Construction and

Supremacy of the
Constitution
Construction of the Constitution

Definition:
Constitutional construction refers to the process of
interpreting and understanding the provisions of a
constitution. This process helps determine the
meaning, intent, and scope of the constitution's
various clauses and articles.
Principles of Constitutional Construction

Verba legis, wherever possible, the words used in the

Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed.

Ratio legis est anima, the words of the Constitution should

be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

Ut magis valeat quam pereat, the Constitution is to be

interpreted as a whole
Supremacy of the Constitution

Definition:
is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to
which all per-sons, 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 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. (Cruz, nd)
General Rules in Construing the Provisions
of the Constitution
Self-Executing
Self-executing is one which can be a direct source of a right.

Non Self-Executing
When a provision itself, as expressed in the Constitution or by
intent, is deemed not to be subjective.
Constitutional provisions are not self-executing if they merely set forth a line of policy or
principles without supplying the means by which they are to be effectuated, or if the language
of the constitution is directed to the legislature. Art II is considered non self executing. They
are policy statements or statements of principle.
 Manila Prince v GSIS, February 3, 1997
In the case involving the Manila Prince Hotel, the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS), and the Manila Hotel Corporation. It emphasizes the authority and
supremacy of the constitution, as well as the need for laws and contracts to conform
with the constitution. It also explains the concept of self-executing provisions in the
constitution and argues that the preference given to qualified Filipinos in the grant of
rights and concessions is a self-executing provision. The document further clarifies
that the national patrimony includes not only natural resources but also the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos. It concludes that the sale of the 51% share of the GSIS in
Manila Hotel Corporation is a state action subject to constitutional command, and
that if a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding, the Filipino bidder
should be given the opportunity to match the bid in order to uphold the Filipino First
Policy provision of the constitution.
 Francisco v House, November 10, 2003
This is the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding the second
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. The court ruled
that the filing of the complaint within one year of the previous impeachment
complaint was not allowed, and that the resolution of the matter is a political
question. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to the Constitution and
the need for a harmonized relationship among the branches of government. This also
mentions the impeachment process outlined in Article XI of the Constitution.
 Pamatong v COMELEC, April 13, 2004
In this Petition For Writ of Certiorari, petitioner seeks to reverse the resolutions
which were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to "equal access to
opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the 1987
Constitution,1 by limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those who can
afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. In so
doing, petitioner argues that the COMELEC indirectly amended the constitutional
provisions on the electoral process and limited the power of the sovereign people to
choose their leaders. What is at stake is petitioner’s aspiration and offer to serve
in the government. It deserves not a cursory treatment but a hearing which
conforms to the requirements of due process.
 Pamatong v COMELEC, April 13, 2004
The court held that there is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office
and, particularly, to seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege
subject to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, Article Il of the Constitution
neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable
right. There Is nothing In the plain language of the provision which suggests such a
thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
 Pamatong v COMELEC, April 13, 2004
The "equal access". provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution,
entitled "Declaration of Principles and State, Policies." The provisions under the
article are generally considered not self-executing and there is no plausible reason
for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of
the policies enumerated in Article lI, the provision does not contain any judicially
enforceable Constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or
executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of
action before the courts.
 De Castro v JBC, March 17, 2010
This consists of a collection of consolidated cases regarding the appointment of the
successor to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno upon his retirement. The main issue at
hand is whether the incumbent President is allowed to make appointments within two
months before the presidential elections and until the end of their term, as stated in
Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. Various petitioners have filed special
civil actions for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, seeking clarification on this
matter. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is also involved, as it is responsible for
screening and nominating candidates for judicial positions. The petitions raise
questions about the JBC's authority, the significance of Section 4 (1), Article VIII of
the Constitution, and the applicability of Section 15, Article VII to appointments
in the Judiciary. The outcome of these cases will have a significant impact on the
appointment of the Chief Justice and the stability of the judiciary and political
system.
 Espina v Zamora, September 21, 2010
In the case of Espina v Zamora it raises the legal decision on the constitutionality of
the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 in the Philippines. The petitioners,
members of the House of Representatives, argued that the law violated constitutional
provisions for the development of a self-reliant and independent national economy
controlled by Filipinos. The court ruled that the petitioners did not have legal
standing to challenge the law, but still addressed the issues raised. The court
determined that the law did not violate the constitution and upheld its
constitutionality.

Petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of

R.A.8762. Indeed, they could not specify how the new law violates the
constitutional provisions they cite. Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the
Constitution are not self-executing provisions that are judicially demandable
Group Members:
Masongsong, Mark Lloyd
Baynosa, Quennie
Pesodas, Alberto, Jr.
Meyen, Rempee
Llamera, Ivylinde
Salayog, Marilyn