MODULE 3
3.1 THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
The Controversy of the Site of the First Mass in
the Philippines
The historic First Catholic Mass in the Philippines
held on March 31, 1521 at the Island of
Limasawa became a subject of controversy.
In 1872, a monument was erected by the
people of Butuan, to be the site of the first
mass. Collectively, they even asked the
Philippine Historical Committee of the
Philippines to rehabilitate the monument or
place a marker on the site. It is obvious that
they did all these things without the approval
of the PHI because the government is inclined
that the site is in Limasawa Island, which is part
of Leyte.
Since Republic Act No. 2733 had lapsed into
law on June 19, 1960, as then-President Carlos
P. Garcia refused to sign nor veto the bill,
numerous attempts were made to contest the
findings and decision of the National Historical
Institute of the Philippines (now National
Historical Commission of the Philippines or
NHCP).
In 1995, then Congresswoman Charito Plaza of
Agusan del Norte-Butuan City filed a bill in
Congress contesting the Limasawa hypothesis
and asserting the "site of the first mass" was in
Masao, a part of Butuan. Citing "historical"
pieces of evidence, this move triggered a
series of debates among historians, educators,
students, and laypeople. The Philippine
Congress referred the matter to the National
Historical Institute for it to study the issue and
recommend a historical finding.
In May 1996, the Gancayco Commission,
composed of Retired Supreme Court Justice
Emilio A. Gancayco as chair, and Atty.
Bartolome C. Fernandez, and Dr. Maria Luisa T.
Camagay as members, were tasked "to
resolve a very sensitive historical issue facing
our country and our people." On March 20,
1998, the Gancayco Commission submitted its
findings to Dr. Samuel K. Tan, chair and
executive director of NHI. The finding
reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first
mass. However, the debate rages on until now
It's Masao, not Limasawa!
The account of Antonio Pigafetta, the
chronicler of the expedition of Magellan, was
the undisputed primary source of this great
historical event. However, under various
readings and interpretations, there came one
history, several controversies. Here is the claim
of historian Gregorio Zaide, who is a pro-
Limasawa before, but changed his mind later.
He, together with her daughter, Sonia
Zaide presented the following arguments in
favor of Masao (in Butuan):
 First, in all primary sources including the
diary of Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of
Magellan's voyage, the name of the place
was Mazzava. "Limasawa" has four syllables
and begins with another letter "L", not "M."
 Second, according to primary records, the
expedition traveled 20 to 25 leagues from
Homonhon, the first landing point. If they
had been to Limasawa Island, the distance
is only 14.6 leagues or one-half of that
length.
 Third, the distance to Cebu from Mazaua
according to Pigafetta, was 35 leagues
[140 miles]. The distance from Limasawa to
Cebu is only 80 miles.
 Fourth, it was mentioned that the "king"
came to their ship in a "balanghai"
(balangay). Butuan is now the site of at
least nine excavated balanghai relics; by
contrast, Limasawa has no significant
archeological relics or balanghai tradition.
 Fifth, the Western explorers got excited at
the abundance of gold in Mazaua, for that
was the main currency at that time. Both
archeological relics and the gold mines
today attested to the abundance of gold
in (Butuan) Agusan Valley.
It is indeed Limasawa!
Historian and Sociologist Jaime De Veyra,
countered that the first mass was indeed
celebrated in Limasawa Island and not in
Butuan, which is not an island. Priest and
historian Pablo Pastells, stating by the footnote
to Francisco Collin's "Labor Evangelica" that
Pigafetta's account never mentioned
Magellan went to Butuan, but from Limasawa,
he went to Zzubu Cebu).
Historian and translator James Robertson
agreed with Pastells in a footnote that
―Mazaua‖ was actually Limasawa. Francisco
Albo (pilot of Magellan‘s flagship Trinidad)
does not mention the first mass but he writes
that they erected a cross on a mountain that
overlooked three islands the west and the
southwest.
The argument in favor of Limasawa is
summarized as follows:
 In the authentic account of Pigafetta, the
port was not in Butuan but an island named
Mazzaua (Masawa).
 Father Miguel Bernad, S.J. of
Ateneo studied all the Pigafetta‘s maps,
which place in Mazzaua off the
southern tip of the larger island of Leyte., a
check with the modern maps will show that
this jives with Limasawa and not Masao or
Butuan.
 The native kings (Rajah Kulambu and his
brother, Rajah Siagu) frequent the island as
a hunting place and not as their dwelling
place.
 The crew of Magellan stayed there for
seven days and throughout, they did not
transfer to any other place except going to
Zzubu (Cebu) to gather provisions (victuals).
 Confirmatory evidence from the
succeeding Legazpi expedition further
confirmed the site which is Limasawa and
not Masao (in Butuan).
The Gancayco Commission Findings
The commission concluded that the First Mass
was held in Limasawa after it found out that:
1. the most complete and reliable account of
the Magellan expedition into the Philippine
shore in 1521 is that of Antonio Pigafetta
which is deemed as the only credible
primary source of reports on the
celebration of the first Christian Mass on
Philippine soil.
2. James Robertson's English Translation of the
original Italian manuscript of Pigafetta's
account is most reliable for being "faithful"
to the original text as duly certified by the
University of the Philippines' Department of
European Languages.
3. Pigafetta's Mazzava, the site of the first
Christian mass held on Philippine soil, is an
island lying off the southwestern tip of
Leyte, while Masao in Butuan is not an
island but a barangay of Butuan City
located in a delta of the Agusan River
along the coast of Northern Mindanao. The
location and position of Mazzava, as
plotted by Pigafetta, matches that of
Limasawa.
4. The measurement of the distances
between Homonhon and Limasawa,
between Limasawa and Cebu, as
computed by the pro-Limasawa group,
matches or approximates the delineations
made by Pigafetta of the distances
between Homonhon and Mazzaua and
between Mazzaua and Cebu.
5. Magellan's fleet took a route from
Homonhon to Mazzava and from Mazzaua
to Cebu that did not at any time touch
Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The
docking facilities at Limasawa did not pose
any problem for Magellan's fleet which
anchored near or at some safe distance
from the island of the eastern shore.
To the Gancayco Commission, "History is both
a useful and fascinating subject. As one travels
through time, one is bound to find it rich in
stories. Every kind of testimony is drawn upon
from eyewitness accounts to statistical tables.
Personal records, such as diaries, can certainly
tell more than the official documents."
In writing an end to the controversy, the
commission said it proceeded with utmost
care. It is said that the conclusion was made to
enlighten the current generation and remove
all confusion about where the First Mass was
held in the Philippines.
3.2 THE CAVITE MUTINY
The Cavite Mutiny Controversy
You have learned about the famous Cavite
Mutiny of 1872 in your basic history lessons. It
was part of the significant events that helped
awakened the "spirit of nationalism" among
the Indios, whom, the Spaniards like to call us
back in the day. The term "Filipinos" is used to
call the Spaniards who are born in the
Philippines which are also
termed "Insulares" opposite to
the "Peninsulares," who are the Spaniards born
in Spain, which is a "peninsula" in continental
Europe.
The Background of the Cavite Mutiny
Prior to the Cavite Mutiny, there had been
sporadic revolts and uprisings staged
throughout the archipelago by different
personalities within their own places.
Admittedly, the Indios do not yet have a sense
of national unity and national consciousness.
What they have is a sense of tribalism/ethnic
identity. This was taken advantage of by the
Spanish authorities who utilized the "divide and
rule" strategy of keeping the Indios divided and
used them against the other. This may prove
effective in preserving their rule for 333 years.
However, the Indios were finally awakened.
Here are the series of events in Philippine history
that led to the awakening of the nationalism of
the Indios as agreed upon by the historians:
1. Opening of the Philippines to World
Trade. The opening of the port of Manila
and other ports in the country ushered the
arrival of not only foreign goods and
services but also technologies, knowledge,
and ideas. Nationalistic ideas from the West
found their way to the Philippine shores
which led the Indios to look at their situation
and compare it with other more
progressive nations in the world.
2. The Rise of
the Ilustrado class. The principalia class of
the old gave way to the learned and
educated middle class who are called
Ilustrados or "Illustrious" because they were
able to seek education from here and
abroad. They, later on, became
professionals, priests, lawyers, and members
of the jury who became the core
of the Propaganda Movement, La Liga
Filipina, and ultimately, The
Katipunan which are all instrumental in
crystallizing the spirit of Filipino Nationalism.
3. The Coming of Liberal Governor Carlos Ma.
De La Torre. The Spanish Civil War, as an
effect of the Revolutionary tide in Europe
ignited by the French Revolution during
that time against the abuses and excesses
of the monarchy, led to the exile of Queen
Isabella and the founding of the
Liberal Spanish Republic. This led to the
appointment of Liberal Governor-General
Carlos Ma. De La Torre, who immediately
instituted reforms in the Spanish
government. As a result, the Indios got a
taste of how it feels like in very liberal
policies compared to the autocratic rule of
previous regimes. However, De La Torre's
reign is short-lived due to the conspiring
friars and disgruntled colonial officials who
wanted to retain their stopped-privileges by
fabricating controversies incriminating De
La Torre until he was recalled back to
Spain.
4. The Secularization Controversy. This event is
a direct catalyst to the next two where
the regular priest, Spanish friars who are
members of the religious orders such as
Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans,
Jesuits, and Recollects, wanted to take
over the parishes who are under the care
of the secular priests, who are composed
of Indios who became priests after studying
theology. The move by the regular priests
threatened the secular priests and as a
result, they sought to air grievances. They
are lead by Fr. Emmanuel Pelaez and his
protege, Fr. Jose Burgos. They tried to
petition and seek peaceful means to settle
the controversy but the friars are
determined to evict the seculars from their
parishes.
