CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I REVIEWER
principles of constitutional construction.
A. C. JUCO
PART I: INTRODUCTION
The Constitution was approved by the 1986 Constitutional
Commission on October 12, 1986, the 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines was presented to
President Corazon C. Aquino on October 15, 1986.
It was ratified on February 2, 1987 by a plebiscite.
A. The Constitution as a SOCIAL
CONTRACT
 It was proclaimed in force on February 11, 1987.
 It is a SOCIAL CONTRACT because the people
are the ones who have the power, agreeing for
the common good, to establish system of
governance.
 POWER is delegated by the people to the three
branches of government subject to CHECKS
AND BALANCES to avoid concentration of
power.
 The Constitution has provided for an elaborate
system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various
departments of the government. And the judiciary
in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter, effectively checks the other departments
in the exercise of its power to determine the law,
and hence to declare executive and legislative
acts void if violative of the Constitution.
 Each branch is restrained by the other in several
ways.
 For e.g. the president may veto a law passed
by the Congress. Congress can override the
veto with a vote of two-thirds of both
Congress. Another examples is that the
Supreme Court may check Congress by
declaring a law unconstitutional. The power
is balanced by the fact that members of the
Supreme Court are appointed by the
President. Those appointments have to be
approved by the Congress.
NORTH COTABATO VS GRP
The GRP violated the Constitution and statutory provisions on
public consultation and the right to information when they
negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional
because it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution
thereof. The GRP is required by law to carry out public
consultations on both national and local levels to build consensus
for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation
of people’s participation in the peace process.
B. HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION
 Constitutional Construction - 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
 Three (3) well-settled principles of
Constitutional Construction.
 VERBA LEGIS – plain, ordinary meaning
(when there is no ambiguity)
 RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA - 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.
FRANCISCO VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Verba legis
 The words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed.
 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.
Ratio Legis Est Anima
 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.
Ut magis valeat quam periat
 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; no conflict
FRANCISCO VS HOR
DEFENSE OF HOR
 Only the Congress has jurisdiction over Impeachment
proceedings, hence SC has no jurisdiction.
 The HOR determines the impeachment is sufficient in form
and in substance; the Senate conducts trials and convicts.
 It was a POLITICAL QUESTION
ISSUES
 WON the Congress acted in grave abuse of discretion in
allowing two (2) initiations of impeachment against CJ
Davide, contrary to 1 year band?
SC RULINGS
 The arguments are invalid.
 It is not the impeachment itself, rather, it was the
constitutionality of the Congress’ Rules on impeachment
were complied or did it violate the constitution (1 year band
for impeachment).
 From political to justiciable question.
POLITICAL QUESTION- is one which under the
Constitution “is to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government.” It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the validity or
legality, of a particular measure or a contested act.
1
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION - calls upon the duty of the
courts provided by the Constitution to settle actual
controversies wherein there are rights (property or
personal rights) involved which are legally demandable
and enforceable. It is one which is proper to be examined
or decided in courts of justice because its determination
would not involve an encroachment upon the legislative
or executive power.
There is a danger: The Senate is sitting as an
impeachment court, has the sole power to try and decide
all cases of impeachment. Thus, the Court will exercise
Judicial Restraint
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT- an act of limitation wherein the
Court provides for technical requirements in order to
ensure that the court itself will not abuse its power of
judicial review or constitutional litigation.
SOCIAL DISQUIETUDE/POLITICAL EXCITEMENT –
the Court’s role is important, it’s because it is in this time
when the constitution is being challenged. It means that it
demands an action from the State. “There is a blurring of
boundaries between legislative and executive branches”.
DAVID v SET and POE-LLAMANZARES
Contention of J. Leonen and De Castro: Poe is not a natural
born citizen; basis: Ratio legis est anima
Shortcoming: There is an isolation of Constitution, it will deprived
foundling of citizenship.
J. Leonen
 Provide analysis that uses the very Constitution in order to
establish legal principles which can be use in case of Grace
Poe.
 Verba legis – fails; there is constitutional ambiguity, narrow
interpretation
 Ratio legis est anima – inappropriate; it freezes interpretation
to a particular circumstances at the time of ratification; the
dogma of Catholic Church has found it ways in the
Constitution; violation of equal protection clause
 Ut magis valeat quam periat - Each provision must be
understood and effected in a way that gives life to all that the
Constitution contains, from its foundational principles to its
finest fixings.
 CONTEMPORANEOUS CONTRUCTION - may be resorted
to when the text is capable of multiple, viable meanings. It is
only then that one can go beyond the strict boundaries of the
document. It may serve to verify or validate the meaning
yielded by such reading.
 This is necessarily engendered by a complete consideration
of the whole Constitution, not just its provisions on
citizenship. This includes its mandate of defending the well-
being of children, guaranteeing equal protection of the law,
equal access to opportunities for public service, and
respecting human rights, as well as its reasons for requiring
natural-born status for select public offices. Moreover, this is
a reading validated by contemporaneous construction that
considers related legislative enactments, executive and
administrative actions, and international instruments.
. SUMMARIZE (Ashwander vs TVA)
DAVID v SET and POE-LLAMANZARES
 It is understanding the provision of the Constitution in the
context of or in relation to current laws (National Law and
International Law).
 International Law: UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and in the International Covenants on Human Rights; United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; International
Covenants on Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, prevention of statelessness of children
 National Law: Commonwealth Act No. 68, jus sanguinis
principle of citizenship
 What did it create as per J. Leonen?
Even there is no law for foundling in 1987 Constitution, no
discussion, it created that FOUNDLING is presumed to be a
natural born citizen. It created a LEGAL PRESUMPTION that
a FOUNDLING is a natural born citizen.
 PAA vs CHAN - No presumption can be indulged in favor of the
claimant, of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt regarding
citizenship must be resolved in favor of the State.
 Tecson vs COMELEC - wherein SC resolved that Ronald Allan
Kelley Poe, more popularly known as Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ),
was qualified to run for the presidential post during the 2004
National Elections which, was based on the basis of
"presumptions" that proved his status as a natural-born citizen.
C. FRAMEWORK FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
 There may be separation of powers, albeit,
conflicts may arise, overlaps may arise, in
resolving the conflict, the Court may determine
whether the power distributed to the officials are
kept within their boundaries set by the
Constitution.
FRANCISCO VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVEN LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation
in a friendly, non-adversary proceeding.
2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in
advance of the necessity of deciding it.
3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader
than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although
properly presented by the record, if there is also present some
other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon
complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its
operation.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at
the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question,
and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a
cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a
construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question
may be avoided (citations omitted).
1. That there be absolute necessity of deciding a case
2. That rules of constitutional law shall be formulated only as
required by the facts of the case
3. That judgment may not be sustained on some other ground
4. That there be actual injury sustained by the party by reason of
the operation of the statute
5. That the parties are not in estoppel
6. That the Court upholds the presumption of constitutionality.
2

