I.

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

CONSTITUTION
-fundamental law which sets up a form of
government and defines and delimits the
power thereof and those of its officers,
reserving to the people themselves plenary
sovereignty (legaspi v ministry of france)
GENERALLY (PRIMARY PURPOSE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION)
-to ascertain the intent or purpose of the
framers of the constitution as expressed in
the language of the fundamental law, and
thereafter to assure its realization (JM tuason
and Co. V Land Tenure Administration)
LANGUAGE (HOW LANGUAGE OF
CONSTITUTION CONSTRUED)
-the presumption is that the words in which
the constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained...
the words should as much as possible be
understood in the sense they have in
common use and given their ordinary
meaning, EXCEPT when technical terms are
employed, in which case the significance
thus attached to them prevails (JM TUAZON v
LAND TENURE)
-REASON: (JM TUAZON V LAND TENURE
ADMINISTRATION) because the fundamental
law is not primarily a lawyers document but
essentially that of the people, in whose
consciousness is should ever be present as
an important condition for the rule to prevail
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION
Basis sa ruling ng CIVIL LIBERTIES union V
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
(1) Verbal legiswhenever possible, the
words used in the Constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except
where technical term are employed
(2)Ratio legis est animawords of the
Constitution should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers
(3)Ut magis valeat quam pereatthe
Constitution should be interpreted as a
whole

RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
-are tools used to ascertian legislative intent
-they are NOT RULES OF LAW but mere
axioms of experience
-SARMIENTO v MISON: whether or not the
apppointment of a commisioner of customs
is subject to confirmation by the commision
on apppointments; held: YES,framers of the
1987 constitution and the people adopting it
requires the consent of the ComApp (unang
group heads of executive dep, ambassadors
public minister, consuls, officers of the
armed forces from colonel or naval captain or
other officers appointments are vested in the
constitution; yun lang ang kelangan ng
CONFIRMATION ng COMAPP yung second
group kahit hindi na)
-MARCELINO v CRUZ: rules of statutory
construction are applicable to the
construction of the constitution. In
appropriate cases, they may be employed in
construing constitutional provisions
AIDS TO INTERPRETATION
-(LEGASPI V MINISTER OF FRANCE)
explains the importance of CONSIDERING
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND of the
constitution in construing it
-(MONTEJO v COMELEC) in ascertaining
the meaniong of the phrase Minor
adjustments the Court relied on the
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISION
-(VERA v AVELINO) proceedings of the
convention (concon) are less conclusive of
the proper construction of the fundamental
law than are legislative proceedings of the
proper constrution of a statute SINCE the
LATTER CASE (legislative proceedings) it is
the INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE that
courts seek, while in the former (concon)
courts are endeavoring to arrive at the intent
of the people through the DISCUSSIONS
and DELIBERATIONS of their representative
SELF EXECUTING PROVISION
(MANDATORY or DIRECTORY)

Self-Executing: Provisions
which
are
complete
in themselves and do not
need enabling legislation for their
operation; judicially enforceable per se.
The nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are
fixed by the constitution itself (Manila
Prince Hotel v. GSIS)
GENERAL RULE :constitutional provisions
are self-executing(mandatory)

EXCEPT: (1)when the provisions themselves

expressely require legislations to implement
them
(2)they are merely declarations
of policies and principles.
-(TANADA v ANGARA) ..it has even been
said that neither by the courts nor by any
other departments of the government may
any provision of the Constitution be regarded
as merely directory