5. Cavite Mutiny. This mutiny staged by
disgruntled Filipino soldiers serving in the
Spanish army when Governor-General
Rafael Izquierdo, using his iron-fisted rule
policy, revoked their benefit of being
exempted from paying taxes and
rendering forced labor (Polo Y Servicios)
which was part of their longstanding
benefits. Headed by Sgt. Fernando La
Madrid, they seized Fort San Felipe in
Cavite and killed some Spanish officers.
The uprising was quelled the next day but it
was blown up as a full-
blown revolution instigated by the secular
priests. This event led to the execution of
many people including the priest martyrs,
GomBurZa.
6. The Execution of GomBurZa. The Cavite
Mutiny, in the report of Izquierdo to Madrid
authorities, was the start of a full-scale
revolution meant to dislodge the Spanish
colonial officials and stage a separatist
government headed by Jose Burgos. After
a brief and controversial court-martial, the
authorities sentenced Fr. Mariano
Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr. Jacinto
Zamora of death by garrote as they are
found guilty of treason and sedition on
February 17, 1872, at Bagumbayan (now
Luneta) in front of a multitude of Indios. This
event was used by the Spanish colonial
administration to set a warning to the Indios
not to commit similar acts in the future but
in truth, it became the catalyst to hasten
the awakening of the flame of Filipino
nationalism.
Have you noticed the way words mutiny,
revolution were utilized by both sides? Note
how the Spanish authorities exaggerated the
small incident and chose the word revolution
to justify their bloody actions. How about the
Indios' use of mutiny, which is a minor skirmish
compared to that of a revolution? Do you
understand now why our Philippine history
books maintain that what happened in Cavite
is but only a mutiny?
3.3 THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Welcome to this module on another
controversy that persists until now, the so-
called "retraction" of Rizal. Academics and
laypeople are bitterly divided on this issue and
both sides are not giving up primarily due to
the fact that their belief or disagreement may
drastically affect their views on how they see
Rizal as a hero.
The Controversy of Rizal's Retraction
For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal‘s
retraction documents has raised issues,
skepticism, and heated debates among those
who seek to know the truth regarding this
controversy. However, the lack of evidence
and different statements by significant people
involved have only contributed to the
complications and uncertainty which
envelope this fiery argument.
"I retract with all my heart whatever in my
words, writings, publications and conduct have
been contrary to my character as a son of the
Catholic Church." This was the statement in the
document which made the historians believed
that Rizal had retracted. However, there have
been claims that the document, as compared
to the original file which was discovered by Fr.
Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in
1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these claims,
there are several people who believe that the
retraction documents are authentic. These
people include eleven eyewitnesses who were
present when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed
a Catholic prayer book Imitation of Christ by
Thomas Kempis, recited Catholic prayers, and
the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix
before his execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a
great-grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4
confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses,
10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12
historians and writers including Aglipayan
bishops, Masons, and anti-clericals.
Because of what he sees as the strength these
direct pieces of evidence have in the light of
the historical method, in contrast with merely
circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus
of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a
plain unadorned fact of
history." Guzmán attributes the denial of
retraction to "the blatant disbelief and
stubbornness" of some Masons.
Reasons for Retraction
Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction
documents? What possible reasons could have
pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction
document, assuming that he truly wrote the
said document? The following four reasons
would have been worthy of his character and
mentality.
1. To save his family and town from further
persecution. Rizal may have been told that
he faced the dilemma of signing the
retraction or of having his relatives pursued
by further persecutions. Since he hoped his
 death would stop the persecution of his
relatives, the retraction may have seemed
to him to be the only way of achieving that
purpose.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife.
Rizal, even though he for a time suspected
Josephine as a spy, seems to have become
convinced that she now loved him, and he
may have desired to give her legal status in
the eyes of the church, and so provide for
her future.
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish
government.
4. To help the church cut away from the
disease which harmed her. Rizal did not
desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church
but to remove the cancer which ruined
both church and state in the Philippines --
friar control of land and domination by the
government. He was also struggling for the
freedom of thought and of conscience to
the individual. He may have felt that much
of his propaganda had produced the
insurrection, and have repented of that. His
letter to Paciano, written the night before
his execution, supports that theory. It also
had been suggested that Rizal may have
written the word "Catholic" in the broad
sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used
by all branches of the Christian Church
excepting the Roman Catholics. All
churches repeat, "I believe in the Holy
Catholic Church," in this broad sense.
Major Arguments for the Retraction
The argument between the original document
and the released retraction documents
brought more controversy because this differs
significantly from the text found in the
possession of the Jesuits. Which is really
the “original”? Some of the significant
differences between the copies of the
Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following:
1. the Jesuits‘ copies have “mi calidad‖
instead of ―mi cualidad‖ from the
Archbishop‘s copies,
2. the word “Catolica” was omitted after the
first “Iglesias" in the Jesuits‘ copies,
3. the word “misma” was added before the
third ―Iglesias‖ in the Jesuit‘s copies,
4. the second paragraph from the
archbishop‘s copies started with the
second sentence, however, from the
Jesuits‘ copies it started until the fifth
sentences,
5. the Jesuits‘ copies had 11 commas, the
other had 4 only, and
6. the Jesuits‘ copies did not have the names
of the witnesses.
These arguments are further discussed by Dr.
Eugene A. Hessel in his lecture given at Siliman
University, summarizes the major points of
argument for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:
1. The Retraction Document discovered in
1935 is considered the chief witness to the
reality of the retraction.
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the
event, of ―eye-witnesses,‖ and other
―qualified witnesses,‖ i.e. those closely
associated with the events such as the
head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop,
etc.,
3. ―Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity‖
reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal
as attested by ―witnesses‖ and a signed
Prayer Book which were amongst the
documents discovered by Father Garcia
along with the Retraction:
o If true, Rizal would not only accept the
general Roman Catholic teachings but
would agree to a number of beliefs that
he had previously disclaimed.
o According to the testimony of Father
Vicente Balaguer, following the signing
of the Retraction a prayer book was
offered to Rizal: “He took the prayer
book, read slowly those acts, accepted
them, and took the pen and sad
„Credo‟ (I believe) he signed the acts
with his name in the book itself.”
4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his
last hours as testified to by ―witnesses,‖
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to
Josephine Bracken as attested to by
―witnesses.‖ There
could be no marriage without a retraction.
Major Arguments Against the Retraction
On the other side are those who reject the
retraction and the way Rizal's retraction is
established. Here are their major arguments:
1. The Retraction Document is said to be
a forgery. There are four points against the
retraction document itself, these are:
o First of all, there is the matter of
the handwriting. To date, the only
scientific study criticizing the
authenticity of the document was
made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the
University of the Philippines shortly after
the document was found. Having some
of Rizal‘s writings dating from the last
half of December 1896 as his
―standard‖, he notes a number of
variations with the handwriting of the
document, he further concluded that it
was a ―one-man document‖ because
of the similarities in several respects
between the body of the Retraction
and the writing of all three
signatories: Rizal and the two
witnesses. The only scholarly answer and
criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr.
José I. Del Rosario. Rosario‘s main
criticism may be said to be that Pascual
does not include enough of Rizal‘s
writings by way of comparison and
concluded that the hand-writing is
genuine.
o Secondly, the argument directed
against the authenticity of the
document itself is based on the
principles of textual criticism. Several
critics have noted differences between
the text of the document found in 1935
and other versions of the Retraction
including the one issued by Father
Vicente Balaguer. To date, from the
morning of December 30, 1896, there
have been, discounting numerous
minor variations, two distinct forms of
the text with significant differences with
regards to the use of certain phrases
within the document. The usual
explanation of these differences is that
either Father Balaguer or his Jesuit
superior Father Pio Pi made errors in
preparing a copy of the original and
these have been transmitted from this
earliest copy to others. Some have
wondered if the Retraction Document
was fabricated from the ―wrong‖
version of a retraction statement issued
by the religious authorities.
o A third argument applies to the
Retraction itself is that its content is in
part strangely worded, e.g. in the
Catholic Religion ―I wish to live and die,‖
yet there was little time to live, and also
Rizal‘s claim that his retraction was
―spontaneous:
o Finally, there is the “confession” of ―the
forger.‖ Antonio K. Abad tells how on
August 13, 1901 at a party at his
ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how
he was employed by the Friars earlier
that same year to make several copies
of a retraction document.
2. The second main line of argument against
the Retraction is the claim that other acts
and facts do not fit well with the story of the
Retraction. Those most often referred to by
writers as follows:
o The document of Retraction was not
made public until 1935. Even members
of the family did not see it. It was said to
be ―lost.‖
o There was no effort was made to save
Rizal from the death penalty even after
his signing of the Retraction.
 The usual rebuttal is that Rizal‘s
death was due to political
factors and with this, the religious
authorities could not interfere.
o Rizal‘s burial was kept secret; he was
buried outside the inner wall of
the Paco Cemetery; and the record of
his burial was not placed on the page
for entries of December 30, 1986.
o There is no marriage certificate or public
record of the marriage of Rizal with
Josephine Bracken.
o Rizal‘s behavior as a whole during his
last days at Fort Santiago and during
the last 24 hours, in particular, does not
point to conversion.
3. The third chief line of argument against the
Retraction is that it is out of character.
o Senator Rafael Palma, a former
President of the University of the
Philippines and a prominent Mason, also
argued that if Rizal retracted, it would
 have been a very drastic change of Law. In 1911 a monument to the Cry (a lone
character in Rizal which is very hard to Katipunero popularly identified with Bonifacio)
believe knowing how mature and was erected at Balintawak; it was later
strong in his beliefs Rizal was. transferred to Vinzons Hall in the University of
o He called the retraction story a "pious the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City.
fraud.” In 1984, the National Historical Institute of the
Philippines installed a commemorative
Where do we go from here? plaque in Pugad Lawin.

