Lesson 1.
2: Philippine Constitution
Lesson Summary
The lesson will focus on the definition, nature, and basic concepts of the Constitution. It
would also discuss the different parts of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This lesson further
discuss how Philippine can be change.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, you will be able to:
1. Identify and explain the fundamental principles and concepts of the Philippine
Constitution; and
2. Describe the process of how to change the 1987 Constitution.
A. CONSTITUTION
Constitution, defined.
In its broad sense, constitution is that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which
the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised (Cooley, 1998).
With reference to the Constitution of the Philippines, Justice Malcolm defined it as that
written instrument enacted by the direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers of
the government are established, limited, and defined and by which these powers are distributed
among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic
(as cited in Nachura, 2014).
Basic Principles of the Philippine Constitution
a. Supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
A Constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity; hence,
it is more superior to an ordinary law or statue which is merely legislation from the people’s
representatives subject to limitations prescribed by the Constitution.
No man-made law, therefore, can prevail as against 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 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 I. , 2014)
In the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, GR no. 122156, the Supreme Court held that
“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. And so, in case of a conflict between a statute
and the Constitution – as a general rule the Constitution prevails always over the statute.
b. Being the supreme law of the land, it is the symbol and monument of the people’s will;
As such, it should be submitted for ratification of the people following the principle that “x x
x sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Section 1,
Article II, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions)
c. The Constitution outlines the infrastructure of the government;
It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited, and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several
departments of the government for their safe and useful exercise and for the benefit of the body
politic.
d. The Constitution must be obeyed by all;
It governs the poor and the rich, the governed and the governors, the mighty and the weak,
and regardless of the color of one’s skin, his religion or his political persuasion.
e. The court are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution;
It is the court that implements the laws prescribed in the Constitution which would certainly
give the people whatever is just and fair as the case may be.
f. Designed to protect the basic rights of the people;
The constitution is primarily designed to preserve and protect the rights of individuals
against the arbitrary actions of those in authority. Its function is not to legislate in detail but to set
limitations on the otherwise unlimited powers of the legislature or the government as a whole. It
sets forth the basic rights of the people which the government must observe, respect, and protect.
Parts of the 1987 Constitution
The 1987 Philippine Constitution consists of eighteen (18) articles. It has the essential
parts of a well-written constitution:
1. Constitution of Government – The series of provisions outlining the organization of the
government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
administration, and defining the electorate.
As reflected in the Constitution, you have Articles VI, VII, VIII, and IX – the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments. Of course, you have other Constitutional Bodies, such
as the Constitutional Commissions. And then you have the principles – the underlying
principles in the operation of the government. So you have general principles like Article II,
you have the economic provisions, the general and transitory provisions, and all.
2. Constitution of Liberty - The series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a
means of securing the enjoyment of those rights such as the Bill of Rights, you have Article
III. That is your charter of liberty.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty – The provisions pointing out the mode or procedure in
accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law maybe brought about
(Nachura, 2014). Article XVII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for a process on
how to amend or revise the Constitution.
Preamble
Technically speaking, Preamble does not form part of the Constitution, it is not an essential
part. The preamble is not part of the Constitution as it does not confer rights nor impose duties. It
is just a mere introduction of the constitution. It merely:
1. Sets down origin and purposes of the Constitution. It indicates authorship of the
Constitution.
“WE, THE SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE”, this phrase indicates that the
source of sovereignty and authors of the Constitution, the sovereign
Filipino people.
2. Enumerates the purposes intended to be achieved by the Constitution.
As set forth in the Preamble, they are:
1. To build a just and humane society; and
2. To establish a Government that shall:
1. Embody our ideals and aspirations;
2. Promote the common good;
3. Conserve and develop our patrimony;
4. Secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and a
regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.
3. Serves as an aid in the interpretation of the Constitution.
The provisions in the preamble will help or guide the members of congress and
SC and other courts in construing the provisions of the constitution because the
constitution is founded on the purposes as enumerated in the preamble.
Interpretation/Construction of the Constitution
1. Verba legis – whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical term are employed.
2. Ratio legis est anima – words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the intent of the framers.
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – the Constitution should be interpreted as a whole.
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, 2003)
B. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION MAY BE CHANGED
The 1987 Constitution may be changed either by amendment or revision.
Amendment vs. Revision
Amendment happens when you only make changes to such a part or parts of the
constitution. It does not change the philosophy of the constitution or the basis of the
constitution. In case of Revision there is an overhaul of the constitution. It changes the
philosophy and its principles. It changes the whole thing.
In the case of Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, the Supreme
Court enumerates the distinctions between revision and amendment.
1. Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like
altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks and balances.
There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution. On
the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes,
without altering the basic principle involved.
2. Revision generally affects several provisions of the Constitution; while amendment
generally affects only the specific provision being amended.
In determining whether a proposal involves an amendment or a revision, the Supreme
Court in the same case considered the two-part test. First, the quantitative test that asks
whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
“substance entirety” of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. The
court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the
change. Second, the qualitative test, which inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed
change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far-
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision”.
Three stages of changing the Constitution
1. Proposal
2. Submission of the Proposal to the People
3. Ratification
Proposal - The adoption of the suggested change in the Constitution.
There are only three entities that can change or propose a change to the constitution:
a. Congress – 3/4 votes of all of the members of congress where you convert congress
as a constituent assembly.
b. Congress may call or establish a Constitutional Convention in two ways:
o by 2/3 votes of all members of congress or
o by a majority vote of all members of Congress with the question to the people
through a plebiscite of whether or not they want a constitutional convention in
order to propose changes to the constitution
Take Note: If it is by Congress or Constitutional Convention, they can propose
both amendment and revision.
c. People – (legal basis, RA 6735: "The Initiative and Referendum Act.") through People’s
Initiative that gives the power to the people to propose amendments to the Constitution
or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. A petition
for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of
the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative
on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the
1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
In the case of Lambino vs COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that people can
only propose an amendment and not a revision. That’s to propose a change in the system
of government is practically a Revision and not just an amendment therefore people thru
initiative cannot supposedly make such kind of proposal.
o Limitation on Initiative: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized:
1. Within 5 years following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
2. Nor more often than once every 5 years thereafter.
Submission of the proposal to the people
Thereafter the proposal there is the Submission. The proposed change is submitted to
the people for consultation so people will understand what it is they are going to decide on,
whether to approve or disapprove such proposal.
Doctrine of Proper Submission
In the case of Arturo M. Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, etc., 1971, the Supreme
Court states that:
“A constitution is the work of the people thru its drafters assembled by them for the
purpose. Once the original constitution is approved, the part that the people play in its
amendment becomes harder, for when a whole constitution is submitted to them, more or less
they can assume its harmony as an integrated whole, and they can either accept or reject it in its
entirety. At the very least, they can examine it before casting their vote and determine for
themselves from a study of the whole document the merits and demerits of all or any of its parts
and of the document as a whole. And so also, when an amendment is submitted to them that is
to form part of the existing constitution, in like fashion they can study with deliberation the
proposed amendment in relation to the whole existing constitution and or any of its parts and
thereby arrive at an intelligent judgment as to its acceptability.”
This means that submission of the proposal cannot be done piecemeal. It has to be the
whole thing so that people will be able to fully understand the provisions and their relationship
with each other.
Ratification
After the proposed amendment is submitted to the people and it shall be deemed ratified
by the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite, held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90
days:
a) After approval of the proposal by Congress or Constitutional Convention; or
b) After certification by the COMELEC of sufficiency of petition of the people.