D. PREAMBLE AND DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND STATES POLICIES
Preamble
 Sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the
Constitution.
 Aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous
provisions in the body of the Constitution.
 Bears witness to the fact that the Constitution is
the manifestation of the sovereign will of the
Filipino
PREAMBLE people.
(1987 CONSTITUTION)
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God,
in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote
the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure
to ourselves and to 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.
REPUBLICAN STATE
 Is a form of government in which the country is
considered a "public matter" – not the private concern
or property of the rulers – and where offices of state
are elected or appointed, rather than inherited. It is a
form of government under which the head of state is
not a monarch.
 The sovereign are the people, there is no right of
succession pursuant to mandate of heaven.
Declaration of Principle and State Policies- these are
not immediately executor. State policies are also sources
of rights and they are also inherent.
Art II, Section 2: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with
all nations.
PHAP V DUQUE (MILK CODE)
International law can become part of the sphere of domestic law
either by transformation or incorporation.
 The TRANSFORMATION METHOD requires that an
international law be transformed into a domestic law.
 MODALITIES:
 Legislation – RA under Crimes of Humanitarian Law
 Ratification (Senate)– e.g. Treaty of Amity, Multilateral
treaty (UN Convention of the Right of Child, UNCLOS,
UN Convention of the right of Women)
 The INCORPORATION METHOD applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law (generally accepted
principles) is deemed to have the force of domestic law.
 How will be able to identify generally accepted principle of
international law? 2 requirements of generally accepted
principles:
 Opinio juris- the belief that a certain form of behavior is
obligatory (state is bound), is what makes practice an
international rule.
 State practice - a general and consistent practice of states
followed by them from a sense of legal obligation (opinio
juris).
 DOH introduced the Prohibition of Advertisements of Milk
Substitutes –not in the Milk Code (PHAP).
 THE ICBMS – is not a general accepted principles of the
law.
Soft Law- It is, however, an expression of non-binding
norms, principles, and practices that influence state
behavior (SARS and Avian Flu) ICBMS is not also a soft
law.
VINUYA VS ROMULO
FACTS: There is a violation of their right – abuse of Malaya Lolas by
Japanese nationalities during WWII.
The petitioner are ascertaining their rights and claims for
compensation.
ISSUE: Is the right of Malaya Lola’s considered a generally accepted
principles of international law?
SC RULE:
 No, not yet, because it is evolving, because some states do,
some states do not; there is no uniform practice.
 The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive
Department the conduct of foreign relations for the
Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim
against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive
determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The
Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the
conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department.
Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either
by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations
with Japan in a certain manner.
ERGA OMNES – obligations owed by the State towards the
international community as a whole.
JUS COGENS- norms that command peremtory authority,
superseding conflicting treaties and customs; they are mandatory,
do not admit derogation, and can be modified only by general
international norms of equivalent authority.
NATURE of Art II, Section 2:
OPOSA VS FACTORAN
FACTS: Theory of Oposa: The right to balanced and healthful
ecology that can be a basis for MANDAMUS (DENR).
ISSUE:
SC RULE:
 There is a right. "Protect and advance the right of the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II)
 How can it derive an actionable right? There is a right because
there is a DUTY imposed by the Constitution on the part of the
State.
MMDA V CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MANILA
FACTS: Right to balanced and healthful ecology (Pasig River).
ISSUE: Is there an actionable right? YES.
Who is actually bound by that duty when there is no agency
identified?
SC RULE:
 The Court looked at the mandates of DENR, MMDA, DILG,
DPWH, and DepEd to come up with plans.
IMBONG V OCHOA
FACTS:
ISSUE:
SC RULE:
 No, not yet, because it is evolving, because some states do,
some states do not; there is no uniform practice.
 The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive
Department the conduct of foreign relations for the
Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim
against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive
determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The
Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the
conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department.
Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either
by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations
with Japan in a certain manner. 3
E. NATIONAL TERRITORY IMMUNITY OF SPECIALIZED AGENCIES AND THEIR
OFFICIALS
 They enjoy immunity from suits, as granted them
by the host country, where they operate, either by
law or by convention.
 Officers also enjoy immunity in the discharge of
their official duties. However, acts done in their
private capacity, such as committing crimes
against a person, are not generally covered by
such immunities.