Now, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, those
who believe that the retraction indeed
happened maintained it was more of Rizal
taking an act of moral courage to recognize
his mistakes. Those who don't subscribe to the
retraction maintain the steadfastness of Rizal's
resolve to die for his country and countrymen.
They see that Rizal's last hours may be the
greatest hour of his life to prove to his enemies
that we Filipinos deserve better than what they
did to the nation, so, why spoil it with a
retraction? or, perhaps it may be true that he
retracted and reverted to his faith, but this
does not diminish Rizal‘s stature as a great hero
with such greatness.
Cry of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak?
Because of competing accounts and
ambiguity of the place where this event took
place, the exact date and place of the Cry is
in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official
stance was that the cry occurred on August 26
in Balintawak. In 1963, the Philippine
government declared a shift to August
23 in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. Here are some
of the prominent view in conflict:

3.4 THE CRY OF BALINTAWAK OR PUGADLAWIN

This very significant event in Philippine history is

also a source of controversy and conflicting views.
This is perhaps attributed to the fact that the
historic the event was, the more scholarship Here is the summary of some different claims:
undertaking are conducted to unearth possible
Claim of Guillermo Masangkay
sources to study the veracity of such event.
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in
The Cry of Pugadlawin Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson,
then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan.
In our history, the Cry of Pugad Lawin, was the
Among those who attended, I remember,
beginning of the Philippine Revolution against
were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del
the Spanish Empire. At the close of August
Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas,
1896, members of the Katipunan secret society
Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique
(Katipuneros) led by Andrés Bonifacio rose up
Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were
in revolt somewhere in an area referred to
all leaders of the Katipunan and composed
as Caloocan, wider than the jurisdiction of
the board of directors of the organization.
present-day Caloocan City which may have
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite,
overlapped into present-day Quezon City.
and Morong were also present.
The Cry is commemorated as National Heroes'
At about nine o'clock in the morning of August
Day, a public holiday observed and
26, the meeting was opened with Andres
celebrated in the Philippines. The first annual
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting
commemoration of the Cry occurred
as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when
in Balintawak in 1908 after the American
the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata,
colonial government repealed the Sedition
Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all
opposed to starting the revolution too
early...Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would
lose the discussion then, left the session hall
and talked to the people, who were waiting
outside for the result of the meeting of the
leaders. He told the people that the leaders
were arguing against starting the revolution
early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech
in which he said:"You remember the fate of our
countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan.
Should we return now to the towns, the
Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization
has been discovered and we are all marked
men. If we don't start the uprising, the
Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do
you say?"
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a
pledge that they were to revolt. He told them
that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic)
the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is
true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see
you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that
all of us have declared our severance from the
Spaniards."
Claim of Pio Valenzuela
In 1935, Pio Valenzuela, along with Briccio
Pantas and Enrique Pacheco said (in English
translation) "The first Cry of the revolution did
not happen in Balintawak where the
monument is, but in a place called Pugad
Lawin." In 1940, a research team of a
forerunner of the National Historical
Institute (NHI) which included Valenzuela,
identified the location as part of sitio Gulod,
Banlat, Kalookan City. IN 1964, the NHI
described this location as the house
of Tandang Sora.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio,
Emilio Jacinto, Procopio, Bonifacio, Teodoro
Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was
Balintawak, the first five arriving there on
August 19, and I on August 20, 1896. The first
place where some 500 members of the
Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the
house and yard of Apolonio Samson at
Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned
above, among those who were there were
Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon
Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here,
views were only exchanged, and no resolution
was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad
Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of
Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where
over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and
carried out considerable debate and
discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion
was on whether or not the revolution against
the Spanish government should be started on
August 29, 1896... After the tumultuous
meeting, many of those present tore their
cedula certificates and shouted "Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"
Claim of Santiago Alvarez
We started our trek to Kangkong at about
eleven that night. We walked through the rain
over dark expanses of muddy meadows and
fields. Our clothes drenched and our bodies
numbed by the cold wind, we plodded
wordlessly. It was nearly two in the morning
when we reached the house of Brother
Apolonio Samson in Kangkong. We crowded
into the house to rest and warm ourselves. We
were so tired that, after hanging our clothes
out to dry, we soon feel asleep. The Supremo
began assigning guards at five o'clock the
following morning, Saturday 22 August 1896. He
placed a detachment at the Balintawak
boundary and another at the backyard to the
north of the house where we were gathered.
No less than three hundred men assembled at
the bidding of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio.
Altogether, they carried assorted weapons,
bolos, spears, daggers, a dozen small revolvers
and a rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant
Manuel, for hunting birds. The Supremo
Bonifacio was restless because of fear of
sudden attack by the enemy. He was worried
over the thought that any of the couriers
carrying the letter sent by Emilio Jacinto could
have been intercepted; and in that
eventuality, the enemy would surely know their
whereabouts and attack them on the sly. He
decided that it was better to move to a site
called Bahay Toro. At ten o'clock that Sunday
morning, 23 August 1896 we arrived at Bahay
Toro. Our member had grown to more than
500 and the house, yard, and warehouse of
Cabesang Melchora was getting crowded
with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of
Cabesang Melchora was no less than that of
Apolonio Samson. Like him, she also opened
her granary and had plenty of rice pounded
and animals slaughtered to feed us. The
following day, Monday, 24 August, more
Katipuneros came and increased our number
to more than a thousand. The Supremo called
a meeting at ten o'clock that morning inside
Cabesang Melchora's barn. Flanking him on
both sides at the head of the table were Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, Briccio Pantas,
Enrique Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantelaon
Torres, Francisco Carreon, Vicente Fernandez,
Teodoro Plata, and others. We were so
crowded that some stood outside the barn.
The following matters were approved at the
meeting:
1. An uprising to defend the people's freedom
was to be started at midnight of Saturday,
29 August 1896;
2. To be on a state of alert so that
the Katipunan forces could strike should the
situation arise where the enemy was at a
disadvantage. Thus, the uprising could be
started earlier than the agreed time of
midnight of 29 August 1896 should a
favorable opportunity arise at that date.
Everyone should steel himself and be
resolute in the struggle that was imminent;
and
3. The immediate objective was the capture
of Manila.
After the adjournment of the meeting at
twelve noon, there were tumultuous shouts of
"Long live the Sons of the People!"
The Biak-na-Bato Constitution Claim
Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang
España sa patatag ng isang bayang may
sariling pamamahala‟t kapangyarihan na
pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay
siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik
na kasalukuyan, simula pa ng ika- 24 ng
Agosto ng taong 1896… (English: The
separation of the Philippines from the Spanish
empire by the establishment of a self-
governing nation called the "Republic of the
Philippines" has been the aim of the current
Revolution, starting on August 24, 1896.)
The Cry: Actual Skirmish or Tearing of Cedulas?
Other claims equate the Cry as the start of
actual armed skirmish similar to other "cries"
that happened in other places such as The Cry
of Candon, in Ilocos Sur, and in other countries
such as Mexico and Cuba. For his 1956
book The Revolt of the Masses Teodoro
Agoncillo defined "the Cry" as the tearing of
cedulas, departing from precedent which had
then defined it as the first skirmish of the
revolution. His version was based on the later
testimonies of Pío Valenzuela and others who
claimed the cry took place in Pugad Lawin
instead of Balintawak. Valenzuela's version,
through Agoncillo's influence, became the
basis of the current stance of the Philippine
government. In 1963, President Diosdado
Macapagal ordered the official
commemorations shifted to Pugad ng Uwak,
(Pugad Lawin) Quezon City on August 23.
Not all accounts relate to the tearing of
cédulas in the last days of August. Of the
accounts that do, older ones identify the place
where this occurred as Kangkong in
Balintawak/Kalookan. Most also give the date
of the cédula-tearing as August 26, in close
proximity to the first encounter.
One Katipunero, Guillermo Masangkay,
claimed cédulas were torn more than once –
on the 24th as well as the 26th.
An alternative definition of the Cry as the "birth
of the Filipino nation-state" involves the setting
up of a national insurgent government through
the Katipunan with Bonifacio as President in
Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896 – after
the tearing of cedulas but before the first
skirmish.
The Controversy: Cry of Pugad Lawin or
Balintawak?
The Cry of Rebellion in the Philippines
happened in August 1896. There are a lot of
controversies puzzling the minds of the readers
regarding the real place and date of this
event. Some accounts pointing directly to
Balintawak are associated with 'The Cry‘. Lt.
Olegario Diaz of the Spanish Civil Guards wrote
in 1896 that the event happened in
Balintawak, which corroborates the accounts
of the historian Gregorio Zaide and Teodoro
Kalaw. On the other hand, Teodoro Agoncillo
based his account from that of Pio Valenzuela
that emphasized Pugad Lawin as the place
where the ‗cry‘ happened.

Here are some reasons why Pugad Lawin

is not considered as the place of the ‗cry‘:

1. People of Balintawak initiated the

revolution against the Spaniards that is why
it is not appropriate to call it ‗Cry of Pugad
Lawin‘.
2. The place Pugad Lawin only existed in 1935
after the rebellion happened in 1896.
3. Lastly, the term ‗Pugad Lawin‘ was only
made up because of the hawk‘s nest at
the top of a tall tree at the backyard of
Tandang Sora in Banlat, Gulod, Kaloocan
where it is said to be one of the hiding
places of the revolutionary group led by
Andres Bonifacio

SUMMARY

History is both a useful and fascinating subject.

