1987 CONSTITUTION

Mr. Jan Jeffrey G. Catindig

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

DEFINE CONSTITUTION:

A CONSTITUTION IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ORGANIC LAW

OF A STATE WHICH CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH
GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED, AND REGULATES THE
DIVISION AND EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGN POWERS (16 CJS
Note 1, p.20).*** IT IS THAT BODY OF RULES AND MAXIMS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH THE POWERS OF
SOVEREIGNTY ARE HABITUALLY EXERCISED (Political Law,
Neptali A. Gonzales, 1966 Edition, p.61, citing Cooley,
Copnstitutional Limitations 8 th Ed., p.4), both cited in
Political Law Reviewer, p.1., 2006 Ed., Albano, Albano, Jr.,
Albano-Pua, Albano III.
CHAPTER 2
THE CONSTITUTION

PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION: ***

1) CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY – WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND THE LIMITATIONS ON
THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS;

2) CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT – WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE

ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT, AND ENUMERATES THE
POWERS OF THE SAME; AND

3) CONSTITUTION OF SOVEREIGNTY – WHICH PROVIDES THE

MANNER OF CHANGING THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW AS WELL AS
MAKING AMENDMENTS THERETO. (Political Law Reviewer, p.2., 2006
Ed., Albano, Albano Jr., Albano-Pua, Albano III).
CHAPTER 2
THE CONSTITUTION

KINDS OF CONSTITUTION:

A. WRITTEN CONSTITUTION – CODIFIED (EXAMPLE - PHL)

B. UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION – FOUND ON SEVERAL LAWS AND

JURISPRUDENCE BUT NOT CODIFIED (EXAMPLE - BRITISH
CONSTITUTION)
CHAPTER 2
THE CONSTITUTION

KINDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: ***

A. SELF-EXECUTING – NO LEGISLATION IS NEEDED FOR ITS
IMPLEMENTATION. (EXAMPLE – THE BILL OF RIGHTS)

B. NON-SELF-EXECUTING – LEGISLATION IS NEEDED FOR

ITS IMPLEMENTATION. (EXAMPLE – ANTI-DYNASTY CLAUSE)

NOTE: MOST PROVISIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION ARE SELF-

EXECUTING BUT MANY ARE NON-SELF-EXECUTING (THOSE
PROVISIONS WITH A PHRASE “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW
OR OTHER PHRASES WITH SIMILAR IMPORT”).
CHAPTER 2
THE CONSTITUTION

A. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE BASIC AND PARAMOUNT LAW TO WHICH

ALL OTHER LAWS MUST CONFORM AND TO WHICH ALL
PERSONS, INCLUDING THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS OF THE
LAND, MUST DEFER. NO ACT SHALL BE VALID, HOWEVER
NOBLE ITS INTENTIONS, IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.***
THE
CONSTITUTION

THE CONSTITUTION MUST EVER REMAIN SUPREME. ALL

MUST BOW TO THE MANDATE OF THIS LAW. EXPEDIENCY
MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAP ITS STRENGTH NOR
GREED FOR POWER DEBASE ITS RECTITUDE. RIGHT OR
WRONG, THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE UPHELD AS LONG
AS IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED BY THE SOVEREIGN
PEOPLE LEST ITS DISREGARD RESULT IN THE USURPATION
OF THE MAJESTY OF LAW BY THE PRETENDERS TO
ILLEGITIMATE POWER.
THE
CONSTITUTION

QUESTION:

HOW IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SUPREMACY

OF THE CONSTITUTION ENFORCED?
THE CONSTITUTION

B.JUDICIAL REVIEW

THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ENFORCED BY THE

JUDICIARY THROUGH THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER WHICH THE COURTS,
IN APPROPRIATE CASES, MAY DECLARE A LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT (REFERRING TO LAWS, ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
AND ORDINANCES) UNSCONTITUTIONAL WHEN REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.***

Note: (PHL Constitutional Law, Gonzales, 4th Ed)

THE CONSTITUTION
(Part 2 of 7)

JUDICIAL REVIEW, IN ITS TECHNICAL SENSE, TAKES PLACE

WHENEVER THE COURT CONSIDERS, ON THE MERITS, THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER AN ACT OF CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE
ENFORCED BY THE COURTS BECAUSE THE STATUTE CONFLICTS
WITH THE CONSTITUTION; AND IN THIS SENSE, JUDICIAL REVIEW
TAKES PLACE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE COURT
UPHOLDS OR STRIKES DOWN THE STATUTE.

