning is clear. Debates in the
Constitution should be interpreted in constitutional convention “are of value as
accordance with the Intent of its framers. showing the views of the individual
And so did this Court apply this principle members, and as indicating the reasons
in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive for their votes, but they give us no light as
Secretary in this wise: A foolproof to the views of the large majority who did
yardstick in constitutional construction is not talk, much less of the mass of our
the intention underlying the provision fellow citizens whose votes at the polls
under consideration. Thus, it has been gave that instrument the force of
held that the Court in construing a fundamental law. We think it safer to
Constitution should bear in mind the construe the constitution from what
object sought to be accomplished by its appears upon its face.” The proper
adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to interpretation therefore depends more on
be prevented or remedied. A doubtful how it was understood by the people
provision will be examined in the light of adopting it than in the framers’
the history of the times, and the understanding thereof.
conditions and circumstances under Respondents’ and intervenors’
which the Constitution was framed. The reliance upon American jurisprudence,
object is to ascertain the reason which the Americana Constitution and American
induced the framers of the Constitution authorities cannot be credited to support
to enact the particular provision and the the proposition that the Senate’s “sole
purpose sought to be accomplished power to try and decide impeachment
thereby, in order to construe the whole as cases,” as provided for under Art. XI, Sec.
to make the words consonant to that 3(6) of the Constitution, is a textually
reason and calculated to effect that demonstrable constitutional commitment
purpose.” of all issues pertaining to impeachment to
Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The the legislature, to the total exclusion of
Constitution is to be interpreted as a the power of judicial review to check and
whole. Thus, in Chiongbian v. De Leon, restrain any grave abuse of the
this Court, through Chief Justice Manuel impeachment process. Nor can it
Moran declared: x x x [T]he members of reasonably support the interpretation
the Constitutional Convention could not that it necessarily confers upon the
have dedicated a provision of our Senate the inherently judicial power to
Constitution merely for the benefit of one determine constitutional questions
person without considering that it could incident to impeachment proceedings.
also affect others. When they adopted Said American jurisprudence and
subsection 2, they permitted, if not willed, authorities, much less the American
that said provision should function to the Constitution, are of dubious application
full extent of its substance and its terms, for these are no longer controlling within
our jurisdiction and have only limited
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 15 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
persuasive merit insofar as Philippine the people expressed legislatively,
constitutional law is concerned. As held in recognizing full well the perils of judicial
the case of Garcia vs. COMELEC, “[i]n willfulness and pride.” But did not the
resolving constitutional disputes, [this people also express their will when they
Court] should not be beguiled by foreign instituted the above-mentioned
jurisprudence some of which are hardly safeguards in the Constitution? This
applicable because they have been shows that the Constitution did not
dictated by different constitutional intend to leave the matter of
settings and needs.” Indeed, although the impeachment to the sole discretion of
Philippine Constitution can trace its Congress. Instead, it provided for certain
origins to that of the United States, their well-defined limits, or in the language of
paths of development have long since Baker v. Carr, “judicially discoverable
diverged. In the colorful words of Father standards” for determining the validity of
Bernas, “[w]e have cut the umbilical cord.” the exercise of such discretion, through
The major difference between the the power of judicial review.
judicial power of the Philippine Supreme There exists no constitutional
Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court basis for the contention that the exercise
is that while the power of judicial review of judicial review over impeachment
is only impliedly granted to the U.S. proceedings would upset the system of
Supreme Court and is discretionary in checks and balances. Verily, the
nature, which is granted to the Philippine Constitution is to be interpreted as a
Supreme Court and lower courts, as whole and “one section is not to be
expressly provided for in the allowed to defeat another.” Both are
Constitution, is not just a power but also a integral components of the calibrated
duty, and it was given an expanded system of independence and
definition to include the power to correct interdependence that insures that no
any grave abuse of discretion on the part branch of government act beyond the
of any government branch or powers assigned to it by the Constitution.
instrumentality. There are also glaring
distinctions between the U.S. WHAT DOES INITIATE MEAN?
Constitution and the Philippine ● The word initiate comes from
Constitution with respect to the power of Latin term initium which literally
the House of Representatives over means to begin or to start. The
impeachment proceedings. While the U.S. term impeachment proceedings is
Constitution bestows sole power of a progressive term, it has a
impeachment to the House of beginning, a middle and an end.
Representatives without limitation, our Impeachment proceedings end
Constitution, though vesting in the House upon the transmission of the
of Representatives the exclusive power to Articles of Impeachment in the
initiate impeachment cases, provides for Senate. While the middle portion
several limitations to the exercise of such of the impeachment proceeding is
power as embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) an activity between the initiation
and (5), Article XI thereof. These and the termination. Impeachment
limitations include the manner of filing, proceedings are not initiated by
required vote to impeach, and the one the mere filing of a verified
year bar on the impeachment of one and impeachment complaint.
the same official. Impeachment proceedings start
Respondents are also of the view when the House of
that judicial review of impeachments Representatives takes initial action
undermines their finality and may also on the impeachment complaint. So
lead to conflicts between Congress and which means that impeachment
the judiciary. Thus, they call upon this proceedings start upon the referral
Court to exercise judicial statesmanship of the impeachment complaint
on the principle that “whenever possible, with the Committee on Justice.
the Court should defer to the judgment of
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 16 of 17
Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
● The Constitution does not prohibit
filing of multiple impeachment
complaints against the same public
official within a period of one year.
What the Constitution prohibits is
the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same
impeachable officers within a
period of one year.
ATTY GAB: In Gutierrez v. HOR, the
Supreme Court said impeachment
proceedings are like candles. While
impeachment complaint on the other
hand is a matchstick. Striking the
matchstick or igniting the matchstick
does not light the candle unless and
until that matchstick reaches the
candle. So which means that the filing
of an impeachment complaint does not
start the impeachment proceedings. It
starts by the referral of the
impeachment complaint to the
Committee on Justice. And the Supreme
Court said that lighting a candle can be
done in so many ways. A candle can be
lit by just one matchstick or a candle
can be lit by two matchsticks as long as
the two matchsticks reach the candle at
the same time. So this is the same as
initiation of impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment proceedings can be
initiated by one impeachment
complaint or by several impeachment
complaints as long as all the
impeachment complaints reach the
Committee on Justice at the same time
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 17 of 17