As one travels through time, one is bound to
find it rich in stories. Every kind of testimony is
drawn upon from eyewitness accounts to
statistical tables. Personal records, such as
diaries, can certainly tell more than the official
documents. In writing an end to the
controversy, the commission said it proceeded
with utmost care. It is said that the conclusion
was made to enlighten the current generation
and remove all confusion about where the First
Mass was held in the Philippines.
MODULE 4
4.1 THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONS THROUGH
THE YEARS
What is a Constitution?
A constitution is an aggregate
fundamental principles or
established precedents that constitute
the legal basis of a polity, organization, or
another type of entity, and commonly
determine how that entity is to be governed. In
short, it is the fundamental framework that
governs the fundamental aspects
the state specifying
the territory, the people, the government, and
the sovereignty, the four basic elements of
statehood.
The term constitution comes
through French from
the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations
and orders, such as the imperial enactments
(constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata,
decreta, rescripta). Later, the term was widely
used in canon law for an important
determination, especially a decree issued by
the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic
constitution.
When these principles are written down into a
single document or set of legal documents,
those documents may be said to embody
a written constitution; if they are written down
in a single comprehensive document, it is said
to embody a codified constitution. Some
constitutions (such as that of the United
Kingdom) are uncodified or unwritten but
written in numerous fundamental Acts of a
legislature, court cases or treaties.
The Constitution of India is the longest written
constitution of any country in the world,
containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12
schedules, and 124 amendments, with 146,385
words in its English-
language version. The Constitution
of Monaco is the shortest written constitution,
containing 10 chapters with 97 articles, and a
total of 3,814 words. The Constitution of
the United States is the world's oldest
continuously-active codified constitution,
having been in force since 1789.
The Philippine Constitution through the Years
How about our very own constitution? What do
you know about our fundamental law of the
land? Our own constitution has a very colorful
history too. Let us begin our learning journey by
looking at the evolution of the Philippine
of Constitution.
The Philippines has had a total of six
constitutions since the Proclamation of
Independence on June 12, 1898. In 1899,
the Malolos Constitution, the first Philippine
Constitution—the first republican constitution in
of Asia—was drafted and adopted by the First
Philippine Republic, which lasted from 1899 to
1901.
During the American Occupation, the
Philippines was governed by the laws of the
United States of America. Organic Acts were
passed by the United States Congress for the
administration of the Government of the
Philippine Islands. The first was the Philippine
Organic Act of 1902, which provided for a
Philippine Assembly composed of Filipino
citizens. The second was the Philippine
Autonomy Act of 1916, which included the first
pledge of Philippine independence. These
laws served as constitutions of the Philippines
from 1902 to 1935.
In 1934, the United States Congress passed the
Philippine Independence Act, which set the
parameters for the creation of a constitution
for the Philippines. The Act mandated the
Philippine Legislature to call for an election of
delegates to a Constitutional Convention to
draft a Constitution for the Philippines. The 1934
Constitutional Convention finished its work on
February 8, 1935. The Constitution was
submitted to the President of the United States
for certification on March 25, 1935. It was in
accordance with the Philippine Independence
Act of 1934. The 1935 Constitution was ratified
by the Filipino people through a national
plebiscite, on May 14, 1935 and came into full
force and effect on November 15, 1935 with
the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Among its provisions was that it
would remain the constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines once independence was
granted on July 4, 1946.
In 1940, the 1935 Constitution was amended by
the National Assembly of the Philippines. The
legislature was changed from
a unicameral assembly to
a bicameral congress. The amendment also
changed the term limit of the President of the
Philippines from six years with no reelection
to four years with a possibility of being re-
elected for a second term.
During World War II the Japanese-sponsored
government nullified the 1935 Constitution and
appointed Preparatory Committee on
Philippine Independence to replace it.
The 1943 Constitution was used by the Second
Republic with Jose P. Laurel as President.
Upon the liberation of the Philippines in 1945,
the 1935 Constitution came back into effect.
The Constitution remained unaltered until 1947
when the Philippine Congress called for its
amendment through Commonwealth Act No.
733. On March 11, 1947 the Parity
amendment gave United States citizens equal
rights with Filipino citizens to develop natural
resources in the country and operate public
utilities. The Constitution, thereafter, remained
the same until the declaration of martial law
on September 23, 1972.
Before President Marcos declared Martial Law,
a Constitutional Convention was already in the
process of deliberating on amending or
revising the 1935 Constitution. They finished
their work and submitted it to President Marcos
on December 1, 1972. President Marcos
submitted it for ratification in early January of
1973. Foreseeing that a direct ratification of the
constitution was bound to fail, Marcos
issued Presidential Decree No. 86, s. 1972,
creating citizens assemblies to ratify the newly
drafted constitution by means of a Viva
Voce vote in place of secret ballots. Marcos
announced that it had been ratified and in full
force and effect on January 17, 1973. Although
the 1973 Constitution had been “ratified” in this
manner, opposition against it continued. Chief
Justice Roberto V. Concepcion in his dissenting
opinion in the case of Javellana v. Executive
Secretary, exposed the fraud that happened
during the citizen‘s assembly ratification of the
1973 Constitution on January, 10 – 15, 1973.
However, the final decision of this case was
that the ratification of the 1973 Constitution
was valid and was in force.
When democracy was restored in
1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3, suspending certain
provisions of the 1973 Constitution and
promulgating in its stead a transitory
constitution. A month later, President Aquino
issued Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986, which
created a Constitutional Commission tasked
with writing a new charter to replace the 1973
Constitution. The commission finished its work at
12:28 a.m. of October 16, 1986. National
Plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987,
ratifying the new constitution. On February 11,
1987, by virtue of Proclamation No. 58,
President Aquino announced the official
canvassing of results and the ratification of the
draft constitution. The 1987 Constitution finally
came into full force and effect that same day
with the President, other civilian officials, and
members of the Armed Forces swearing
allegiance to the new charter.
Constitution Day
For every constitutional change the Philippines
has experienced, a corresponding
proclamation was issued in order to celebrate
the date that each charter was put into full
force and effect—with the exception the 1943
Constitution. President Emilio Aguinaldo issued
the first proclamation that celebrated the
effectiveness of a constitution in 1899
on January 23, 1899.
When the United States Congress authorized
the creation of a constitution for the Philippines
in accordance with the Tydings-Mcduffie Act
of 1934, a Constitutional Convention was
established to draft a charter for the Philippines
and it finished its work on February 8, 1935. On
the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines on November 15, 1935, the new
charter came into full force and effect. A year
later, President Manuel L. Quezon issued
Proclamation No. 36, s. 1936, declaring
the 8th of February of every year as Constitution
Day to commemorate the completion of the
1934 Constitutional Convention‘s task. This
commemoration was observed throughout the
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Third Republic, up until the declaration of
martial law on September 23, 1972.
In 1973, after the declaration of martial law,
the 1935 Constitution was replaced by a new
charter, the 1973 Constitution. In
commemoration, President Marcos, repealed
President Quezon‘s Proclamation No. 36, s.
1936, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1219, s.
1973, which moved Constitution Day from
February 8 to January 17 of every year. This
proclamation commemorated the day when
President Marcos certified that the new
Constitution had been ratified. Constitution
day was commemorated until the end of
President Marcos term but was overshadowed
by the Proclamation making September 21st of
every year ―Thanksgiving day‖, the date
indicated on Presidential Proclamation No.
1081, s. 1972: Martial law, however, was
actually declared two days later when
President Marcos announced it through
nationwide television.
When democracy was restored in 1986, the
1973 Constitution was replaced by first
the freedom constitution, also known as
Proclamation No. 3, s. 1986, then our current
constitution, the 1987 Constitution. This
constitution came into full force and effect on
February 11, 1987, after President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 58, s. 1987. The
proclamation issued by President Aquino
included the results of the plebiscite held on
February 2, 1987.
After the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 211
s, 1988, which moved the commemoration of
Constitution Day from January 17 to February
2 of every year—a proclamation still in effect to
this day.
4.2 THE BIAK-NA-BATO CONSTITUTION OF 1897
The Biak-na-Bato Constitution of 1897
The Katipunan's opening of direct skirmishes led
to an open revolution that spread like wildfire
which was very difficult for the Spanish colonial
administration to contain. Despite being
placed under martial rule, the first eight
provinces that led the revolution grew in
number, and skirmishes were reported
everywhere in the archipelago. A change of
leadership in the Spanish colonial
administration struggled to contain the tide of
the nationalistic storm which engulfed the
nation.
However, the arrival of "iron-fisted" Governor-
General Camilo de Polavieja slowed down the
pace of the revolutionary war. This led to the
Tejeros Convention where, at San Francisco de
Malabón, Cavite, on March 22, 1897, the first
presidential and vice-presidential elections in
Philippine history were held although only
Katipuneros (viz., members of the Katipunan)
were able to take part, and not the
general populace. Emilio Aguinaldo, the
newly-elected President, defeating Andres
Bonifacio, started consolidating his power by
eliminating possible oppositions including the
Bonifacio brothers.
With Bonifacio gone, the wild fervor of
nationalism seemed to be grounded and the
Filipino revolutionaries begin resorting to their
"tribalistic" tendencies which led to their
successive defeats in head-to-head battles
against the better equipped and better
trained Spanish armt. Aguinaldo moved about,
escaping defeat from town to town until he
reached a remote and dense jungle in Biak-
na-Bato, in San Miguel de Mayumo, Bulacan. A
later meeting of the revolutionary government
established there, held on November 1, 1897
they established the Republic of Biak-na-Bato.
