INTRODUCTION:

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.

Independence to martial law

From the moment of independence, Filipino politics have been plagued by the twin
demons of corruption and scandal. Notwithstanding, Presidents Ramon Magsaysay
(1953-57), Carlos Garcia (1957-61), and Diosdado Macapagal (1961-65) managed to
stabilize the country, implement domestic reforms, diversify the economy, and build
Philippine ties not only to the United States, but also to its Asian neighbours.

Ferdinand Marcos was elected president in 1965 and was re-elected in 1969, the first
president to be so re-elected. Desirous of remaining in power beyond his legal tenure,
he declared martial law in 1972, just before the end of his second and last term, citing a
growing communist insurgency as its justification. He then manipulated an ongoing
Constitutional Convention and caused the drafting of a new constitution – the 1973
Constitution – which allowed him to rule by decree until 1978 when the presidential
system of the 1935 Constitution was replaced with a parliamentary one. Under this new
system, Marcos held on to power and continued to govern by decree, suppressing
democratic institutions and restricting civil freedoms. In 1981, martial law was officially
lifted, but Marcos continued to rule by the expedient of being “re-elected” in a farce of
an election to a new 6-year term. He continued to suppress dissent and thousands of
vocal objectors to his rule either mysteriously disappeared or were incarcerated.
Despite economic decline, corruption allowed Marcos and his wife Imelda to live
extravagantly, causing resentment domestically and criticism internationally.

The people’s choice

When opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. was assassinated upon returning from exile
in 1983, widespread outrage forced Marcos to hold “snap” elections a year early. The
election was marked by fraud on the part of Marcos and his supporters but Marcos had
himself declared the winner constitutionally, amidst international condemnation and
nationwide domestic protests. A small band of military rebels tried to mount a coup,
which failed because of its discovery, but this triggered what became internationally
celebrated as the “People Power” revolution, when droves of people spilled out onto the
streets to protect the rebels, eventually numbering well over a million. Under pressure
from the United States, Marcos and his family fled into exile. His election opponent,
Benigno Aquino Jr.’s widow Corazon, was installed as president on February 25, 1986.

The 1987 Constitution

Aquino began her term by repealing many of the Marcos-era regulations that had
repressed the people for so long. In March, she issued a unilateral proclamation
establishing a provisional constitution. This constitution gave the President broad
powers and great authority, but Aquino promised to use them only to restore democracy
under a new constitution. This new constitution was drafted in 133 days by an appointed
Constitutional Commission of 48 members and ratified by the people in a plebiscite held
on February 2, 1987. It was largely modelled on the American Constitution which had so
greatly influenced the 1935 Constitution, but it also incorporated Roman, Spanish, and
Anglo law.

The 1987 Constitution established a representative democracy with power divided

among three separate and independent branches of government: the Executive, a
bicameral Legislature, and the Judiciary. There were three independent constitutional
commissions as well: the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service Commission, and the
Commission on Elections. Integrated into the Constitution was a full Bill of Rights, which
guaranteed fundamental civil and and political rights, and it provided for free, fair, and
periodic elections. In comparison with the weak document that had given Marcos a legal
fiction behind which to hide, this Constitution seemed ideal to many Filipinos emerging
from 20 years of political repression and oppression.

Synthesis: Reflect on how the various Philippine constitutions reflect the changing political,
cultural, and social landscapes of the country.
The evolution of the Philippine constitutions throughout history reflects the interplay between
the country's political, cultural, and social landscapes. Each constitution serves as a snapshot of
the prevailing conditions and aspirations of the Filipino people during its time. From the initial
charters crafted during periods of colonization and transition to independence, to the more recent
constitutions formulated in the aftermath of authoritarian rule, each document reflects the
evolving identity and values of the nation.
The various Philippine constitutions embody the struggles, aspirations, and triumphs of the
Filipino people in their quest for self-determination, democracy, and social justice. For instance,
the 1935 Constitution marked the Philippines' transition to a Commonwealth status, establishing
a framework for democratic governance under American tutelage. It reflected the country's
aspirations for independence while grappling with the legacy of colonialism.
The 1973 Constitution, crafted during the authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos, represented a
departure from democratic ideals towards centralized power and authoritarianism. It reflected the
political turmoil and social unrest of the era, characterized by civil unrest and the suppression of
dissent.
In contrast, the 1987 Constitution emerged in the aftermath of the People Power Revolution,
symbolizing a return to democratic governance and the restoration of civil liberties. It reflected
the country's collective desire for freedom, accountability, and social justice, as well as a
rejection of authoritarian rule.
The evolution of the Philippine constitutions reflects the country's journey towards self-
governance, democracy, and nation-building. It serves as a testament to the resilience and
determination of the Filipino people to shape their destiny and build a society founded on
principles of freedom, justice, and equality, despite the challenges and obstacles along the way.

