Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
327
tr
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
328
CONSTRUCTION AND lNTERPRETATION OF THE CON
STITUTION
329
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
331
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
vs. Detroit and Erin Plank Road Co., 2 Mich. 114; People vs. Burns,
5 Mich. 114; District Township vs. Dubuque, 7 Iowa 262; Grants vs.
Grauman [Ky], 320 SW 2d 364; Runyon vs. Smith).
ID. While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the de-
bates and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive
at the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto
may be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are power-
less to vary the ,terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear.
Debates in the constitutional convention are of value as showing the
view of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their
votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who
did not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at
the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it
safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face. The
proper interpretation therefore depends more on how it was understood
by' the people adopting ·it than the framer's understanding thereof. (16
Corpus Juris Secundum, 2.31, p. 105; Commonwealth vs. Ralph, III Pa.
365, 3 At!. 220; Household Finance Corporation vs. Shaffner, 203, S.W.
2d 734, 356 Mo. 808).
N.B. Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Philip Ella Juico, et
al., G.R. No. 83815, February 22, 1991 is consolidated in this case.
332
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRET/\::rION OFTIIB CONSTITUTION
1
Those born before January 17 1973 of Fili .
3. elect
and Philippine citizenship upon
' reaching
' . thepmoagemothers, who
of majority;
\
zens."
The Court interprets Section l, Paragraph 3 above as applying not
only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2, 1987
but also to those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected
citizenship before that date. '
The provision in Paragraph 3 was intended to correct an unfair
position which discriminates against Filipino women.
As extrinsic aid, the records of the deliberation of the Constitu- \
tional Commission were look into viz.:
"MR. RODRIGO: But these provisions become very important \
because his election of Philippine citizenship makes him not
only a Filipino citizen but a natural-born Filipino citizen en-
titling him to run for Congress.
FR. BERNAS: Correct. We are quite aware of that and for that
reason we will leave it to the,body to approve that provisions
of Section 4.
MR. RODRIGO: I think there is a good basis for the provision
because it strikes me as unfair that the Filipino citizen who
was bom a day before January 17, 1973 cannot be a Filip_ino
citizen or a natural born-citizen." (Records of the Consutu-
tional Commissioner, Vol. I, p. 231 ).
xxx xxx xxx
"MR. RODRIGO: The purpose of that provision is to remedy an
inequitable situation. Between 1935 and J973 when we were
under the 1935 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers
333
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
It should be noted that in constrµing the law, the Courts are not
always to be hedged in by the literal meaning of its language. The spirit
and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especially where
adherence to the latter would result in absurdity and injustice. (Casela
vs. Court of Appeals, 35 SCRA 279 [1970]).
In the words of the Court in the case of J.M. Tuason vs. LTA (31
SCRA413 [1970]):
liiif""\.~ice
• "The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Jus-
and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en bane or, in
arc 335
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
"For the lower courts, the President shall issue the ap-
pointments within ninety days from the submission of the
list."
The Court's view is that during the period stated in Section 15,
Article VII of the Constitution - "two months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to the end of his term" - the Presi-
dent is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed
to do so; and that Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that
the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time
frames provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article VII.
It is noteworthy that the prohibition on appointments comes into effect
only once every six years.
Now, it appears that Section 15, Article VII is directed against two
types of appointments: (1) those made for buying votes; and (2) those
made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments
made within the two months preceding a Presidential election and are
similar to those which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus
Election Code. (Sec. 261, pars. [a] and [g], Omnibus Election Code).
The second type of appointment prohibited by Section 15, Article
VII consists of the so-called "midnight" appointments. In A,ytona vs.
Castillo, it was held that after the proclamation of Diosdado Macapagal
as duly elected President, President Carlos P. Garcia, who was defeated
in his bid for re-election, became no more than a "caretaker" adminis-
trator whose duty was to "prepare for the orderly transfer of authority
to the incoming President."