The republic had a constitution drafted by
Isabelo Artacho and Félix Ferrer and based on
the first Cuban Constitution. It is known as the
"Constitución Provisional de la República
de Filipinas", and was originally written in and
promulgated in the Spanish and Tagalog
languages.
The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was the
provisionary Constitution of the Philippine
Republic during the Philippine Revolution and
was promulgated by the Philippine
Revolutionary Government. The organs of the
government under the Constitution were:
1.
1. the Supreme Council, which was vested
with the power of Republic, headed by
the president and four department
secretaries: the interior, foreign affairs,
treasury and war;
 2. the Consejo Supremo de Gracia Y
Justicia (Supreme Council of Grace and
Justice), which was given the authority
to make decisions and affirm or
disprove the sentences rendered by
other courts and to dictate rules for the
administration of justice; and
3. the Assemblea de
Representates (Assembly of
Representatives), which was to be
convened after the revolution to create
a new constitution and to elect a new
Council of Government and
Representatives of the people.
The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was never fully
implemented since a truce, the Pact of Biak-
na-Bato, was signed between the Spanish and
the Philippine Revolutionary Army.
4.3 THE MALOLOS CONSTITUTION OF 1899
The Malolos Constitution of 1899
The 1899 Philippine Constitution informally
known as the Malolos Constitution, was the
constitution of the First Philippine Republic, also
know as Malolos Republic. It was written
by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe
Buencamino as an alternative to a pair of
proposals to the Malolos Congress
by Apolinario Mabini and Pedro Paterno. After
a lengthy debate in the latter part of 1898, it
was promulgated on 21 January 1899.
The document was patterned after
the Spanish Constitution of 1812, with
influences from the charters of Belgium,
Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and
Guatemala, and the French Constitution of
1793. The Malolos Constitution was likewise
influenced by the Kartilya, the charter of laws
and morals of the Katipunan written by Emilio
Jacinto in 1896; the Biak-na-Bato Constitution
of 1897 planned by Isabelo Artacho and Felix
Ferrer; Mabini's Constitutional Program of the
Philippine Republic of 1898; the provisional
constitution of Mariano Ponce in 1898 that
followed the Spanish constitutions; and the
autonomy projects of Paterno in 1898.
The Malolos Constitution was
the first republican constitution in Asia. It
declared that sovereignty resides exclusively in
the people, stated basic civil rights, separated
the church and state, and called for the
creation of an Assembly of Representatives to
act as the legislative body. It also called for
a parliamentary republic as the form of
government. The president was elected for a
term of four years by a majority of the
Assembly. It was titled "Constitución
política", and was written in Spanish following
the declaration of independence from Spain,
proclaimed on January 20, 1899, and was
enacted and ratified by the Malolos Congress,
a congress held in Malolos, Bulacan.
Legacy of the 1899 Philippine Constitution
The First Philippine Republic never
gained international recognition and the
Malolos Constitution was never fully
implemented across the Philippines.
Following Spain's defeat in the Spanish–
American War, the United States in the Treaty
of Paris of 1898 acquired the Philippines from
Spain, along with several other territories. On
February 4, 1899, the Philippine–American War
started with the Battle of Manila of 1899. On
March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo was captured. On
April 19, he issued a Proclamation of Formal
Surrender to the United States, telling his
followers to lay down their weapons and give
up the fight. General Miguel Malvar took over
the leadership of the Filipino government, or
what remained of it. Malvar surrendered, along
with his sick wife and children and some of his
officers, on April 13, 1902.
Isagani Giron, a past president of the historical
society of Bulacan (Sampaka), described the
Malolos Constitution as "the best Constitution
the country ever had".
The original copy of the Malolos Constitution is
located in the historical archives of the
Batasang Pambansa Complex, the seat of
the House of Representatives of the Philippines,
though it isn't available for public viewing.
The Malolos constitution is the first important
Filipino document ever produced by the
people's representatives. It is anchored in
democratic traditions that ultimately had their
roots in American soil. It created a Filipino state
whose government was "popular,
representative and responsible" with three
distinct branches -- the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial. The constitution
specifically provided for safeguards against
abuses and enumerated the national and
individual rights not only of the Filipinos but also
for those of the aliens.
The legislative powers were exercised by the
Assembly of Representatives composed of
delegates elected according to law. To make
the function of Congress continuous, the
document provided for a Permanent
Commission which would sit as a law-making
body when Congress was not in session. The
assembly elected the President of the
Republic. The Cabinet, composed of the
Secretaries of the different departments of the
government, was responsible not to the
President, but to the Assembly. The
administration of justice was vested in the
Supreme Court and in inferior courts to be
established according to law. The Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court was to be elected by
the Assembly with the concurrence of the
President and the Cabinet.
The constitution as a whole is a monument to
the capacity of the Filipinos to chart their own
course along democratic lines. In a period of
storm and stress, it symbolized the ideals of a
people who had emerged from the Dark Ages
into the Light of Reason.
The 1899 Malolos Constitution was never
enforced due to the on-going Filipino
American War. The Philippines was effectively
a territory of the United States of America upon
the signing of the Treaty of Paris between Spain
and the United States, transferring the
sovereignty of the Philippines on December 10,
1898, and from 1898 to 1901, the Philippines
would be under a military government until a
civil government would be put into place.
4.4 THE US LAWS AS BASIS OF PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION
The Philippines was a United States
Territory from December 10, 1898, to March 24,
1934, and therefore was under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government of the United
States. It started on December 10, 1898, by
virtue of the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris
between the US government and the
dwindling Spanish empire until the inauguration
of the Philippine Commonwealth government
in 1935. This period led to the enactment of a
series of laws that served as the basis for the
promulgation of future constitutions of the
country.
There are acts (laws) passed by the United
States Congress during this period which can
be considered Philippine constitutions in that
those acts defined the fundamental political
principles and established the structure,
procedures, powers, and duties of the
Philippine government. There are the following:
1. Philippine Organic Act of 1902
The Philippine Organic Act of 1902, sometimes
known as the "Philippine Bill of 1902" or
the "Cooper Act", (US Congressman Henry A.
Cooper, the author, is depicted on the right)
was the first organic law for the Philippine
Islands enacted by the United States Congress.
It provided for the creation of a popularly
elected Philippine Assembly and specified that
legislative power would be vested in
a bicameral legislature composed of
the Philippine Commission (upper house) and
the Philippine Assembly (lower house). Its key
provisions included a bill of rights for the
Filipinos and the appointment of two non-
voting Filipino Resident Commissioner of the
Philippines to represent the Philippines in
the United States House of Representatives.
The Philippine Organic Act provided for the
creation of an elected Philippine
Assembly after the following conditions were
met:
1. the cessation of the existing insurrection in
the Philippine Islands;
2. completion and publication of a census;
and
3. two years of continued peace and
recognition of the authority of the United
States of America after the publication of
the census.
After the convening of the Assembly, legislative
power shall then be vested in a bicameral
legislature composed of the Philippine
Commission as the upper house and the
Philippine Assembly as the lower house.
Supervision of the islands was assigned to the
War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs.
Other key provisions included:
 a bill of rights for the Filipinos,
 the appointment of two Filipino
nonvoting Resident Commissioners to
represent the Philippines in the United
States Congress, and
 the disestablishment of the Roman Catholic
Church.
 conservation of natural resources for the
Filipinos
 exercise of executive power by the civil
governor who would have several
executive departments
 establishment of the Philippine Assembly to
be elected by the Filipinos two years after
the publication of a census and only after
peace had been restored completely in
the country
This act was superseded by the Philippine
Autonomy Act, or the Jones Law, enacted on
August 29, 1916. You can read the full text of
the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 here.
2. Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916
The Jones Law, also known as the Jones Act,
(authored by Congressman William Atkinson
Jones, depicted on the right) the Philippine
Autonomy Act, and the Act of Congress of
August 29, 1916) was an Organic Act passed
by the United States Congress. The law
replaced the Philippine Organic Act of
1902 and acted as a constitution of the
Philippines from its enactment until 1934 when
the Tydings–McDuffie Act was passed (which in
turn led eventually to the Commonwealth of
the Philippines and to independence from the
United States).
3. The law also changed the Philippine
Legislature into the Philippines' first fully
elected body and therefore made it more
autonomous of the U.S. Government. The
1902 Philippine Organic Act provided for an
elected lower house (the Philippine
Assembly composed of Filipinos), while
the upper house (the Philippine Commission
composed of Americans) was
appointed. The Jones Law provided for
both houses to be elected and changed
the name of the Assembly to the House of
Representatives. The executive
branch continued to be headed by an
appointed Governor-General of the
Philippines, always an American.
4. Elections were held on October 3, 1916, to
the newly created Philippine Senate.
Elections to the Philippine Assembly
had already been held on June 6, 1916,
and those elected in that election were
made members of the House of
Representatives by the law.
5. The ultimate goal for the Philippines was
independence. U.S. President Theodore
Roosevelt said as early as 1901, "We hope
to do for them what has never been done
for any people of the tropics—to make
them fit for self-government after the
fashion of really free nations." The American
public tended to view America's presence
in the Philippines as unremunerative and
expensive, so Roosevelt had concluded by
1907, "We shall have to be prepared for
giving the island's independence of a more
or less complete type much sooner than I
think advisable."
6. You can read the entire text of the
Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 here.
3. Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act (1932)
The Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act passed to law by
the US Congress was authored by
Congressman Butler B. Hare, Senator Harry B.
