1. Look up the definition of "Political Law" in the case of Macariola vs.

Asuncion, 114
SCRA 77 (1982).
DEFINITION / EFFECTIVITY
Case: Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte. The complainant alleged that respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5,
Article 14 of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and
Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said corporation, having been
organized to engage in business. Said Article provides that:

Article 14 -The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by proxy, nor can they
hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or
industrial companies within the limits of the districts, provinces, or towns in which they discharge
their duties:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of public prosecution
in active service. This provision shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and municipal
prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge
or prosecuting attorney. xxxx

5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in commerce in a
determinate territory.

Rule: It is Our considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code
of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the
nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public
officers and employees, like justices and judges.

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and
operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the
inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922…. Specifically, Article 14 of
the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates the
conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business: hence,
political in essence. It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code
of Commerce of 1885, with some modifications made by the "Commission de Codificacion de las
Provincias de Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6,
1888, and took effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States
to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been
abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign,
whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they
are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Thus, We held in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil. 315, 330, 311 [1912]) that:
By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one nation to another, either
following a conquest or otherwise ... those laws which are political in their nature and
pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediately cease upon the transfer of
sovereignty. (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899).
While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the, laws of the new
sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of the conqueror, the
political laws do not. (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14). However, such political laws of the
prior sovereignty as are not in conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may
be continued in force if the conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief
during the war, or by Congress in time of peace. (Ely's Administrator vs. United States, 171 U.S.
220, 43 L. Ed. 142). In the case of American and Ocean Ins. Cos. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1 Pet. [26
U.S.] 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said:

On such transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the
inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign
are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has
acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance
of those who remain in it; and the law which may be denominated political, is necessarily
changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals,
remains in force, until altered by the newly- created power of the State.

Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated that: "It is a general
principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated”

There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated
provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States
and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has
no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First
Instance, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Macariola vs. Asuncion- 114 SCRA 77, -
A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982

2. You should know what laws survive over the ceded region after another sovereign acquires
the said territory. Supplemental reading Co Kim Chan vs. Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5, September
17, 1945.
If there is a change in sovereignty, the political laws are automatically abrogated, but
municipal or domestic laws that do not have political complexion, they are carried over unless
expressly repealed by the new sovereignty.
CO KIM CHAN VS. TAN KEH
Co Kim Chan filed a case against someone during the Japanese Occupation. When the Americans
occupied the Philippines, there was again a change in sovereignty. His case was not continued in the
trial court so he (Co Kim Chan) wanted to have that case continued. The reason the trial court
discontinued his case was because of an order—a proclamation issued by Douglas McArthur
invalidating and nullifying all initial judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the
Philippines under the previous regime. So therefore, there was no reason for the trial court to try his
case.
Should the case continue? Yes.
The activities that were created during the Japanese Occupation and despite the occupation of the
Americans thereafter, were considered to be done in a De Facto Government. So when we say De
Facto Government, it does not mean na tanan acts didto are considered illegal. Nag-enumerate ang
Supreme Court ug three types of De Facto Government. Ang importante diri is tong second type—
establishing military forces to invade or occupy the territory of the enemy. So kani ang nahitabo sa
Japanese invasion. Considering na nahulog dira atong government during the Japanese Occupation,
considered siya as a De Facto Government.
Anyway, ana ang Supreme Court diri na ang mga kaso na walay "political color" in the trial courts,
they will continue because they were done pursuant to the De Facto Government and therefore,
irecognize gihapon ang validity despite the change in sovereignty. Had it been political iyang kaso,
pwede unta to madismiss because of change of sovereignty. Wala man ingana na assertion, so
magpadayun ang case."

3. Look up the definition of "Constitutional Law".

It is a branch of public law of a state which speaks of organization and frame of government, the
organs and powers of sovereignty, the distribution of political and governmental authorities and
functions, fundamental principles which are to regulate the relations of government and subject and
which prescribes generally planned – to which public affairs of the State are to be administered.

4. You should be able to answer the following questions:

a. "What is the Constitution"?
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It
has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the permanent
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their respective powers
and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is founded. The
fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority
administered. G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 MANILA PRINCE

b. "What are the kinds/types of Constitutions?

1. In relation to the amendment process:
RIGID CONSTITUTION - is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult
process. This may not be amended except through a special process distinct from and more involved
than the method of changing ordinary laws.
The constitution is rendered difficult to change and thereby acquires a greater degree of stability;
FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTION - is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law p 5).