F. STATE IMMUNITY MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO V SWIFT ET AL.

 IMMUNITY FROM SUITS – State may not be FACTS:
sued without its consent. It reflects the ISSUE: WON the petitioner is exempted from suit? YES.
SC RULE:
recognition of the sovereign character of the state
and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty.
 The principle of state immunity from suit also
rests on reasons of public policy – that public PART II: AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION
service would be hindered, and the public
endangered, if the sovereign authority could be
subjected to law suits. A. AMENDMENT VS REVISION
TWO CONCEPTS:
 CLASSICAL/ABSOULUTE – A sovereign Amendment – refers to any alteration in the Constitution.
cannot, without its consent, be made a It is a piecemeal or isolated change in the Constitution
respondent in the courts of another involving a particular provision or certain provisions
sovereign. thereof.
 RESTRICTIVE THEORY – immunity of the Revision – refers to total change involving a re-writing of
sovereign is recognized only with regard to the entire instrument.
public acts (jure imperii) of state, but not with
regard to private acts (jure gestionis). B. PROPOSAL
JURE IMPERII ACTS
a. The lease by a foreign government of apartment
buildings for use of its military forces
b. The conduct of public bidding for the repair of a
wharf at US Naval Station
c. The change of employment status of base
employees
JURE GESTIONIS ACTS
a. The hiring of a cook in the recreation center,
consisting of three restaurants, a cafeteria, a
bakery, a store and coffee and pastry shop at the
John Hay Air Station in Baguio City
b. Bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark
Air base
THE HOLY SEE VS DEL ROSARIO
FACTS:
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is exempted from suit? YES.
SC RULE:
Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the
redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and
Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a
sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause
through diplomatic channels.

4
 judgment, or one entitled to the avails of the
suit. Interest within the meaning of the rule
means material interest or an interest in issue and
to be affected by the decree, as distinguished
from mere interest in the question involved or a
mere incidental interest. Otherwise stated, the
rule refers to a real or present substantial interest
as distinguished from a mere expectancy; or from
a future, contingent, subordinate, or
consequential interest.

 The question on who the real party-in-interest is

to challenge the invalidation of one’s appointment
has been settled in the case of Abella, where the
Court held that both the appointing authority and
the appointee may question the disapproval of an
appointment.

JUDICIAL REVIEW – This is the power of the courts,

ultimately of the SC, to interpret the Constitution, and to
test the validity of executive and legislative acts in the light
of their conformity with the fundamental law. It allows the
SC every opportunity to review

REAL PARTY-IN INETEREST VS LOCUS STANDI

 STANDING is a special concern in constitutional

law because in some cases, suits are brought
not by parties who have been personally
injured by the operation of a law or by official
action taken, but by concerned citizens,
taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the
public interest. Hence, the question in standing
is whether such parties have alleged such a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which
the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.

 If legal standing is granted to challenge the

constitutionality or validity of a law or
governmental act despite the lack of personal
injury on the challengers’ part, then more so
should petitioners be allowed to contest the
nullification of their appointment. Thus,
petitioners have the legal standing to challenge
the act of the CSC.

On the other hand, the question as to real party-in-interest

is whether he is the party who would be benefited or
injured by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit.

 REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST is a concept in civil

procedure and is expressly defined as the one
who would be benefited or injured by the
5