Note: (PHL Constitutional Law, Gonzales, 4th Ed)

THE CONSTITUTION
(Part 2 of 7)

QUESTION:

IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE

CONSTITUTION ABSOLUTE?
THE CONSTITUTION

C. IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE (OR CONTRACT CLAUSE) (Article III,Section

10, Constitution): *****

“NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE

PASSED”.
THE CONSTITUTION

C. IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE (CON’T:

THE PURPOSE OF THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE IS TO SAFEGUARD THE

INTEGRITY OF VALID CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS AGAINST UNWARRANTED
INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE. AS A RULE, THEY SHOULD BE
RESPECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT TAMPERED WITH BY SUBSEQUENT
LAWS THAT WILL CHANGE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES OR MODIFY
THEIR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. THE WILL OF THE OBLIGOR AND
THE OBLIGEE MUST BE OBSERVED; THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR
CONTRACT MUST NOT BE IMPAIRED.
THE CONSTITUTION

D. IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE (CON’T):

IT SHOULD BE STRESSED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE

IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE IS NOT ABSOLUTE. THERE ARE INSTANCES, WHEN
CONTRACTS OR SOME OF THEIR PROVISIONS MAY BE RENDERED
INOPERATIVE OR ILLEGAL BY VIRTUE OF SUPERVENING
LEGISLATION (IN THE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER OF THE STATE)
(Chapter 14, Constitutional Law, 1989 Edition, Isagani A. Cruz).
THE CONSTITUTION

E. POLICE POWER OF THE STATE:

PROFESSOR FREUND DESCRIBES THE POLICE POWER AS THE

POWER OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY
RESTRAINING AND REGULATING THE USE OF LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY (The Police Power [Chicago, 1904], cited in Chapter
5, Constitutional Law, 1989 Edition, Isagani A. Cruz).***
THE CONSTITUTION

D. POLICE POWER (CON’T):

THE POLICE POWER IS CONSIDERED THE MOST PERVASIVE, THE
LEAST LIMITABLE, AND THE MOST DEMANDING OF THE THREE
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE (POLICE POWER, TAXATION,
AND EMINENT DOMAIN). IT MAY BE EXERCISED AS LONG AS THE
ACTIVITY OR THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED
HAS SOME RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC WELFARE (Chapter 5,
Constitutional Law, 1989 Edition, Isagani A. Cruz).
THE CONSTITUTION

D. POLICE POWER (CON’T):

POLICE POWER, LIKE THE OTHER INHERENT POWERS OF THE

STATE MAY VALIDLY LIMIT THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE (Chapter 14,
Constitutional Law, 1989 Edition, Isagani A. Cruz).
THE CONSTITUTION

E. CASE EXAMPLE:

FACTS: PRIOR TO THE DEREGULATION OF THE OIL INDUSTRY (RA 8479 ) IN 1998, PNCC
ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE THREE OIL MAJORS GRANTING THE
LATTER, FOR A FEE, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO OPERATE MEGA STATIONS ALONG
THE NLEX AND SLEX FOR SEVEN (7) YEARS. AFTER THE PASSAGE OF RA 8479,
PRIMARILY INTENDED TO PROMOTE A TRULY COMPETITIVE OIL MARKET, AND
BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, PNCC OPENED THE
NLEX AND SLEX TO THE NEW PLAYERS, THUS, AFFECTED THE HUGE INVESTMENTS OF
THE THREE OIL MAJORS.
THE CONSTITUTION

E. CASE EXAMPLE (CON’T):

QUESTIONS:

1) IF YOU WERE THE COUNSEL FOR THE OIL MAJORS, HOW

WOULD YOU PROTECT THE INTEREST OF YOUR CLIENT?