336
7
r
CONSTRUCTION AN DINTERPRET:O.TIONOFTHEC
ONSTITUTION
C?ns~dering the respective reasons for the time frames for filling
vac~c1es m t~e _coui:ts and the restriction on the President's power of
appomtment; it is this Court's view that, as a general proposition, in
c_ase of conflict, 1;11e forme~ s~ould yield to the latter. Surely, the preven-
tion of _vote-~uymg and surular ev~ls outweighs the need for avoiding
delays m filhng up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases.
Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, inciden-
\
tally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six
years. Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled tem-
porarily by designation. But prohibited appointments are long lasting
and permanent in their effects. Tuey may, as earlier pointed out in fact
influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their making is
337
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
subject" rule. (Robert Tobias, et al. vs. Hon. City Mayor Benjamin S.
Abalos, et al., G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994).
Invoking their rights as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluy-
ong, herein petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No.
7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be Known as the City of
Mandaluyong."
Petitioners now come before this Court, contending that R.A. No.
7675, specifically Article vm, Section 49 thereof, is unconstitutional
for being violative of three specific provisions of the Constitution.
Article vm, Section 49 of R.A. No. 7675 provides:
"As a highly urbanized city, the City of Mandaluyong
shall have its own legislative district with the first repre-
sentative to be elected in the next national election after the
passage of this Act. The remainder of the former legislative
district of San Juan/Mandaluyong shall become the new leg-
islative district of San Juan with its first representative to be
elected at the same election."
338
r CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
340
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATJON OF THE CONSTITUTION
In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any
formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacaiiang Palace in
the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of respondent
Arro~o. Conseq~ently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be de-
termined from his acts and omissions before, during and after January
20, 2~ 1 or by t~e totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts
and c1rcumstant1al evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
Using the totality test, which culminated in the president's depar-
ture from Malacafiang and the press statement above-quoted, it held
that petitioner Estrada resigned as President.
Continuing, the Supreme Court added:
In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be
doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacaiiang. In the press re-
lease containing his final statement: (1) he acknowledged the oath-tak-
ing of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation
about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat
of t'1e presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing
process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to
any kind of inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency
as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the
people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was refer-
ring to the past oppor-.unity given him to serve the people as President;
(4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may
come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner's reference is
to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which
· ·-- .. ~ - ~nrl ('i) he called on his supporters to join him in the
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
342
i coNSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section
· 21,
al Article
· 1 treaties
. VII deals w"th . or · .
ments 1n gener , m which case the mternatlonal agree
(113) of all. the Membera
. of the 'Sen,~-~
e is requrredof" two-drink
'""'th
to mak
treaty, or mtemat1onal agreement valid d b" . e art
e subject
a:
. Th" , an mding on the f
P ppmes. 1s provision Jays down th P o the
hili
international agreements and applies to ~eneral rule on ~ties or
variety· of subject
th matter, such
. . as, but not ~trmd
limi~
e of to,treaty ~~th aorwide
extraditton tax
treattes or ose econorruc m nature All treat" . .
ments entered. into by the. Philippine~ , regardle1esss orf
o sumtbe~attonal
1ect matter,agree-
cov-
. , ..,, e concurrence
erage, or particular designation or appellation req";~es th
of the Senate to be valid and effective.
. In contra~t, Section 25, Article XVlli is a special provision that
applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases
troop• « facilities in tho Philippines- Uod" mis pnwSion, mo~
currence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render compli-
ance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement
binding on the Philippines. Section 25, Article XVIII further requires
that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities" may be allowed in the
Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for
that purpose if so required by Congress, and recognized as such by the
SUPREMALEX
344
CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF TIIE CONSTITUTION
In fact, it is a basic
ute should be interpreted _precept in statutory con .
