Object 1

THE EVOLUTION AND IMPORTANCE

STUDY !
1. Philippine Bill of 1902
2. Jones Law -Philippine Autonomy Act, established a bicameral legislature
3. Tydings-McDuffie Act- Established Philippine Commonwealth
4. 1935 Constitution-ratified May 14, 1935- paved to the establishment of
Commonwealth Government
5. 1973 Constitution-ratified January 17, 1973 (Philippine Bar Association vs.
COMELEC; G.R 72915; 12/20/1985
6.“interregnum – February 26, 1986 to March 24 Revolutionary Government-
Provisional Constitution 1987 Constitution-ratified February 2, 1987 (De
Leon vs. Esguerra)

READ !
A.) Alejo Mabanag et.al vs. Lopez Vito, et.al-G.R. L-1123;3/5/1947
B.)Planas vs. COMELEC-G.R. L-35925-1/22/73
C.)Josue Javellana vs. Executive Secretary-G.R. L-36142-3/31/73
D.)Pablo and Pablito Sanidad vs. COMELEC-G.R. L-44640-10/12/76
E.) Lawyers League foe a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino G.R. 73748-
5/22/86

The Constitution is divided into three (3) parts, namely:

1. Constitution of Liberty - provides civil and political rights (Article 3)

2. Constitution of Government-governmental organs and provides powers to
political branches, (Articles VI, VII, VIII and IX)
3. Constitution of Sovereignty- manner of changing the constitution or makes
amendment thereto (Art. 17)

Interpretation of the Constitution:

A. verba legis , words used must be given ordinary meaning
B. ratio legis et anima, intent of the framers
C. ut magis valeat quam pereat, has to be interpreted as a whole

( Lopez vs. House of Representatives) G.R.160261-11/10/03)

 “The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the
Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited
and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several
departments. 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. Constitutional doctrines must remain
steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to
sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the
whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.”

(Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission) (G.R.192935;12/7/2010)

"It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are

couched express the objective sought to be attained. 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. What it says
according to the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and
negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers
and the people mean what they say. Thus, there are cases where the need for
construction is reduced to a minimum."

(Juan Domino vs. COMELEC -Justice Panganiban, separate opinion) GR

No.134015; 7/19/99

“In case of doubt, provisions of the Constitution should be self-executing,

mandatory rather than directory; prospective rather than retroactive”

(Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS) -GR 122156;2/3/97

"The Constitution is a social contract - means that it is the same where the
people have surrendered their sovereign power to the state for the common
good."

