You are on page 1of 7


Primary purpose

Ascertain intent of framers as expressed in lanauge of Consti and the people adopting it.

Consrued as enduring for ages

Not just for a part timeof framing, a continuing instrument to govern not only the present.

Words of consti used in broad sense.

Used in general terms, not a lawyer’s document, even technical terms

Used in one part must have same interpretation when used in other parts.

Batasang pambasnsa- reg Natl assembly not interim

Aids to Construction

Primary- language of Consti

Extraneous- history/ realities existing at time of adop, contemporaneous debates of framers,

Realities at time of adoption- history of the times

Aquino v. Comelec

New consti- Nov 30, 1972 approved. Si marcos pa dec 30 pa matatpos upo nya.

So sa transitory prov, sim arcos ang magcconvene ng interim batasan.

Rule: What is the intention underlying the provision, object sought to be accomplished by its
adoption., and evils, if ano ipprevent.

CCivil Liber v. Exec Sec: EO 284 authorizes cab member, undersec, asst sec to hold not more than 2 postions
in govt.

Violates Sec 13 Art 7 of 1987 Consti.- Pres, VP, and Cab, deputies cant hold any other offce or employment
during tenure.

Zintention- before, madami offices agencies newly created at marmi naghahawak ng office na to.with added
salary. Some took adv for purpo of enrichment.

Unless otwprov- vp and sec of Justice ex officio of JBC

Contemporaneous const of exec and leg if matagal na accepted

Writings of delegates on prov od consti-persuasive

Personal opinions not

Previous law/ jud rulings

Courts presumed that people know consti they ratified

Framers of consti are presumed na aware sa jud rulings

If framers adopted diff ruling, they seek to overrule? Hndi b courts lng pwede

Changes on phraseology

Mere deletion not conclusive. May be del because superfluous

No person shall b a witness ag himself in a crim case.

No person shall be a witness ag himself (all cases)

Consequence of Alternative constructions

Prov requiring judges to render judg within specific periods from date of submission

Just directory, greater injury than good

Const as whole

Not reqd to retain essence of Hb 11197, Tolentino v. sec of finance. Originate exclusively means inititated.

May stil undergo extensive changes, it would deny the senate of power to propose agreements.

Originate- initiave of filinf

Senate no prohibited to file in senate a substitute bill in ant of receipt of the bill from HR. basta nakahold bago
dumating HBill

Mandatory or directory

GR- mandatory,

Manda or directory- based on grds of that hndi nakabase sa leg if ignore or not.

Manda bc consti, sovereign itself speaking. So control govt and governed.

If hndi makaenact ng law si leg in acc w consti- amendments and revisions,

Does not make act of cong illegal

Prospective or Retrsospective

Prospective unotw prov

Criminal case, aga himself- also pending cases.

Ex. Sarmiento v. Mison- bureau of customs.

Self- executing

Exc; instances where kelangan ng legislations.

Self-executing- complete by itself, becomes operative without aid of supplementary or enabling leg.

Legislature pwde pa rin mageenact ng laws to facilitate exercise of powers granted b consti.

May add penalty or supplement

If not, it will be subordinated sa legislature and meaningless

Three maxims for consti construction

Verbal egis

Whenever possible, given ord meaning Except where tech terms employed

Ratio legis est anima

In accordance with intent of framer.

Ut magis valeat quam pereat

Interpreted as a whole, no one separate from others.

Construction of Us Consti adoped sa 1987 Constitution

Provisions on police power, em domain, taxation, Bill of Rights

Since adopted sa US, we adopt the construction.

Francisco v. HoR

Congress shall promulgate its rules on impacgment

Art XI of Consti enumerates 6 grds forimpeachment: other high crimes and bat of pub trust

Grounds for imp- political questions , no boundaries for bet of pub trust and other high crimes.

Act of initiating- filinf action of complaint, faciliatate forst action with intention to set complaint moving

Imp case- legal controv must b decided by senate, House may bring case to senate by cote of 1/3

Imp proceed- before may case, may proceedings and iinitiaite” it consists of the 3 steps
HoR – initiate is diff from file. Filre: 1) by A verified complaint for imp by any member of Hor 2) by any cit
upon a reso of endorsement by any member 2) by at lease 1/3 of all member of the house

Filing of verified complaint either House member of Citizien

Processing compl by proper committeereject or uphold

Processing of comp by HoR, 1/3 voting if yes, Articles of Impeachment prepared na. (House now initiates imp

Senate: as imp court- an official is succeffully charged with imp case before senate.

Sa senate another proceeding begins: ito yung trial

One year bar not violated, Hor yet to act on it as collective body

Impeachment proceedings not single act, complexsys of acts. With beginning, middle and end.

Middle_ deliberative moments formulation of articles

Beginning- filing of complain referral t Committee on Justice

Ends with senate, but begins another peoceed-trial

No imp proceeding initiated against same official more than oncewithin a period of one yr. wala
dapatsecond Verf Comp.