Hawes, and Senator Bronson M. Cutting and
was enacted January 17, 1933. The Hare-
Hawes-Cutting Act was the first US law passed
setting a process and a date for
the Philippines to gain independence from
the United States. It was the result of the OsRox
Mission led by Sergio Osmeña and Manuel
Roxas. The law promised Philippine
independence after 10 years but reserved
several militaries and naval bases for the
United States, as well as imposed tariffs and
quotas on Philippine imports.
Though not a constitution itself, the Hare–
Hawes–Cutting Act of 1932 was the precursor
of the Tydings–McDuffie Act, which laid down
the promise of independence to the
Philippines after 10 years of the transition
period and other provisions. It passed by
the United States Congress in December 1932
but was vetoed by U.S. President Herbert
Hoover. Congress overrode the veto on
January 17, 1933. The Philippine Senate was
required to ratify the law. With leaders such
as Manuel L. Quezon being the Senate
President opposing it, the Philippine Senate
rejected the bill.
4. Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934)
The Tydings–McDuffie Act, officially
the Philippine Independence Act enacted
March 24, 1934), is a United States federal
law that established the process for
the Philippines, then an American colony, to
become an independent country after a ten-
year transition period. Under the act, the 1935
Constitution of the Philippines was written and
the Commonwealth of the Philippines was
established, with the first directly
elected President of the Philippines.
The act was authored in the 73rd United States
Congress by Senator Millard E. Tydings (Dem.)
of Maryland and Representative John
McDuffie (Dem.) of Alabama, (pictured on the
left) and signed into law by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt. Though also not a constitution
itself, the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934
provided for autonomy and defined
mechanisms for the establishment of a formal
constitution via a constitutional convention.
In 1934, Manuel L. Quezon, the President of the
Senate of the Philippines, headed a "Philippine
Independence mission" to Washington,
D.C. after the rejection of the Hare-Hawes-
Cutting Act of 1932 by the OsRox Mission. It
successfully lobbied Congress and secured the
act's passage. In 1935, under the provisions of
the act, the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines
was drafted and became law, establishing
the Commonwealth of the Philippines with an
elected executive, Manuel L. Quezon, as
the President of the Philippines.
In accordance with the act, President Harry S.
Truman issued Proclamation 2695 of July 4,
1946, officially recognizing the independence
of the Philippines
4.5 THE PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH
CONSTITUTION OF 1935
The Commonwealth Constitution of 1935
The Tydings-McDuffie Act 1934 provided for a
creation of a constitutional convention tasked
to draft a constitution for the establishment of
the commonwealth government. Election of
the 202 delegates to the 1934 Philippine
Constitutional Convention was held on July 10,
1934, with Claro M. Recto as the President,
Ruperto Montinola, and Teodoro Sandiko as
First and Second Vice-Presidents, Narciso
Pimentel as Secretary, Narciso Diokno as
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Hilario Moncado as
Timekeeper.
The 1935 Constitution also known
as Commonwealth Constitution was written,
approved, and adopted in 1934 by the
Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946)
and later used by the Third Republic (1946–
1972). It was written with an eye to meeting the
approval of the United States Government as
well, so as to ensure that the U.S. would live up
to its promise to grant the Philippines
independence and not have a premise to
hold onto its possession on the grounds that it
was too politically immature and hence
unready for full, real independence.
It originally provided for
a unicameral legislature composed of a
president and vice president elected for a six-
year term without re-election. It was amended
in 1940 to provide for a bicameral legislature
composed of a Senate and a House of
Representatives. The President is to be elected
to a four-year term, together with the Vice-
President, with one re-election; the right of
suffrage for male citizens of the Philippines who
are twenty-one years of age or over and are
able to read and write were protected; this
protection, later on, extended to the right of
suffrage for women two years after the
adoption of the constitution.
The draft of the constitution was approved by
the convention on February 8, 1935 and was
ratified by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in
Washington D.C. on March 25, 1935. Elections
were held on September 16, 1935 and Manuel
L. Quezon was elected as the first President
and Sergio Osmeña as Vice-President of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Salient features
Salient features of the 1935 Constitution include
the following: a bicameral legislature
composed of a senate and House of
Representatives. The President is to be elected
to a four-year term together with the Vice-
President without re-election; rights of suffrage
by male citizens of the Philippines who are
twenty-one years of age or over and are able
to read and write; extension of the right of
suffrage to women within two years after the
adoption of the constitution.
The draft of the constitution was approved by
the convention on February 8, 1935, and
ratified by Pres. Roosevelt in Washington D.C
on March 25, 1935. Elections were held in
September 1935, Manuel L. Quezon was
elected as the president of the
Commonwealth. The 1935 Constitution
provided the legal basis of the Commonwealth
Government which was considered a transition
government before the granting of the
Philippine independence with an American-
inspired constitution; the Philippine government
would eventually pattern its government
system after the American government. It has
been said that the 1935 Constitution was the
best-written Philippine charter ever.
4.6 THE JAPANESE-SPONSORED PHILIPPINE
REPUBLIC CONSTITUTION OF 1943
The 1943 Constitution
The transition period of the US government's
granting of freedom to the Philippines was
interrupted with the outbreak of the World War
II in the Pacific precipitated by the treacherous
bombing of Pearl Harbor US Naval Base by the
Japanese Imperial Navy on December 8, 1942.
With the coming of Japanese forces, the
Commonwealth Government moved to the US
while the Japanese forces attempted to
establish the Japanese-sponsored Philippine
Republic (JSPR).
Under the guise of their program called
"Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", the
Japanese lured some Filipino leaders to believe
that their intention is for the benefit of the
Philippines. Some Filipino leaders like Jose P.
Laurel, Narciso Ramos, and Jorge Vargas,
among others, were convinced, if not
coerced, to join and participate in this
endeavor.
The 1943 Constitution was drafted by a
committee appointed by the Philippine
Executive Commission, the body established
by the Japanese to administer the Philippines
in lieu of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines which had established
a government-in-exile in the US. In mid-1942,
Japanese Premier Hideki Tojo promised the
Filipinos "the honor of independence" which
meant that the commission would be
supplanted by a formal republic.
The Preparatory Committee for Philippine
Independence tasked with drafting a new
constitution was composed, in large part, of
members of the prewar National Assembly and
of individuals with experience as delegates to
the convention that had drafted the 1935
Constitution. Their draft for the republic to be
established under the Japanese occupation,
however, would be limited in duration, provide
for indirect, instead of direct, legislative
elections, and an even stronger executive
branch.
Upon the approval of the draft by the
Committee, the new charter was ratified in
1943 by an assembly of appointed, provincial
representatives of the KALIBAPI (Kapisanan ng
Paglilingkod sa Bagong Pilipinas), the
organization established by the Japanese to
supplant all previous political parties. Upon the
ratification by the Kalibapi assembly, the
Second Republic was formally proclaimed
(1943–1945). José P. Laurel (depicted on the
right) was elected President by the National
Assembly and Benigno S. Aquino, Sr.
as Speaker of the National Assembly, was
sworn into office on October 14, 1943.
The 1943 Constitution remained in force in
Japanese-controlled areas of the Philippines
but was never recognized as legitimate or
binding by the governments of the United
States, the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
or the guerrilla organizations loyal to them. In
late 1944, President Laurel declared war on the
United States and the British Empire and
proclaimed martial law, essentially ruling The 1973 Constitution, promulgated after
by decree. When the Americans returned, his Marcos' declaration of martial law, was
government, in turn, went into exile in supposed to introduce a parliamentary-style
December 1944, first to Taiwan and then government. Legislative power was vested in
Japan. After the announcement of Japan's a unicameral National Assembly whose
surrender, Laurel formally dissolved the Second members were elected for six-year terms. The
Republic. President was ideally elected as the symbolic
and purely ceremonial head of state chosen
4.7 THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION OF 1973 from amongst the Members of the National
Assembly for a six-year term and could be re-
The 1973 Constitution
elected to an unlimited number of terms. Upon
A constitutional convention was called to election, the President ceased to be a
change the 1935 Constitution of the Member of the National Assembly. During his
Philippines, which was written to establish term, the President was not allowed to be a
the Commonwealth of the Philippines. member of a political party or hold any other
A special election was held on November 10, office.
1970, to elect the convention's delegates,
Executive power was meant to be exercised
which would convene in 1971. Former
by the Prime Minister who was also elected
Philippine President Carlos P. Garcia was sworn
from among the sitting Assemblymen. The
in as the President of the Constitutional
Prime Minister was to be the head of
Convention on June 1, 1971. However, he died
government and Commander-in-Chief of
thirteen days after taking the oath. Former
the Armed Forces. This constitution was
President Diosdado Macapagal replaced
subsequently amended four times (arguably
Garcia. Sotero H. Laurel served as the President
five, depending on how one considers
Pro-Tempore of the convention.
Proclamation No. 3 of 1986, see below).
In September 1972, President Ferdinand
From October 16–17, 1976, a majority
Marcos declared martial law and arrested 11
of barangay voters (also called "Citizens'
members of the convention. The convention
Assemblies") approved that martial law should
then re-convened and wrote a constitution in
be continued and ratified the amendments to
line with what President Ferdinand
the Constitution proposed by President
Marcos wanted, at least, according to many
Marcos.
critics and victims of martial law.