(Ferdinand Marcos, et.al vs. Raul Manglapus, et.al thru Justice Cortes) GR
No.88211;10/27/89
THE PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902: TURNING POINT IN PHILIPPINE
LEGISLATION
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
      From 1907 to 1916, the Philippine Assembly served as the lower house of the
legislature with the Philippine Commission, headed by the American Governor-
General, as the upper chamber.  The inauguration of the Philippine Assembly on
October 16, 1907 is a turning point in the country’s history, for its creation marked the
commencement of Filipino participation in self- governance and a big leap towards
self-determination.
    For more than three hundred years, the Filipinos were ruled by the Spaniards and
their occupation ended when Spain was defeated by the American Navy headed by
Commodore George Dewey in the Battle of Manila Bay on May 1898.  Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo, the leader of the revolutionary government in the Philippines was
convinced by American Consul E. Spencer Pratt, to return to the Philippines from
Hong Kong to resume the revolution and break the truce effected by the Pact of Biak-
na-Bato.  When Gen. Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines, he summoned the
revolutionaries and ordered the resumption of the armed struggle against the Spanish
government.  Amidst the ongoing hostilities, Gen. Aguinaldo proclaimed Philippine
Independence on 12 June 1898 at Kawit, Cavite.  Soon enough, the relationship
between the Americans and the Filipinos turned sour after  the American government
agreed to negotiate with the Spaniards that resulted to Spain’s surrender and the
eventual signing of the Treaty of Paris that ceded the Philippines to the United States.
     President William McKinley’s Policy of Benevolent Assimilation, aimed to prepare the
Filipinos to direct their own government by having them under their tutelage. A military
government was initially established in the Philippines as soon as the Treaty of Paris was
signed and when the Filipino-American War erupted in February 1899.  The three military
generals who took charge of the islands from 1898 to 1901 were Gen. Wesley Merritt, Gen.
Elwell Otis and Gen. Arthur MacArthur.  In 1901, by virtue of the Spooner Amendment passed
by the US Congress on 3 March 1901, the military rule in the Philippines ended paving way to
the establishment and inauguration of a civil government with William H. Taft as the first civil
governor.  The civil government named the Philippine Commission as sole lawmaking body in
the Philippine islands from 1901 to 1907, and eventually acted as the upper house from 1907 to
1916 until the time the Jones Law was passed on August 1916, that gave the Filipinos the
opportunity to control both legislative houses.
     The Philippine Bill of 1902 is one of the most important decrees enacted by the
American government in the Philippines.  Entitled “An Act Temporarily to Provide for
the Administration of the Affairs of Civil Government in the Philippine Islands, and for
Other Purposes,” this law contained two important provisions that strengthen both the
civil and human rights of the Filipino people, and bestowed on them the privilege of
legislation.
      Also known as Cooper Act, it provided a Bill of Rights for the Filipinos that
protected their rights: to live, to acquire property, to practice their religion, to be
subjected to due process, to exercise their obligations, to enjoy compensations due to
them, and freedom of expression.  But the most important element contained in the
bill was its clauses that called for the creation of a lower legislative branch with elected
Filipino representatives as legislators.
        The bill also stated the American government’s readiness to call for a general
election in the islands should insurrection cedes and complete peace is maintained as
attested by the Philippine Commission.  The decree mandates the US President to
order the Philippine Commission to perform a census of the islands and make a
detailed report about the population and matters about the people that may deemed by
the Commission as necessary, while peace is being upheld.  Two years after the
publication of the result of the census, and upon the satisfaction of the Philippine
Commission and the US President, a general election shall be called and the elected
Filipinos, not less than fifty but not greater than one hundred in number, will comprise
the Philippine Assembly—the body that will act as the lower house of the legislature in
the Philippines.
     The Filipinos became very cooperative with the promises offered by the bill.  Peace
was maintained, a census was conducted and after its publication, an election was held
on 30 July 1907 and the assembly was convened and inaugurated on 16 October 1907
at the Manila Grand Opera House. The Nacionalista Party, espousing “immediate and
complete independence” headed by Sergio Osmeña garnered the majority of the seats. 
The First Philippine Assembly is best remembered for its effort in reviving the issue of
independence and for passing laws that improved the type of education enjoyed by the
Filipinos.

The Jones Law (39 Stat. 545, . 416, also known as the Jones Act, the Philippine

Autonomy Act, and the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916) was an Organic
Act passed by the United States Congress. The law replaced the Philippine Organic Act of
1902 and acted as a constitution of the Philippines from its enactment until 1934, when
the Tydings–McDuffie Act was passed (which in turn led eventually to the Commonwealth
of the Philippines and to independence from the United States). The Jones Law created
the first fully elected Philippine legislature.
The law was enacted by the 64th United States Congress on August 29, 1916, and
contained the first formal and official declaration of the United States Federal
Government's commitment to grant independence to the Philippines.[1] It was a framework
for a "more autonomous government", with certain privileges reserved to the United States
to protect its sovereign rights and interests, in preparation for the grant of independence by
the United States. The law provides that the grant of independence would come only "as
soon as a stable government can be established", which was to be determined by the
United States Government itself.
The law also changed the Philippine Legislature into the Philippines' first fully elected body
and therefore made it more autonomous of the U.S. Government. The 1902 Philippine
Organic Act provided for an elected lower house (the Philippine Assembly), while the upper
house (the Philippine Commission) was appointed.[2] The Jones Law provided for both
houses to be elected[2] and changed the name of the Assembly to the House of
Representatives. The executive branch continued to be headed by an appointed Governor
General of the Philippines, always an American.
Elections were held on October 3, 1916, to the newly created Philippine Senate. Elections
to the Philippine Assembly had already been held on June 6, 1916, and those elected in
that election were made members of the House of Representatives by the law.

Development of the bill

The ultimate goal for the Philippines was independence. U.S. President Theodore
Roosevelt said as early as 1901, "We hope to do for them what has never been done for
any people of the tropics—to make them fit for self-government after the fashion of really
free nations."[3] The American public tended to view America's presence in the Philippines
as unremunerative and expensive, so Roosevelt had concluded by 1907, "We shall have to
be prepared for giving the islands independence of a more or less complete type much
sooner than I think advisable."[3]
Woodrow Wilson said, during the 1912 election campaign which made him US President,
"The Philippines are at present our frontier but I hope we presently are to deprive
ourselves of that frontier."[3] Even before the 1912 elections, U.S. House Committee on
Insular Affairs Chairman William Atkinson Jones attempted to launch a bill which set a fixed
date for Philippine independence.[4] Manuel L. Quezon was one of the Philippines'
two resident commissioners to the US House of Representatives. Jones delayed launching
his bill, so Quezon drafted the first of two "Jones Bills". He drafted a second Jones Bill in
early 1914 after the election of Wilson as president and his appointment of Francis Burton
Harrison as President of the Philippine Commission and Governor General of the
Philippines.[citation needed]
Wilson had informed Quezon of his hostility to any fixed timetable for independence, and
Quezon believed that the draft bill contained enough flexibility to suit Wilson.[5]

