POLIREV2020-21 Case Doctrines – CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

DE LEON v. ESGUERRA

Appointment paper of respondent barangay officials was antedated December 1, 1986,

but was only signed of February 8, 1987. On February 2, 1987 the proposed Constitution
was submitted to the people for their ratification in a plebiscite called for that purpose.
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 58 on February 11, 1987 declaring the result of
the plebiscite where the Constitution was duly ratified.

Issue: When did the 1987 Constitution take effect?

1987 CONSTITUTION; DATE OF RATIFICATION; RETROACTS ON THE DAY OF THE

PLEBISCITE. — The main issue resolved in the judgment at bar is whether the 1987
Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date that the plebiscite for its ratification
was held or whether it took effect on February 11, 1987, the date its ratification was
proclaimed per Proclamation No. 58 of the President of the Philippines, Corazon C. Aquino.
The thrust of the dissent is that the Constitution should be deemed to "take effect on the
date its ratification shall have been ascertained and not at the time the people cast their
votes to approve or reject it." This view was actually proposed at the Constitutional
Commission deliberations, but was withdrawn by its proponent in the face of the
"overwhelming" contrary view that the Constitution "will be effective on the very day of the
plebiscite." The record of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Commission
fully supports the Court's judgment. It shows that the clear, unequivocal and express intent
of the Constitutional Commission in unanimously approving (by thirty-five votes in favor and
none against) the aforequoted Section 27 of Transitory Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution
was that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. So that is the date of the
ratification" and that "the canvass thereafter [of the votes] is merely the mathematical
confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the
President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done
by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of
the plebiscite."

The Court next holds as a consequence of its declaration at bar that the Constitution
took effect on the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, that: (1)
the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25, 1986 must be deemed to have been
superseded by the 1987 Constitution on the same date February 2, 1987 and (2) by and
after said date, February 2, 1987, absent any saying clause to the contrary in the Transitory
Article of the Constitution, respondent OIC Governor could no longer exercise the power to
replace petitioners in their positions as Barangay Captain and Councilmen. Hence, the
attempted replacement of petitioners by respondent OIC Governor's designation on
February 8, 1987 of their successors could no longer produce any legal force and effect.
While the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring on March 25,
1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised, this period was shortened
by the ratification and effectivity on February 2, 1987 of the Constitution. Had the intention
of the framers of the Constitution been otherwise, they would have so provided for in the
Transitory Article, as indeed they provided for multifarious transitory provisions in twenty six
sections of Article XVIII, e.g. extension of the six-year term of the incumbent President and
Vice-President to noon of June 30, 1992 for purposes of synchronization of elections, the

MEi_07 Page 1 of 4
POLIREV2020-21 Case Doctrines – CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
continued exercise of legislative powers by the incumbent President until the convening of
the first Congress, etc.

Rules of Construction in Interpreting Doubts in the Constitution

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration
of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from
which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation.
It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different
departments their respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on
which government is founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a
supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered. Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law
or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect.
Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation,
it is deemed written in every statute and contract.

Concept of Self-Executing Provisions

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their
provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers
who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of
the governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of
citizens. A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of
the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provision which is complete in
itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or
that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature
and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself,
so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its terms, and there
is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions have been generally drafted
upon a different principle and have often become in effect extensive codes of laws intended
to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of statutory enactments, and
the function of constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like that of a legislative
body. Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are
self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of
self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify the
mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view
is, as it has always been, that -

MEi_07 Page 2 of 4
POLIREV2020-21 Case Doctrines – CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
x x x x in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather
than non-self-executing x x x x Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of
the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would give the
legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These
provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them
entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.

FRANCISCO v. HOR

To determine the merits of the issues raised in the instant petitions, this Court must
necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled principles of
constitutional construction.

First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must
be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. Thus, in J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 36 this Court, speaking through Chief
Justice Enrique Fernando, declared: We look to the language of the document itself in
our search for its meaning. We do not of course stop there, but that is where we
begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are
couched express the objective sought to be attained. They are to be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a
lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be
present in the people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should be
understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the text of
the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts
to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Thus
these are the cases where the need for construction is reduced to a minimum. 37
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. And so did this Court
apply this principle in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary 38 in this wise: A foolproof
yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under
consideration. Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear
in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought
to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history
of the times, and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed.
The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the Constitution
to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby,
in order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and
calculated to effect that purpose.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

As it did in Nitafan v. Commissioner on Internal Revenue40 where, speaking through

Madame Justice Amuerfina A. Melencio-Herrera, it declared: x x x The ascertainment of
that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional

MEi_07 Page 3 of 4
POLIREV2020-21 Case Doctrines – CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people
adopting it should be given effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to
ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the
people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may also be safely assumed that the people
in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the
framers.41 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

Thus, in Chiongbian v. De Leon,42 this Court, through Chief Justice Manuel Moran declared:
x x x [T]he members of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a
provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without
considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection 2, they
permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its
substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other
provisions of that great document.43 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Likewise, still in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,44 this Court affirmed that:
It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of the
Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that
all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and
to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. Sections
bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to
effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed
to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand
together.

In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of
a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make the
words idle and nugatory.45 (Emphasis supplied)

If, however, the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is
available. In still the same case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, this Court
expounded: While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and
proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose
of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail as
said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the
meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as showing the
views of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give
us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass of
our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental
law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face."
The proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood by the
people adopting it than in the framers's understanding thereof.46 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

MEi_07 Page 4 of 4