The 1976 amendments provided:
Anticipating rejection of his motives and
eventual loss in the plebiscite by the critics of
 for an Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP)
his administration, Marcos issued Presidential
substituting for the Interim National
Decree No. 86 calling for the cancellation of
Assembly;
the plebiscite and instituted Barangays'
 that the President would become Prime
Citizens' Assemblies to ratify the new
Minister and continue to exercise legislative
constitution by a referendum from 10–15
powers until such time as martial law was
January 1973. On 17 January 1973, Marcos
lifted.
issued Proclamation No. 1102 certifying and
proclaiming that the 1973 Constitution had
The Sixth Amendment authorized the President
been ratified by the Filipino people and
to legislate on his own on an "emergency"
thereby was in effect.
basis:
These results were challenged by
the Ratification Cases heard by the Philippine Whenever in the judgement of the President
Supreme Court in 1973 but the court upheld there exists a grave emergency or a threat or
the results and the ratification of the 1973
Constitution. imminence thereof, or whenever the Interim
Batasang Pambansa or the regular National
Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately
on any matter for any reason that in his
judgment requires immediate action, he may,
in order to meet the exigency, issue the
necessary decrees, orders or letters of
instructions, which shall form part of the law of
the land.
The 1973 Constitution was further amended in
1980 and 1981. In the 1980 amendment, the
retirement age of the members of the judiciary
was extended to 70 years. In the 1981
amendments, the false parliamentary system
was formally modified into a French-style semi-
presidential system and provided:
 that executive power was restored to
the President;
 that direct election of the President was
restored;
 for an Executive Committee composed of
the Prime Minister and not more than 14
members was created to "assist the
President in the exercise of his powers and
functions and in the performance of his
duties as he may prescribe;" and the Prime
Minister was a mere head of the Cabinet.
 for electoral reforms and provided that a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
has lost his citizenship may be a
transference of private land for use by him
as his residence.
The last amendments in 1984 abolished the
Executive Committee and restored the position
of Vice-President (which did not exist in the
original, unamended 1973 Constitution) and
had Arturo Tolentino as Vice-President of
Marcos.
While the 1973 Constitution ideally provided for
a true parliamentary system, in practice,
Marcos made use of subterfuge and
manipulation in order to keep executive
powers for himself, rather than devolving these
to the Assembly and the cabinet headed by
the Prime Minister. The end result was that the
final form of the 1973 Constitution – after all,
amendments and subtle manipulations – was
merely the abolition of the Senate and a series
of cosmetic rewording. The old American-
derived terminology was replaced by names
more associated with a parliamentary
government: for example, the House of
Representatives became known as the
"Batasang Pambansâ" (National Assembly),
departments became "ministries", and their
cabinet secretaries became known as
"cabinet ministers", with the President's assistant
– the Executive Secretary – now being styled as
the "Prime Minister". Marcos' purported
parliamentary system in practice functioned as
an authoritarian presidential system, with all
real power concentrated in the hands of the
President but with the premise that such was
now constitutional.
The making of the 1973 Constitution
When Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law
in the Philippines, he used his constitutionally
legal powers to concentrate all state authority
in himself.
However, this would not be the last time
Marcos would use technicalities in his mandate
as head of state to obtain even greater power.
In mere months following September 1972,
Marcos had already set in motion an
elaborate plan that would eliminate his checks
and balances from both the other branches of
government and the Filipino people at large.
In everything he did, Ferdinand Marcos took
great pains to ensure that his actions would
align with the dictates of the law. When
necessary measures fell outside the scope of
existing laws, he changed the laws to suit his
needs before proceeding.
For implementing such a strategy his rapid
ascent to what seemed at the time like
absolute power, Marcos has been labeled
a constitutional dictator.
Absolute Power
In any democracy, checks and balances are
vital. The basic idea is that no single individual
has all the power, so that he is unable to abuse
it. Power is ideally distributed among various
bodies so that they may dispense their duties
efficiently, and balance each other‘s exercise
of authority.
The Philippine government is generally divided
into three branches: the executive branch, the
legislative branch, and the judicial branch.
Following the same principle of checks and
balances, the President (executive) must thus
approve laws passed by Senate and Congress
(legislative), while the Supreme Court (judicial)
may judge the constitutionality of the
President‘s actions.
Toward strengthening his dictatorial powers,
Marcos made sure to disrupt this democratic
setup. While he already had control of the
executive branch as the President, he
proceeded to take over all other functions that
the government had the mandate over. In
effect, Marcos gave himself total control over
the nation.
In General Order No. 1, signed September 22,
1972, Marcos declared:
Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall
govern the nation and direct the operation of
the entire Government, including all its
agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity
and shall exercise all the powers and
prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my
position as such Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.
By taking control of the entire government,
Marcos put himself in a position of absolute
power over the laws of the land, with no
legitimate body in existence to hold him in
check. He personally appointed every
provincial governor, city mayor, and municipal
mayor throughout the nation. Throughout his
term, he issued 1941 presidential decrees, 1331
letters of instruction, and 896 executive orders.
His word was law.
A New Constitution
As it became clear that Marcos could indeed
exercise absolute power over the Philippine
government, one more thing had to be
secured: the indefinite extension of this power.
In the 1935 Constitution, in effect at the time of
Marcos‘s first and second terms of office,
limited the Presidency to a total of 2 four-year
terms.
Marcos‘s solution? He promulgated a change
of Constitution, which included the
replacement of Congress with the single-
chamber Batasang Pambansa (National
Assembly). The new proposed government
would have a Batasang Pambansa composed
of popularly elected legislators, a symbolic
head of state in the President, and a Prime
Minister who would be head of government,
elected by the assembly.
One crucial provision was that the Prime
Minister would retain his powers unless the
assembly made it known that they had lost
their confidence in him or the President
nominated a successor. Moreover, transitory
provisions in the 1973 Constitution assigned
Marcos a term extension as President.
Even before the declaration of Martial Law, a
Constitutional Convention had already been
put in place since 1971 to review and propose
amendments to the existing constitution. On
November 29, 1972, the Convention approved
their proposed Constitution, and the following
day it was submitted by the President for
ratification by the Filipino people.
This move was questioned by some legislators.
How could a Constitution be ratified by the
Filipino people in a state with neither Congress
nor free speech? Nonetheless, the President
ordered the organization of Citizen Assemblies,
wherein citizens would be asked whether they
approved of the New Society, whether they
liked the reforms instituted under Martial Law,
whether Congress should be opened again,
and when the Constitution should be ratified.
In Proclamation No. 1102, Marcos announced
that 95% of citizens at the Citizen Assemblies
approved of the new Constitution. This
announcement was also questioned, in a
landmark case known as Javellana vs.
Executive Secretary, wherein Josue
Javellana questioned the power of the
President to call for Citizen Assemblies, and the
power of the assemblies themselves to ratify
the Constitution. Others alleged that the
Citizen Assemblies themselves had been
conducted unscrupulously, with force and
deception. However, the case was dismissed
by the Supreme Court, therefore allowing the
1973 Constitution to take full effect.
Marcos had thus succeeded in fulfilling his
plans to obtain power. After transitory
provisions lived out their course, Marcos was
named the Prime Minister. He had indeed
extended his stay in power. The 1973
Constitution allowed him to hold this position
indefinitely, and he did so until 1981, at which
point he appointed his finance minister Cesar
Virata to the post of Prime Minister. However,
Marcos did not consider Virata a threat to his
rule.
(With excerpts from the Martial Law Museum)
4.8 THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION OF 1987
The making of the 1987 Constitution
If you recall, the works of the 1972
Constitutional Convention was affected by the
declaration of martial law in September 1972
by President Ferdinand Marcos. Eventually, on
November 29, 1972, the Convention approved
the new constitution. It was submitted to a
vote in the 1973 constitutional plebiscite. The
results of the plebiscite and the legality of the
1973 Constitution was questioned before
the Philippine Supreme Court in the Ratification
Cases. The constitution was upheld. Marcos
would continue to rule as a dictator until being
ousted by the People Power Revolution in 1986.
Immediately following the 1986 People Power
Revolution that ousted Marcos,
President Corazon C. Aquino created –
through Proclamation No. 9 – the 1986
Constitutional Commission (ConCom), which
was responsible for drafting a replacement for
the 1973 Constitution. The new constitution,
she said, should be “truly reflective of the
aspirations and ideals of the Filipino people.”
The 1986 Constitutional Commission
The 1986 Constitutional Commission (ConCom)
was composed of 48 individuals who
represented all sectors in the country,
including, among others, Bishop Teodoro
Bacani, former Supreme Court chief justice
Roberto Concepcion, former labor minister
(and eventually senator and foreign affairs
secretary) Blas Ople, Ateneo De Manila
University president Father Joaquin Bernas SJ,
and University of the Philippines Student
Council Chairperson (now Commission on
Human Rights chair) Chito Gascon.
Click here to view the 48 members of the
Constitutional Commission.
The first session of the commission was held on
June 2, 1986, when Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, the
first woman appointed to the Supreme Court in
1973, was elected president of
ConCom, Ambrosio Padilla as Vice-
President, Napoleon Rama as Floor Leader,
and Flerida Ruth P. Romero as Secretary-
General.
Several issues were the subject of heated
discussions within ConCom
The proceedings in relation to the drafting of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution – just like other
important legal documents in the country –
were in no doubt not without conflict.
According to accounts, members of the
ConCom engaged in heated debates during
the various sessions on many issues, including
the death penalty, economic policies, land
reform, form of government, and even the
retention of American military bases in Clark
and Subic, among others.
The ConCom was able to finish its work after
more or less 111 days, according to Palma. On
October 12, 1986, the draft constitution was
passed – with 44 delegates voting for it
and two against – and was presented to
Aquino 3 days after.
More than ¾ of votes were in favor of the
ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
On February 2, 1987, a National Plebiscite was
held after a nationwide information campaign
on the draft constitution. The question voters
had to answer was: "Do you vote for the
ratification of the proposed Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines with the ordinance
appended thereto?"