Passage into law

The bill passed the House in October 1913 and went to the Senate, backed by
Harrison, US Secretary of War Lindley Garrison, and President Wilson. A final version of
the bill was signed into US law by President Wilson on August 29, 1916, after amendment
by the Senate and further changes in a congressional conference committee.[5]

Terms

Joint session of the Philippine Legislature, created by the Jones Law, in Manila, on November 15,
1916.
Among the provisions of the law was the creation of an all-Filipino legislature. It created the
Philippine Senate to replace the Philippine Commission, which had served as the upper
chamber of the legislature.[2]

Mabanag vs. Vito

Facts:
This is a petitioner for prohibition to prevent the congressional resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance
thereto. Petitioners are 8 senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the
Democratic Alliance, the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party. Petitioners
allege that the resolution is contrary to the Constitution.
The 3 petitioner senators and 8 representatives have been proclaimed by a majority vote
of the Comelec as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held
on April 23, 1946. The 3 senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the
opening of the first session of Congress due to alleged irregularities in their election.
The 8 representatives since their election had not been allowed to sit in the lower
House, except to take part in the election of the Speaker, although they had not been
formally suspended. A resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House
of Representatives, but that resolution had not been acted upon definitely by the House
when the petition was filed. Consequently, the 3 senators and 8 representatives did not
take part in the passage of the questioned resolution, nor was their membership
reckoned within the computation of the necessary ¾ vote which is required in
proposing an amendment to the Constitution. If the petitioners had been counted, the
affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the
necessary ¾ vote in either House of Congress.

Respondents argue that the Court has jurisdiction, relying on the

conclusiveness on the courts of the enrolled bill/resolution.

Petitioners contend that respondents are confusing jurisdiction (substantive

law) with conclusiveness of an enactment or resolution (evidence and
practice).

Issue:

WON the Court can take cognizance of the issue.

WON the resolution was duly enacted by Congress.

Ruling:
No. Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the
extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by
express constitutional or statutory provisions. The difficulty lies in determining what
matters fall within the meaning of political question. However, in Coleman v. Miller,
the efficacy of ratification by state legislature of a proposed amendment to the
Federal Constitution is a political question and hence not justiciable. If a ratification
of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to
be a political question. There is no logic in attaching political character to one and
withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a
highly political function performed by Congress. If a political question conslusively
binds the judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or
resolution also binds the judges under the “enrolled bill” rule born of that respect.

Yes. Section 313 of the Code of Civil procedure, as amended by Act No. 220,
provides two methods of proving legislative proceedings:

By the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or copies certified by the

clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and

In case of acts of the Legislature, a copy signed by the presiding officers and
secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts
and of the due enactment thereof.

In US v. Pons, the Court looked into the journals because those were the documents
offered in evidence. It does not appear that a duly authenticated copy of the Act was
in existence or was placed before the Court; and it had not been shown that if that
had been done, this Court would not have held the copy conclusive proof of the due
enactment of the law.

Even if both journals and an authenticate copy of the Act had been presented, the
disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals does not imply
rejection of the enrollment theory, for the due enactment of a law may be proved in
either of the 2 ways specified in Section 313 of The Code of Civil Procedure. No
discrepancy appears to have been noted between the 2 documents and the court did
not say or so much as give to understand that if discrepancy existed it would give
greater weight to the journals, disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified
copies “shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due
enactment thereof.”
 Planas v Comelec
(49 SCRA 105)
Ponente: Concepcion, C.J.

Facts:
On 1 June 1971, a Constitutional Convention was held to propose
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines. While the Convention is
in session on 21 September 1972, the entire Philippines were placed under
martial law by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081. On 29 November 1972, the
Convention approved its proposed Constitution. The next day the President
issued PD No. 73 “submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or
rejection the Constitution of the republic of the Philippines proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor”, as
well as setting the Plebiscite for said ratification. On 7 December 1972,
Charito Planas petitioned the Court to enjoin respondents from
implementing PD No. 73 on the grounds that the calling of plebiscite and
appropriation of public funds are lodged exclusively in the Congress and
that there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly and no
sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof, there is no
proper submission to the people of said proposed Constitution. On 17
December 1972, the President temporarily suspended the effects of PD
1080 for purpose of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
On 23 December 1972, the Plebiscite was postponed until further notice
by the President. Thereby the Court refrained from ruling on the cases.
On 12 January 1973, petitioners filed an “urgent motion” praying for the
resolution of the cases “as soon as possible”.