It may be changed in the same manner and through the same body that enacts
ordinary legislation. Example: British Constitution.

2. As to its adaption:

WRITTEN CONSTITUTION - is one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of
documents. The provisions have been reduced to writing and embodied in one or more instruments at
a particular time8.

UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION - consists of rules which have not been integrated

into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as statues of a fundamental
character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs and traditions, and certain common
law principles. (Cruz, Constitutional Law pp 4-5) Such has not been committed to writing at any
specific time but is the accumulated product of gradual political and legal development.9

3. As to its enactment

ENACTED or CONVENTIONAL CONSTITUTION - is enacted, formally struck off at

a definitive time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
constituent body or ruler;

CUMULATIVE OR EVOLVED - is the result of political evolution, not inaugurated

at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by systematic method. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law p 5)

4. Others:

NORMATIVE - adjusts to norms, those that function more truly as prescriptive

documents, such as the Constitution of the United States, are called normative
constitutions.

NOMINAL – not yet fully operational. Constitutions such as that of the former
Soviet Union are called nominal constitutions. The Soviet Constitution claimed to guarantee
Freedom of Speech, press, and assembly, but in practice the Soviet government continually repressed
those who sought to express those freedoms.
SEMANTIC – A Fundamental law for the perpetuation of power. (“pseudoconstitution”), enforced to
formalize and legalize the monopoly of power in authoritarianism or even totalitarianism.

5. You should be able to describe the 1987 Philippine Constitution as to kind/type.

Constitution of the Philippines is written, conventional and rigid.

6. Is the 1987 Philippine Constitution a municipal law or an international law?

A constitution is a municipal law. As such, it is binding only within the territorial limits of the
sovereignty promulgating the constitution. For purposes of actual exercise of sovereignty, it is
important for the sovereign state to know the extent of the territory over which it can legitimately
exercise jurisdiction. For purposes of settling international conflicts, however, a legal instrument
purporting to set out the territorial limits of the state must be supported by some recognized principle
of international law. Hence, the silence of a constitution regarding the territorial limits of a
sovereignty does not deprive such sovereignty of any portion of territory it is entitled to under
international law. Neither, however, does a constitutional definition of territory have the effect of
legitimizing a territorial claim not founded on some legal right protected by international law.
(Bernas)

7. How does our jurisdiction treat generally accepted principles of international law and public
international law?
SEC. 2. THE PHILIPPINES RENOUNCES WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL
POLICY, ADOPTS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
AS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND AND ADHERES TO THE POLICY OF PEACE,
EQUALITY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, COOPERATION, AND AMITY WITH ALL NATIONS.

8. How is the Constitution construed/interpreted?

There are three well-settled principles of constitutional construction:

First, VERBA LEGIS, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution should be given
their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed;

Second, where there is ambiguity, RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA, meaning that the
words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers; and

Third, UT MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT, meaning that the Constitution is to be

interpreted as a whole.23

1. The Constitution has to be Interpreted as a Whole (UT MAGIS

VALEAT QUAM PEREAT)

Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat
another.24

Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no departure.26

The fundamental principle in constitutional construction however is that the

primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the
provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained. In other words, verba legis prevails. Only when the
meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of
construction and interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or
Convention to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the provision being construed.
27

2. Plain Meaning Rule. Whenever Possible the Words Used in the

Constitution Must Be Given their Ordinary Meaning Except When
Technical Terms are Employed. (VERBA LEGIS)
Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no departure.26

The fundamental principle in constitutional construction however is that the

primary source from which to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the
provision itself. The presumption is that the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained. In other words, verba legis prevails. Only when the
meaning of the words used is unclear and equivocal should resort be made to extraneous aids of
construction and interpretation, such as the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission or
Convention to shed light on and ascertain the true intent or purpose of the provision being construed.
27

3. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance

with the intent of its framers (RATIO LEGIS ET ANIMA)

Still, it is a basic principle in statutory construction that the law must be given a
reasonable interpretation at all times29. The Court may, in some instances, consider the spirit and
reason of a statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, or injustice, or
would defeat the clear purpose of the law makers.30

Applying a verba legis or strictly literal interpretation of the constitution may render its provisions
meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an absurd situation, or an injustice. To obviate this
aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the intent or the spirit of the law is the law itself,
resort should be made to the rule that the spirit of the law controls its letter.31

Following the verba legis doctrine, (a) law must be applied exactly as worded (if) it is clear, plain
and unequivocal.32

Interpretation according to spirit. The words of the Constitution should be

interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers.