David V. Arroyo

Prov 1: Calling out power only, arfp anf polcicr to prevent supper LV

Prov 2: Take care: ensure laws are faithfully executed, Pres shall have control of all exec depts., buraus, ofices.

Sees to it laws are enforced by officials and employees.

#1 To enforce obiedience to all the laws and to all decrees orders and regulations prom by me personally or
upon my direction.

Lifted from PP1081 of Marcos. Which granted PMarcos leg power. Such statement is the enabling clause.

Within powers b ni arryo?

Arroyo granted ordinance power to issu, Eos, Admin Or, Mc, etc.

Limited lang dyan ang power nya.

PDs are statutes same power ng leg issued by Pres during marital law under 1973 Consti.

Bawal na magsissue ng PDs wheter state of reb or state of emergency

#2 can she enforce ob all laws thru military?

No authotity to enact decrees.

Cant call military to enforce customs laws, laws gvnin family, prop relations oblicon and the like.

Only pertinent to duty of mili to sup LV

#3Power to take over

“and as prov in Sec 17, art 12 declare a state of natl emergency”

Sec 17, Art 12: “ temp take over or direct operation of any privowned utility or business af with pub interest.”

PP1017- grant pres without auh of congress to do the take over.

State of natl emergency- kay Pres

Exercise emerg powers- given by leg;

Sec 23, Art 6: In times of war, 2/3 of congress both house, joint assembled, seprate

Other national emergency

Taking over of priv needs delegation

Senate of PH v. Ermita

Constitutionality of EO 454, bars appearance of exec officials from appearing and being asked question
bfore leg bodies or comm without pres consent.

Req for Jud review

Locus standi: Must have substantial interest in case and he sustained or will suatin direct injury

Senate may standing, funda right ess to intenlligent puclic decision making, stifles ability to access
information crucial to law making

Gayun din sina lisa masa, satur ocampo.. as members of congress

Bayan muna- ob 3 seats sa 2004 elections, entitled to participate

Citizen suit- must be firect and personal, pag assertion of public right, satisfieds reqt of pub interest.

Transcend mptance-

1) Character of funds na public, assests involved in case

2) Presence of clear case of disregardof a constitutional or stat prohibition by the pub resp
agency or instrumentality of govt.

3) Lack of any party w a more direct and specific interest in raising the questions na nireraise.
Actual case: P- meron dahil exec officials absent sa hearings NRail prject and wiretapping controv. R-
wala kasi no showing that Arroyo withdheld her consent or phib the appearance of inv officials. Officials
merely communicated absence. Apprehension lng yan na iaause ni Pres. Powes nya

Immaterial kugn may showing. Mere implementation of EO464 resulted in absence of officials na.

Constitutionality: won withholding info barring officials presence before congress. violated
COnsti in consid of power of inquiry ng congress?

Poewr of inquiry- Sec 21, Art 6.

Arnalut v Naza- power of inquiry inherent sa power of legislature

Arnault leading witness in cotrvo sa anomalous purchase of buenavista and tmabobong estates
by Rural Progress Admin.

Senate detained for contempt.

Coextensive w powers to legislate.

Executive priv

That it is priv does not mean it would be considered priv in all instances

Pres priv must be balanced ag pub interest in fair admin of crim justice

Konti lang decision ng sc sa exec priv cases

Almonte v. Vasquez- acknoqleddged certain type of infor govt may withhold from public.

State secrets, military diplomatic, natl security matters

Closed door cab meetings

Info on investigations of crimes by law enforcement bfore prosec of accused exempted fr right to

Sec. 1- BOTH REQURIE OFFICIALS COVERED BY THEM to secure consent of Pres prior to
appearing bfore congress.

Applies to dept heads. Don’t require prior det if covered by EO 464

Dept heads not required to appear in question hr.

But in in aid of Leg, required unless, may valid claim of exe priv.

Sec 2 and 3:all officials reqd to secure consent of president prior to appearing bfore either
house of congress.

All senior officials of exec depts.

All ofcers of afp and pnp

All senior natls security officials

Dept heads, cos of Afp, Chief PNp, natl sec adviser

Other officers may be det by pres,

EO 464 covers persons with priv infor upon det by designated head of ofc or by Pres.. This is
misuse of doctrine. It refers to specific category of info.

Ito yung must first secure consent of Pres para payagan sya magappear. Basis is det of pres
kung may priv infor si tao

So kung hindi umattend, implied claim of priv by consent of Pres. They cant attend without

Letter that says they cannot attend bago ipermit ni pres doesn’t excplicityly invoke valid claim of
priv, or their ground is recog to justify absence.

Congress has the right to know why thr info is withheld. Not sufficient na i=dineclre lang ni
president or a certain dept head says its privilege. Makes congress blind

Must be with formal claim of privilege, without specific claim, hndi malalaman kung part of
tradl priv.

Sec 3 claim is invalid. Not asserted. Kasi walang precise and certin reasons for claim. Merely
invokes EO 464 coupled with announcement na wala consent si Pres.

Right to information- not onky the power of inquiry but right of people to information.

Even if exec branch only, needs publicarion. Had direct effect in the right of the people.