Issues:
1. WON the validity of PD 73 is justiciable on the ground that the
question at hand is political in nature.
2. WON PD 73 is valid.
3. WON the Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the
proposed Constitution.
4. WON martial law affected the proper submission of the proposed
Constitution to a plebiscite.
Held:
1. Yes. The Court finds that the issue aforementioned is a justiciable
one since the assailed decree purports to have the force and effect
of legislation, not only because of the long list decided by the Court
on the acts of the Executive, but also of Subdivision (1) of Section
2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution.
2. The validity of PD 73 was declared moot and academic by the Court
because the plebiscite ordained in said Decree has been postponed.
3. Yes. The Court held that the Constitutional Convention was legally
free to postulate any amendment it may deem fit to propose for as
long as they adhere to Section 1 of Article XIV of the 1935
Constitution.
4. The issue involves question of fact which cannot be predetermined,
and that martial law per se does not necessarily bar the factual
possibility of adequate freedom.
Javellana v. Executive Secretary
50 SCRA 30; March 31, 1973
Ponente: Concepcion, C.J

FACTS:
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a prohibition case to restrain
respondents from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed
constitution not found in the present constitution. Javellana maintained that the
respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing
proposed constitution and that the president is without power to proclaim the
ratification of the constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan, Gerardo
Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the nullification of Proclamation 1102
(Citizens Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation which are similar
in their objectives.

ISSUES:
1.    Is the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 justiciable?
2.    Was the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention
ratified validly in compliance with applicable laws?

3.    Was the proposed Constitution acquiesced by the people?

4.    Are the petitioners entitled to relief?
5.    Is the proposed Constitution in force?

HELD:
Whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according to
an existing constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute duty of the
judiciary to determine whether the Constitution has been amended in the
manner required by the constitution. The Constitution proposed by the 1971
Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the
1935 Constitution which provides only one way for ratification (election or
plebiscite held in accordance with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the
environmental and social conditions in the Philippines (i.e. martial law), the
Court cannot honestly say that the people acquiesced to the proposed
Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the effectivity of the
proposed Constitution is the basic issue posed by the cases which
considerations other than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new
constitution is in force as there are not enough votes to say otherwise.

SANIDAD vs COMELEC
PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO C. SANIDAD vs HONORABLE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS & HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER
G.R. No. L-44640
October 12, 1976
 
FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 991 to call for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-
called Citizens Assemblies (“barangays”). Its primary purpose is to resolve the issues of
martial law (as to its existence and length of effectivity).
On September 22, the president issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the
questions that are to be asked during the referendum on October 16. The first question
is whether or not the citizen wants martial law to continue, and the second one asks for
the approval on several proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.
The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the national
referendum in October 16.
Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary
injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum
Plebiscite on October 16, and to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree
Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution.
Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction,
asserting that the power to propose amendments or revisions of the Constitution during
the transition period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under
Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan sought to restrain the
implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-
Plebiscite of October 16. They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a
constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution and a referendum-
plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.

The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for
deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity. To lift Martial Law, the President need not
consult the people via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to
an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens
of the Philippines 18 years of age and above.
The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the
issue raised is political in nature – and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The
Solicitor General also asserts that at this state of the transition period, only the
incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-
plebiscite is a step towards normalization.
ISSUE: WON the issue poses a justiciable question (specifically on the
constitutionality of PDs 991 and 1033).
HELD: YES. 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a justiciable question, while
only 3 maintained it was of political nature and thus not justiciable.
The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a
political one. This is because the 1973 Constitution expressly provided that the power
to propose amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in
the period of transition.
After that transition period, and when the regular National Assembly is in its active
session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the
regular National Assembly. The normal course has not been followed.
Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent
assembly, the president undertook the proposal of amendments through Presidential
Decree 1033 and in effect, through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16.
Unavoidably, the irregularity of the amendment procedure raises a contestable issue.

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No.

73748 - May 22, 1986)

FACTS: 1. On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No.
1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. 2. On March 25,
1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government
assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct
exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces
of the Philippines."

ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.

HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but
belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge. The Court further
held that: 1. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective
control of the entire country;

2. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government; and

3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.