The results of the 1987 plebiscite canvassed by
the Commission on Elections based on returns
from 83,288 precincts – or a total of 21,785,216
votes – across the Philippines are as follows:
 conserve and develop our patrimony, and
secure to ourselves and our posterity the
blessings of independence and democracy
under the rule of law and a regime of truth,
justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do
ordain and promulgate this Constitution."
On February 11, 1987, through Proclamation
No. 58, Aquino announced the results of the
plebiscite and proclaimed the 1987 Philippine The Constitution also established
Constitution ratified. It took effect the same three independent Constitutional Commissions,
day. President Corazon C. Aquino, through namely:
Proclamation No. 211 of 1988,
assigned February 2 of each year 1. the Civil Service Commission, a central
as Constitution Day to mark the new 1987 agency in charge of government
Constitution. personnel;
2. the Commission on Elections mandated to
Salient features of the 1987 Philippine
enforce and administer all election laws
Constitution
and regulations; and
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the present 3. the Commission on Audit, which examines
organic law. It is the fundamental law of the all funds, transactions, and property
land because it lays down the principles of our accounts of the government and its
present democratic institutions and the agencies.
general spirit of all our laws. It is the supreme
law in which all laws must adhere thereto. It is To further promote the ethical and lawful
permanent in a way that it should respond to conduct of the government, the Office of the
the needs of present and future generations. Ombudsman was created to investigate
complaints that pertain to public corruption,
In history, President Corazon Aquino's unlawful behavior of public officials, and other
government decided to make a new public misconduct. The Ombudsman can
Constitution because they believe that it could charge public officials
break the vestiges of Marcos's dictatorship. In before Sandiganbayan, a special court
1986, a constitutional convention was created, created for this purpose.
composed of 48 members from different
sectors of society- lawyers, teachers, jurists, SUMMARY
farmers, etc. The convention drew up the
present Constitution, largely restoring the setup What is a Constitution?
abolished by Marcos in 1972. A constitution is an aggregate of
The Constitution begins with a preamble and fundamental principles or
eighteen self-contained articles. It established established precedents that constitute
the Philippines as a "democratic republican the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other
state" where sovereignty resides in the people type of entity, and commonly determine how
and all government authority emanates from that entity is to be governed. In short, it is the
them. It contains separation of powers fundamental framework which governs the
between the executive, legislative and judicial fundamental aspects of the state specifying
branches of the government. the territory, the people, the government, and
the sovereignty, the four basic elements of
Preamble statehood.
"We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring The term constitution comes
the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just through French from
and humane society and establish a the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations
Government that shall embody our ideals and and orders, such as the imperial enactments
aspirations, promote the common good, (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata,
decreta, rescripta). Later, the term was widely
used in canon law for an important
determination, especially a decree issued by
the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic
constitution.
When these principles are written down into a
single document or set of legal documents,
those documents may be said to embody
a written constitution; if they are written down
in a single comprehensive document, it is said
to embody a codified constitution. Some
constitutions (such as that of the United
Kingdom) are uncodified or unwritten but
written in numerous fundamental Acts of a
legislature, court cases or treaties.
The Constitution of India is the longest written
constitution of any country in the world,
containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules
and 124 amendments, with 146,385 words in
its English-language version. The Constitution
of Monaco is the shortest written constitution,
containing 10 chapters with 97 articles, and a
total of 3,814 words. The Constitution of
the United States is the world's oldest
continuously-active codified constitution,
having been in force since 1789.
The Philippine Constitution through the Years
How about our very own constitution? What do
you know about our fundamental law of the
land? Our own constitution has a very colorful
history too. Let us begin our learning journey by
looking at the evolution of the Philippine
Constitution.
The Philippines has had a total of six
constitutions since the Proclamation of
Independence on June 12, 1898. In 1899,
the Malolos Constitution, the first Philippine
Constitution—the first republican constitution in
Asia—was drafted and adopted by the First
Philippine Republic, which lasted from 1899 to
1901.
During the American Occupation, the
Philippines was governed by the laws of the
United States of America. Organic Acts were
passed by the United States Congress for the
administration of the Government of the
Philippine Islands. The first was the Philippine
Organic Act of 1902, which provided for a
Philippine Assembly composed of Filipino
citizens. The second was the Philippine
Autonomy Act of 1916, which included the first
pledge of Philippine independence. These
laws served as constitutions of the Philippines
from 1902 to 1935.
In 1934, the United States Congress passed the
Philippine Independence Act, which set the
parameters for the creation of a constitution
for the Philippines. The Act mandated the
Philippine Legislature to call for an election of
delegates to a Constitutional Convention to
draft a Constitution for the Philippines. The 1934
Constitutional Convention finished its work on
February 8, 1935. The Constitution was
submitted to the President of the United States
for certification on March 25, 1935. It was in
accordance with the Philippine Independence
Act of 1934. The 1935 Constitution was ratified
by the Filipino people through a national
plebiscite, on May 14, 1935 and came into full
force and effect on November 15, 1935 with
the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Among its provisions was that it
would remain the constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines once independence was
granted on July 4, 1946.
In 1940, the 1935 Constitution was amended by
the National Assembly of the Philippines. The
legislature was changed from
a unicameral assembly to
a bicameral congress. The amendment also
changed the term limit of the President of the
Philippines from six years with no reelection
to four years with a possibility of being
reelected for a second term.
During World War II the Japanese-sponsored
government nullified the 1935 Constitution and
appointed Preparatory Committee on
Philippine Independence to replace it.
The 1943 Constitution was used by the Second
Republic with Jose P. Laurel as President.
Upon the liberation of the Philippines in 1945,
the 1935 Constitution came back into effect.
The Constitution remained unaltered until 1947
when the Philippine Congress called for its
amendment through Commonwealth Act No.
733. On March 11, 1947 the Parity
amendment gave United States citizens equal
rights with Filipino citizens to develop natural
resources in the country and operate public
utilities. The Constitution, thereafter, remained
the same until the declaration of martial law
on September 23, 1972.
Before President Marcos declared Martial Law,
a Constitutional Convention was already in the
process of deliberating on amending or
revising the 1935 Constitution. They finished
their work and submitted it to President Marcos
on December 1, 1972. President Marcos
submitted it for ratification in early January of
1973. Foreseeing that a direct ratification of the
constitution was bound to fail, Marcos
issued Presidential Decree No. 86, s. 1972,
creating citizens assemblies to ratify the newly
drafted constitution by means of a Viva
Voce vote in place of secret ballots. Marcos
announced that it had been ratified and in full
force and effect on January 17, 1973. Although
the 1973 Constitution had been “ratified” in this
manner, opposition against it continued. Chief
Justice Roberto V. Concepcion in his dissenting
opinion in the case of Javellana v. Executive
Secretary, exposed the fraud that happened
during the citizen‘s assembly ratification of the
1973 Constitution on January, 10 – 15, 1973.
However, the final decision of this case was
that the ratification of the 1973 Constitution
was valid and was in force.
When democracy was restored in
1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3, suspending certain
provisions of the 1973 Constitution and
promulgating in its stead a transitory
constitution. A month later, President Aquino
issued Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986, which
created a Constitutional Commission tasked
with writing a new charter to replace the 1973
Constitution. The commission finished its work at
12:28 a.m. of October 16, 1986. National
Plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987,
ratifying the new constitution. On February 11,
1987, by virtue of Proclamation No. 58,
President Aquino announced the official
canvassing of results and the ratification of the
draft constitution. The 1987 Constitution finally
came into full force and effect that same day
with the President, other civilian officials, and
members of the Armed Forces swearing
allegiance to the new charter.
Constitution Day
For every constitutional change the Philippines
has experienced, a corresponding
proclamation was issued in order to celebrate
the date that each charter was put into full
force and effect—with the exception of the
1943 Constitution. President Emilio Aguinaldo
issued the first proclamation that celebrated
the effectiveness of a constitution in 1899
on January 23, 1899.
When the United States Congress authorized
the creation of a constitution for the Philippines
in accordance with the Tydings-Mcduffie Act
of 1934, a Constitutional Convention was
established to draft a charter for the Philippines
and it finished its work on February 8, 1935. On
the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines on November 15, 1935, the new
charter came into full force and effect. A year
later, President Manuel L. Quezon issued
Proclamation No. 36, s. 1936, declaring
the 8th of February of every year as Constitution
Day to commemorate the completion of the
1934 Constitutional Convention‘s task. This
commemoration was observed throughout the
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Third Republic, up until the declaration of
martial law on September 23, 1972.
In 1973, after the declaration of martial law,
the 1935 Constitution was replaced by a new
charter, the 1973 Constitution. In
commemoration, President Marcos, repealed
President Quezon‘s Proclamation No. 36, s.
1936, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1219, s.
1973, which moved Constitution Day from
February 8 to January 17 of every year. This
proclamation commemorated the day when
President Marcos certified that the new
Constitution had been ratified. Constitution
Day was commemorated until the end of
President Marcos's term but was
overshadowed by the Proclamation making
September 21st of every year ―Thanksgiving
day‖, the date indicated on Presidential
Proclamation No. 1081, s. 1972: Martial law,
however, was actually declared two days later
when President Marcos announced it through
nationwide television.
When democracy was restored in 1986, the
1973 Constitution was replaced by first
the freedom constitution, also known as
Proclamation No. 3, s. 1986, then our current
constitution, the 1987 Constitution. This
constitution came into full force and effect on
February 11, 1987, after President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 58, s. 1987. The
proclamation issued by President Aquino
included the results of the plebiscite held on
February 2, 1987.

After the ratification of the 1987 Constitution,

President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 211
s, 1988, which moved the commemoration of
Constitution Day from January 17 to February
2 of every year—a proclamation still in effect to
this day.