Take Note: Emphasize the importance of the Philippine Constitution in determining the legal
framework of Philippine society and highlight the continuous revisions made in pursuit of a
better society.
The Philippine Constitution stands as the cornerstone of the legal framework that governs
Philippine society, shaping the structure of government, defining the rights and responsibilities of
citizens, and providing the fundamental principles upon which laws and policies are based. As
the supreme law of the land, the Constitution serves as a blueprint for the nation's governance,
ensuring order, stability, and the protection of individual liberties.
Moreover, the Philippine Constitution plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights and welfare
of all Filipinos, serving as a bulwark against abuses of power and violations of human rights. It
establishes the rule of law, ensuring that government actions are bound by legal constraints and
subject to judicial review. Additionally, the Constitution serves as a unifying force, providing a
common framework of values and principles that guide the nation's collective aspirations and
endeavors.
Furthermore, the continuous revisions and amendments made to the Philippine Constitution
underscore its dynamic and adaptive nature, reflecting the evolving needs, challenges, and
aspirations of Philippine society. These revisions are driven by the ongoing pursuit of a better
and more just society, aimed at addressing systemic inequalities, strengthening democratic
institutions, and promoting social progress and development. Each revision represents a
collective effort to build a more inclusive, equitable, and progressive society, ensuring that the
Constitution remains relevant and responsive to the changing needs of the Filipino people.

1. Compare the salient points of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

The 1973 Constitution
BACKGROUND: Before President Marcos declared Martial Law, a Constitutional
Convention was already in process of deliberating on amending or revising the 1935
Constitution. With the presence of the constitutional convention, he amended the 1935
Constitution into the 1973 Constitution justifying the insurgency of the communist party
during his tenure; hence, he had declared martial law to handle the phenomenon that
time

SALIENT FEATURES:
1) It is the first parliamentary system of government in the history.
2) It gave legislative powers to the President.
3) The 1973 preamble is in contrast with the 1935 Constitution.
4) The Constitution depicts an autocratic leadership to maintain and improve the
discipline ofevery individual person.

The 1987 Constitution

BACKGROUND: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 transitoryconstitution. She issued a unilateral proclamation
establishing a provisional constitution. This constitutiongave the President broad powers
and great authority.SALIENT FEATURES:
1) It integrated the full Bill of Rights, which guaranteed fundamental civil
and political rights.
2) It provided for free, fair, and periodic elections.
3) It established a representative democratic government.
4) It divided among three separate and independent branches of government: the
Executive, abicameral Legislature, and the Judiciary.Sources

FURTHER SALIENT POINTS:

1. Authoritarianism vs. Democracy:

- The 1973 Constitution was crafted during the authoritarian regime of Ferdinand
Marcos, consolidating power in the hands of the president and enabling rule by decree.
 - The 1987 Constitution emerged after the People Power Revolution, restoring
democracy, and emphasizing the importance of checks and balances to prevent the
abuse of power.

2. Form of Government:
- The 1973 Constitution established a parliamentary system with a unicameral
legislature known as the Batasang Pambansa.
- The 1987 Constitution reinstated the presidential system with a bicameral legislature
consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

3. Executive Powers:
- The 1973 Constitution granted extensive powers to the president, including the
ability to dissolve the legislature and rule by decree.
- The 1987 Constitution introduced limitations on executive authority, such as term
limits for the president and provisions to prevent abuses of power.

4. Bill of Rights:
- Both constitutions included a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and
protections for citizens.
- The 1987 Constitution strengthened these provisions and incorporated lessons
learned from the abuses of martial law under the Marcos regime.

5. Economic Provisions:
- The 1973 Constitution emphasized state control over the economy, including
nationalization policies.
- The 1987 Constitution retained some economic provisions but also introduced
reforms to promote economic liberalization and encourage foreign investment.

6. Local Governance and Autonomy:

- The 1973 Constitution provided for the creation of autonomous regions but with
limited powers.
- The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of autonomy and local governance,
empowering local government units and recognizing the cultural diversity of the
Philippines.

7. Origin and Context:

- The 1973 Constitution was enacted during martial law, reflecting the authoritarian
rule of Marcos.
- The 1987 Constitution emerged from a more participatory and democratic process,
following the ousting of Marcos and the restoration of democratic governance.

