Principles of Constitutional Construction

 

Can the Supreme Court or other lower court exercise its power of judicial review when the issue raised in the petition is a political question?

In the case of Francisco v. House of the Representative, the Supreme Court employs the well-settled principles of constitutional construction in determining the merits of the issues raised. One of the issues determined by the Supreme Court is whether the power of the judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceeding.

These principles of constitutional construction are as follows:

A. Verba legis -

G.R. Provisions of the constitution must be interpreted in its literal and ordinary meaning.

ETR. Where technical terms are employed.

e.g. Ad hoc; State

B.    Ratio legis est anima - constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers when there is ambiguity.

This principle applies only when the term is ambiguous. Thus, if the term is clear apply verba legis.

Here, the transcription of the deliberation is reviewed.

C.    Ut magis valeat quam pereat - the constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

It cannot be interpreted in isolation of other provisions.

As aptly held by the Supreme Court that the the constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and one section is not allowed to defeat another.

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court emphasizes the difference of judicial power of the Philippine Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The power of judicial review is impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature while the power of judicial review of the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts is not only a power but also a duty. Likewise, the 1987 Constitution expressly given the judicial power an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any governmental branch or instrumentality. 

Further, the Supreme Court emphasized that to distinguish a truly political question from a justiciable political question lies in the answer to whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on the powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then the courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits.

Therefore, to answer the given question, in order for the Supreme Court to exercise its power of judicial review, political question must be qualified. There must be constitutionally imposed limits on the powers or functions conferred upon the political body.

TIP: How to determine whether a question is Political Question (PQ) or Justiciable Question (JQ)?

** My Constitutional Law Professor (Atty. Flores) told us, if we were to ask in the Bar Examination, whether an issue or question is a PQ or JQ, the default answer would be JQ.

He explained further that when there is a case/jurisprudence which the Supreme Court held that a certain issue/question is a PQ, then the answer is PQ.

However, if you haven't read such case wherein the Supreme Court held so, then answer JQ. Basis: Section 1, paragraph 2, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution (Expanded definition of the Judicial Power) 

"to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

Additionally, the following principles may be used in Constitutional Construction:

D.    Constitutional provisions must be harmonized if practicable.

You cannot interpret one provision of the constitution defeats the other provision.

E.    The constitution operates prospectively unless there is something on its face putting it beyond doubt to operate retrospectively.

GR. Constitution applies always prospectively and never retrospectively.

ETR. On its face putting it beyond doubt to be applied retrospectively.

F.    In case of doubt, constitutional provisions are mandatory rather than directory.

Directory - mere guide thus not required.

Mandatory - follow it otherwise there are consequences.

G.    In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than not self-executing.

Only in case of doubt. There are a lot of provisions which can be said as not self executing.

Example of non-self executing provision. Right of the people to initiative to amend the Constitution. “the congress shall provide for the implementation of such right.”

Default: Self-executing, when there is doubt.

Illustrative Case: Manila Prince Hotel. The Filipino First Policy under Article 17 Section 10, there are 3 paragraphs. In 2nd paragraph (FFP) is a self-executing. The 1st and 3rd paragraphs are not self-executing. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a provision may be partly self-executing and partly non-self-executing.

QUESTION: How do you determine whether a provision is self-executing or not self-executing?

ANSWER: When the Constitutional provision provides “that the congress shall provide for it”, “as prescribed by law” “as provided by law” “the state shall provide for”, then such provision is a not self- executing.

However, when the constitutional provision is specific, clear, there is no qualification that the state or congress shall provide for its implementation, then such provision is a self executing.

REFERENCE: Atty. Enan Flores' Lecture