petition for recall a pun m harmony with the Consstrut_tuct~on that a stat-
. ' ong bara • 1 t1on Th •
Government
1 Code which solos
t ngay
that mvoked Sec ' 74(b) 0.f tireus,Loc,t
l1JlI«all ma
( ) y~ar froi:11 the date of the officia1' sh~! take place within o
c"
be m h,nnony with Section J of ;::.:/"~,t
Y"" unmed,mely preceding , re 1 ' ••rnmpllon to offi" "'""'
elecll<m was i,"""'ted
a local government code wh"1ch shoulde of.dthe Constitution to "enact
an accountable local govern prov1 e for a more respons1·ve
. ment structur · ·
o d ecentrabzation with eff t" e msututed through a system
& ec 1ve mecha · Of
fd
re,,«,odum x x x " (P" C msm r,gj!, initiati.e ,od
mns). · ""· oMELEC, 264 SCRA 49, eroptra,O
STARE DECISIS
. _Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the Jaws or the Con-
st1tut1on
NCC) Thshall fonnhpart d of
. .the legal system of the ph'Ji ·
I ppmes. (Art. 8,
· ese are t e ec1s1ons pronounced by the Supreme Court and
Im>_ no reference to the dedsioos of "" ]owe< oo,rts. (Miranda "· Im·
penal, 77 Phil. 1066).
In ou, jurisdictioo, "" doctriae of ,we dee•• o< tf,e role of P"'·
eden" ,s followed m that ooce • " " "'" beeO decided io °"'
way, ""'
another case, involving the same issue should be decided in the same
manner.
•"]'he pdnciple of"'"' J,c;,;, applies wi<h spedID fo,ce to t1re
,onsouctio, of ,o,stitoti""'• ,od " in""""tatio• "'"deli_,,,,
put upun <h• p•wisio" of '""' ,n
-
in""'"""'
,hoold ,ot be depmted
withOUt g<a'° _,,,.. Th• .,i,ilitY of m"Y of th< - t imPo'·
tant io>titotion• of sod<IY dep<"ds ,pu, the penn•"'""' " well " tl<
.,,uiotY, of tb< '°"uuction pt_,,d by <he jodid'"' op<" me fuad>·
"'""" 1,w." (Bt,ck, c,,.,,,,ction omJ /me,pn,to#M of IA"'• p. 44,
Whil' the p,i,dple of """ d,c;,o is • ro"'d doctrioo fo, Po'·
2nd ed.)-
puses of stability, <hi• s1t0Wd oot be fot]ow<tl wheO - 0 P'""t "'°'
i j,dgme0t- soch P"''dent sboold be
O
'""'"°""' ,od di,C-·
345
sTA'ftJTORY coNSTRUCflUN
coNCLUSION
The framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated all con-
'"""'" <h" OUght ,rise in m, ,fto,roaili of "'"is. A coo,t;iution doe•
oo< do< io d<,Wl•, bfil "'"°""'' m, genonol teo<is d,at ,n, mtend<d
"' apply"' all facis drat may coro< ,t,oul bUI whidt ,an be i,,ougbl
,;<hio ;,. ,tirectious. B,h;od ;is ,ondsen<" ;, ;is ,ndus;venoss and ;is
apertures ovenidingly lie, not fragmented but integrated and encom-
,,...,. Its ,p;rit and ;ts ;,1eot 1bo ,onstitutioo c,umot be pennitted «>
deteriorate into just a petrified code of legal maxims and hand-tied to its
restrictive letters and wordings, rather than be the pulsating Jaw that it
is. Designed to be an enduring instrument, its interpretation is not to be
confined to the conditions and outlook which prevails at the time of its
adoption; instead, it must be given flexibility to bring it in accord with
~e vicissitudes of changing and advancing affairs of men. Technicali-
ues and pla~ of words cannot frustrate the inevitable because there is an
unmense difference between legalism and justice. If only to secure our
democracy and keep the social order - technicalities must give way
It h,s bo,o s,id dratm, real~=" of i"'';" does not ,m,oate
qm~~Imgs over patchwork legal technicalities but proceeds from the
1
spmt s gut consciousness of the dynamic role as a b . k . th .
development of social edifice. An thin e nc ~ . e ultimate
of tho Coostlt,tio• ro, which ;, 0 ionn::..::"'""" tho •~mt and httenl
rrrelevance and obscurity. (Separate _and re_d~ces Its mandate to
C. Vitug, in Joseph E. Estrada vs Gl~::~·mg op1mon of Justice Jose
146738, March 2, 2001). . acapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
347