2. The 1987 Constitution is dubbed as the Freedom Constitution? Why?

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines earned its moniker as the "Freedom
Constitution" due to its emergence in the aftermath of Ferdinand Marcos'
authoritarian rule. Following the ousting of Marcos and the end of his oppressive
regime, President Corazon Aquino swiftly moved to repeal repressive laws and
regulations that had stifled freedoms during the previous era. With a promise to
restore democracy, Aquino issued a provisional constitution and oversaw the
drafting of a new one. The resulting 1987 Constitution established a
representative democracy, with powers divided among three independent
branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. It featured a
comprehensive Bill of Rights, guaranteeing fundamental civil and political
liberties to all citizens, a stark departure from the previous regime's suppression
of dissent. Additionally, the Constitution institutionalized independent
constitutional commissions to ensure transparency and accountability in
governance. Emphasizing free and fair elections, it provided a framework for
citizen participation without fear of manipulation or suppression. Symbolizing
hope and renewal for many Filipinos emerging from two decades of political
repression, the 1987 Constitution marked a pivotal moment in Philippine history,
signifying a transition from authoritarianism to democracy and laying the
groundwork for a more inclusive and just society.

Proof:

From the moment of independence, Filipino politics have been plagued by the
twin demons of corruption and scandal. Notwithstanding, Presidents Ramon
Magsaysay (1953-57), Carlos Garcia (1957-61), and Diosdado Macapagal
(1961-65) managed to stabilize the country, implement domestic reforms,
diversify the economy, and build Philippine ties not only to the United States, but
also to its Asian neighbours.

Ferdinand Marcos was elected president in 1965 and was re-elected in 1969, the
first president to be so re-elected. Desirous of remaining in power beyond his
legal tenure, he declared martial law in 1972, just before the end of his second
and last term, citing a growing communist insurgency as its justification. He then
manipulated an ongoing Constitutional Convention and caused the drafting of a
new constitution – the 1973 Constitution – which allowed him to rule by decree
until 1978 when the presidential system of the 1935 Constitution was replaced
with a parliamentary one. Under this new system, Marcos held on to power and
continued to govern by decree, suppressing democratic institutions and
restricting civil freedoms. In 1981, martial law was officially lifted, but Marcos
continued to rule by the expedient of being “re-elected” in a farce of an election to
a new 6-year term. He continued to suppress dissent and thousands of vocal
objectors to his rule either mysteriously disappeared or were incarcerated.
Despite economic decline, corruption allowed Marcos and his wife Imelda to live
extravagantly, causing resentment domestically and criticism internationally.
 The people’s choice
When opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. was assassinated upon returning
from exile in 1983, widespread outrage forced Marcos to hold “snap” elections a
year early. The election was marked by fraud on the part of Marcos and his
supporters but Marcos had himself declared the winner constitutionally, amidst
international condemnation and nationwide domestic protests. A small band of
military rebels tried to mount a coup, which failed because of its discovery, but
this triggered what became internationally celebrated as the “People Power”
revolution, when droves of people spilled out onto the streets to protect the
rebels, eventually numbering well over a million. Under pressure from the United
States, Marcos and his family fled into exile. His election opponent, Benigno
Aquino Jr.’s widow Corazon, was installed as president on February 25, 1986.

The 1987 Constitution

Aquino began her term by repealing many of the Marcos-era regulations that had
repressed the people for so long. In March, she issued a unilateral proclamation
establishing a provisional constitution. This constitution gave the President broad
powers and great authority, but Aquino promised to use them only to restore
democracy under a new constitution. This new constitution was drafted in 133
days by an appointed Constitutional Commission of 48 members and ratified by
the people in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987. It was largely modelled on
the American Constitution which had so greatly influenced the 1935 Constitution,
but it also incorporated Roman, Spanish, and Anglo law.

The 1987 Constitution established a representative democracy with power

divided among three separate and independent branches of government: the
Executive, a bicameral Legislature, and the Judiciary. There were three
independent constitutional commissions as well: the Commission on Audit, the
Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Elections. Integrated into the
Constitution was a full Bill of Rights, which guaranteed fundamental civil and and
political rights, and it provided for free, fair, and periodic elections. In comparison
with the weak document that had given Marcos a legal fiction behind which to
hide, this Constitution seemed ideal to many Filipinos emerging from 20 years of
political repression and oppression.

3. What do you find interesting in the Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution? Why?
Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines addresses the accountability of
public officers, emphasizing principles of transparency and integrity in governance.
Notable within this article is the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman,
tasked with investigating and prosecuting government officials accused of
wrongdoing, thereby ensuring an independent avenue for addressing corruption and
malfeasance. Furthermore, the provision outlines the impeachment process for high-
ranking officials in cases of constitutional violations, treason, corruption, or betrayal
of public trust, demonstrating a commitment to holding leaders accountable for their
actions. Additionally, the requirement for public officials to declare their assets,
liabilities, and net worth promotes transparency and helps prevent corruption by
ensuring that officials' financial interests are made public. Moreover, the mandate for
Congress to enact a code of conduct underscores the importance of ethical behavior
and integrity in public service. Overall, Article 11 underscores the Philippine
Constitution's dedication to fostering accountable governance and maintaining the
trust of the Filipino people in their public institutions.
The irony within Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is striking.
Despite the clear provisions aimed at ensuring the accountability of public officers
and promoting transparency and integrity in governance, there exists a stark
contrast when it comes to the actual behavior of elected officials. It's perplexing to
see a constitution delineating stringent measures for holding public officials
accountable, only to witness the election and support of leaders who engage in
corrupt practices, abuse their power, and betray the public trust. This dissonance
highlights systemic issues within the political landscape, where electoral processes
may not always reflect the values enshrined in the constitution. The existence of
Article 11 serves as a reminder of the ideals to which public officials should aspire,
but its effectiveness ultimately depends on the commitment of both leaders and
citizens to uphold these principles in practice.