9. Read Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 (1997). What are self-executing
provisions? What are non-self-executing provisions? Are the provisions of the Constitution self-
executing? What are the exceptions? What are the exceptions to the exceptions?
- IN CASE OF DOUBT, THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SELFEXECUTING
RATHER THAN NON-SELF-EXECUTING
Case: The controversy arose when respondent GSIS, decided to sell through public bidding 30% to
51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC (Manila Hotel). In a close bidding
only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino
corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and
Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same
number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution
of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28 September 1995
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad and subsequently sent a
manager's check Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group, which respondent GSIS
refused to accept. Hence, the case.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the
Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an
earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its
power and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents and purposes, it
has become a part of the national patrimony Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of
the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent
GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being
a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy. Thus, any
transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the term national
economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies.

Rule: Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII17of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for
its enforcement. From its very words the provision does not require any legislation to put it in
operation. It is per se judicially enforceable.

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles. Their provisions
command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the framers who merely
establish an outline of government providing for the different departments of the governmental
machinery and securing certain fundamental and inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which
lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually
not self-executing.

But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which
the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is
self-executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by
the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its
terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for action.

In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision,
prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of
the rights secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise
of the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in
the absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a
remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be
self-executing. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily
exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the
constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent
legislation however does not necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by
itself, fully enforceable. (G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM)

Self-executing - no need for a law to give effect to it

The provisions of the Constitution, what is the presumption? They presume to be self-executing or non
self-executing? they are presumed to be self-executing. Why? Dili man siya pwede mahimong non self-
executing. Remember kanang provision is non self-executing it requires legislation. So kung presumed ni
na non self-executing, Congress can just enact a law to purportedly take in effect this provision which
will override the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court this can be
cataclysmic and they write the entire Constitution by mere legislation. The presumption is that the
provisions are self-executing.

GR: All provisions of the Constitution are SELF-EXECUTORY.

Rationale: A contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they
shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which
could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute
(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997).
XPN: When it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate; or those provisions which lay down general principles are usually NOT self-executory
(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997).:
a. Art. II: "Declaration of Principles and State Policies".
b. Art. XIII: "Social Justice and Human Rights"
c. Art. XIV: "Education Science and Technology, Arts, Culture end Sports”
NOTE: Such provisions are not ready for enforcement through the courts but are used by the
judiciary as aids or guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws. (Tondo Medical Employees Association v. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007)
XPN to the XPN: Sec. 16, Art. II – Right of to a balanced and healthful ecology ( Oposa v.
Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993), Right to information in Art. III, and Filipino First Policy.
(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997)

10. Read Council of Teachers vs Secretary of Education, G.R. Nos. 216930, 217451, 217752,
218045, 218098, 218123 & 218465, [October 9, 2018]).
K-12. Law, as well as the Kindergarten education act and the related issuance of the Department /
CHED pursuant to these laws. There was a challenge several challenges, among others were teachers.
They arguments that are related. What are the provisions that they invoked? – Security and Tenure,
full protection to labor. Violative ang K-12 daw cause it affect the teachers, when this law is given
effect. So what is the issue here? WON this K-12 is in violation to their security of tenure, full
protection to labor. Are they violated? No. Why? Because these provisions are self-executing.

What about the capital? What about the employers? The courts said that to give these provisions
enforceability without legislation would be dangerous as well. Gisuggest aning full protection sa
labor if – and qualified in broadest interpretation possible, suggests a blanket shield in favour of labor
against any form of removal regardless of circumstance because labor is protected so this is too broad
of a policy cannot be given effect without limitation from the legislation. Therefore, subsequent
legislation is still needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed rights to ensure the protection
and promotion, not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the employers’ as well. Consistent or the
same ruling with the other provisions invoked by the teachers here, they are not self-executing,
therefore they cannot give rise to the rights before the court. What is the solution on the K-12? If this
cannot be resolved by the court or dili ma-rest by the court because of the lack of the legislative
action? Unsa may dapat himuon? Wala giexercise sa court ang judicial decision?review*/ Next is go
to Congress, amend that law.