2) IF YOU WERE THE COUNSEL FOR PNCC, HOW WOULD YOU

SUPPORT IT’S POSITION?
THE CONSTITUTION
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS

1. AS COUNSEL OF THE OIL MAJORS, I WOULD WRITE PNCC QUESTIONING ITS

DECISION TO ALLOW THE ENTRY OF THE NEW PLAYERS ALONG THE NLEX
AND SLEX AS VIOLATIVE OF THE UNEXPIRED 7-YEAR CONTRACT. IT’S RELIANCE
ON RA 8479 IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE
IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT “NO
LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE PASSED”. AND
UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION,
SHOULD A LAW CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE LATTER SHOULD
PREVAIL BEING THE BASIC AND PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE LAND.
THE CONSTITUTION
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS

2. IF I WERE THE COUNSEL OF PNCC, I WOULD SUPPORT ITS

POSITION BY ARGUING THAT THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE IS NOT AN
ABSOLUTE RULE AS IT HAS TO YIELD TO THE POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE INTENDED TO PROMOTE PUBLIC WELFARE (SALUS POPULI
SUPREMA EST LEX – THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE SUPREME
LAW). RA 8479 WAS PASSED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER
BY THE STATE PRIMARILY TO PROMOTE A TRULY COMPETITIVE
OIL MARKET IN THE COUNTRY; THEREFORE, IT SHOULD PREVAIL
OVER THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE.
THE
CONSTITUTION

SEC. 5, ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION:

“NO LAW SHALL BE MADE RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT

OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF RELIGIOUS
PROFESSION AND WORSHIP, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR
PREFERENCE, SHALL FOREVER BE ALLOWED. NO RELIGIOUS TEST
SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR POLITICAL
RIGHTS.”
THE
CONSTITUTION

SEC. 29(2), ARTICLE VI, 1987 CONSTITUTION:

“NO PUBLIC MONEY OR PROPERTY SHALL BE APPROPRIATED, APPLIED, PAID, OR

EMPLOYED, DIRECTLY , OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE USE, BENEFIT, OR SUPPORT OF
ANY SECT, CHURCH, DENOMINATION, SECTARIAN INSTITUTION, OR SYSTEM
OF RELIGION, OR OF ANY PRIEST, PREACHER, MINISTER, OR OTHER
RELIGIOUS TEACHER, OR DIGNITARY AS SUCH, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH PRIEST,
PREACHER, MINISTER, OR DIGNITARY IS ASSIGNED TO THE ARMED FORCES, OR
TO ANY PENAL INSTITUTION, OR GOVERNMENT ORPHANAGE OR LEPROSARIUM.”
THE
CONSTITUTION

EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (330 U.S. 1):

ACCORDING TO THE USSC IN EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION CASE, THE NON-

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE SIMPLY MEANS “THAT THE STATE CANNOT SET UP A
CHURCH; NOR PASS LAWS WHICH AID ONE RELIGION, AID ALL RELIGION, OR
PREFER ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER NOR FORCE NOR INFLUENCE A PERSON
TO GO TO OR REMAIN AWAY FROM CHURCH AGAINST HIS WILL OR FORCE HIM TO
PROFESS A BELIEF OR DISBELIEF IN ANY RELIGION; THAT THE STATE CANNOT
PUNISH A PERSON FOR ENTERTAINING OR PROFESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR
DISBELIEFS FOR CHURCH ATTENDANCE
THE
CONSTITUTION
OR NON-ATTENDANCE; THAT NO TAX IN ANY AMOUNT, LARGE OR
SMALL, CAN BE LEVIED TO SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OR
INSTITUTION WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED OR WHATEVER FORM
THEY MAY OPENLY OR SECRETLY PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR GROUP AND VICE VERSA.”

STATED OTHERWISE, IT CONNOTES “SPONSORSHIP, FINANCIAL

SUPPORT, AND ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN IN RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY.” OR TO PUT IT STILL ANOTHER WAY, THERE WILL BE NO
VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IF, FIRST, THE STATUTE
HAS A SECULAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE; SECOND, ITS PRINCIPAL
THE
CONSTITUTION

OR PRIMARY EFFECT IS ONE THAT NEITHER ADVANCES NOR INHIBITS RELIGION;

AND THIRD, IT DOES NOT FOSTER AN “EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENT
WITH RELIGION (Lemon v.Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602).

“THE GOVERNMENT IS NEUTRAL, AND WHILE PROTECTING ALL, IT PREFERS

NONE, AND IT DISPARAGES NONE.” “ALL HERE APPLIES BOTH TO THE BELIEVER
AND THE NON-BELIEVER. FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES FREEDOM FROM
RELIGION; THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP INCLUDES THE RIGHT NOT TO WORSHIP”.