Proof:

ARTICLE XI

Accountability of Public Officers

SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.

SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme

Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

SECTION 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the
House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by
any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten
session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days
thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its
Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt
thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be
necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment
of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member
shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least

one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles
of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal
from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry
out the purpose of this section.

SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall

continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be
provided by law.

SECTION 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman,

composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy
and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate
Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
SECTION 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other
than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the Civil
Service Law.

SECTION 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of

the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as
now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of
the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.

SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of

the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of
recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and
must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately
preceding election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a
judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and
prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.

SECTION 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the

President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such
appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within
three months after they occur.

SECTION 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of
Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and
they shall receive the same salary, which shall not be decreased during their
term of office.

SECTION 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven
years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in
the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.

SECTION 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people,
shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public
officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and
the result thereof.

SECTION 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee
of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well
as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to
perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and
correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official
or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine,
censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents
relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to
the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.

(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in
the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent
records and documents.

(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant

and with due prudence.

(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination
and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform
such functions or duties as may be provided by law.

SECTION 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its
approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.

SECTION 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by
public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees,
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

SECTION 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for

any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-
owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and
 the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in
which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

SECTION 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and
as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of
his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the
armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the
public in the manner provided by law.

SECTION 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution
allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change
his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his
tenure shall be dealt with by law.

II.
Interview your parents/grandparents or other relatives about their memories of the
Martial Law
period during President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
Article link:
www.philippine-history.org The Philippines during the Martial Law
Process Questions:
1. Based on your interview, what did you learn about your relative’s memory about the
Martial Law of 1972?
NOTE: WALA PANG NAINTERVIEW
Living through the imposition of martial law under the Marcos administration was a
challenging and agitating experience, one that left a lasting impact on the Filipino
people. It was a time marked by widespread suppression of civil liberties, censorship of
the media, and political repression, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. The
suspension of habeas corpus and the expansion of military authority only served to
exacerbate these conditions, leading to reports of human rights abuses and extrajudicial
killings. Economically, the imposition of martial law led to increased government control
and corruption, widening socio-economic inequalities. Despite these challenges, many
individuals displayed remarkable resilience and courage in upholding their principles
and resisting the authoritarian regime. Overall, living through martial law was a profound
and transformative experience that serves as a stark reminder of the importance of
safeguarding democracy and upholding human rights.
2. Why was Martial Law declared by President Marcos?
President Marcos declared martial law in 1972 primarily to extend his hold on power
beyond his legal tenure as president. He manipulated the pretext of a growing
communist insurgency to justify his actions. By imposing martial law, Marcos aimed to
consolidate his authority, suppress political opposition, and govern with increased
autonomy. The declaration allowed him to rule by decree, effectively bypassing
democratic institutions and restricting civil freedoms. Additionally, he exploited the
ongoing Constitutional Convention to draft a new constitution, the 1973 Constitution,
which further solidified his control and provided legal mechanisms to prolong his rule.
Throughout his authoritarian regime, Marcos maintained power through repressive
measures, including censorship, political repression, and human rights abuses. Despite
officially lifting martial law in 1981, Marcos continued to govern in a de facto manner,
using sham elections and oppressive tactics to retain power Economic decline and
widespread corruption under his regime fueled domestic resentment and international
criticism.
3. What is the real essence of Martial Law?
The true essence of martial law lies in its intended purpose as a temporary measure to
maintain public order, security, and stability in times of extreme crisis or emergency.
Historically, martial law has been declared during situations such as war, civil unrest, or
natural disasters when ordinary law enforcement mechanisms are deemed inadequate
to address the challenges faced by the government.
However, in practice, martial law has often been abused by governments to consolidate
power, suppress political opposition, and violate human rights. When wielded
improperly, martial law can undermine democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law,
leading to prolonged periods of authoritarian rule and social unrest
Note: The martial law declared in Marawi City, Philippines, in 2017 was a response to a
crisis that arose from clashes between government forces and militants affiliated with
terrorists.