11. Read Funa vs Villar, G.R. No. 192791. April 24, 2012. What is the plain meaning doctrine?
Is this applied to constitutional provisions?
The rule is that if a statute or constitutional provision is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[29] This is known as the
plain meaning rule enunciated by the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a
statute there should be no departure.[30]

The primary source whence to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is the language of the
provision itself.[31] If possible, the words in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning,
save where technical terms are employed.

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.[33] teaches that in case of doubt as to the import and react of a
constitutional provision, resort should be made to extraneous aids of construction, such as debates
and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, to shed light on and ascertain the intent of the
framers or the purpose of the provision being construed.

FUNA VS VILLAR
On February 15, 2001, Pres Arroyo appointed Carague as Chairman of the COA for a term of 7
years. Carague’s term of office started on February 2, 2001 to end on February 2, 2008. On February
7, 2004, Villar was appointed as the third member of the COA for a term of 7 years starting February
2, 2004 until February 2, 2011.
Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and during the fourth year of Villar as
COA Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting Chairman of COA from February 4, 2008 to
April 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008, Villar was nominated and appointed as Chairman
of the COA. Shortly thereafter, the Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment. He
was to serve as Chairman of COA, as expressly indicated in the appointment papers, until the
expiration of the original term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February 2, 2011.

Issue 1: 
W/N a promotional appointment from the position of Commissioner to Chairman is constitutionally
permissible and does NOT constitute reappointment as barred by the Article IX (D), Sec 1 (2) of the
Constitution

RULING
Yes. A commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for less than seven years is
eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the unexpired portion of the term of the
departing chairman. Such appointment is not covered by the ban on reappointment, provided that
the aggregate period of the length of service as commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of
the predecessor will not exceed 7 years and provided further that the vacancy in the position of
Chairman resulted from death, resignation, disability or removal by impeachment.
Reappointment found in Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) means a movement to one and the same office
(Commissioner to Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman). On the other hand, an appointment
involving a movement to a different position or office (Commissioner to Chairman) would constitute
a new appointment and, hence, not, in the strict legal sense, a reappointment barred under the
Constitution.

Issue 2: 
W/N the appointment of Villar to the position of COA Chairman which is made vacant by the
expiration of term of the predecessor is valid

RULING
No. The Constitution clearly provides that if the vacancy results from the expiration of the term of
the predecessor, the appointment of a COA member shall be for a fixed 7-year term.
Here, the vacancy in the position of COA chairman left by Carague in February 2, 2008 resulted
from the expiration of his 7-year term. Under that circumstance, there can be no unexpired portion of
the term of the predecessor to speak of.  Hence, in light of the 7-year aggregate rule, Villar’s
appointment to a full term is not valid as he will be allowed to serve more than seven 7 years under
the constitutional ban.
Villar had already served 4 years of his 7-year term as COA Commissioner. A shorter term, however,
to comply with the 7-year aggregate rule would also be invalid as the corresponding appointment
would effectively breach the clear purpose of the Constitution of giving to every appointee so
appointed subsequent to the first set of commissioners, a fixed term of office of 7 years.

12. Read Magtoto vs Manguera, G.R. Nos. L-37201-02. March 3, 1975. Is the constitution
applied retroactively or prospectively? Is the Constitution applied retroactively if its
application is favorable to the accused in a criminal case?

Constitutional provisions as a rule should be given a prospective effect.

Magtoto vs Manguera

The provision of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code that:

"Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is
defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of
such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same,"

is not applicable to the present cases: First, because of the conclusion We have arrived at
that the constitutional provision in question has a prospective and not a retrospective
effect, based on the reasons We have given; second, because the "penal laws" mentioned
in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code refer to substantive penal laws, while the
constitutional provision in question is basically a procedural rule of evidence involving
the incompetency and inadmissibility of confessions and therefore cannot be included in
the term "penal laws";[6] and third, because constitutional provisions as a rule should be
given a prospective effect.[7]

Even as We rule that the new constitutional right of a detained person to counsel and to
be informed of such right under pain of any confession given by him in violation thereof
declared inadmissible in evidence, to be prospective, and that confessions obtained before
the effectivity of the New Constitution are admissible in evidence against the accused, his
fundamental right to prove that his confession was involuntary still stands. Our present
ruling does not in any way diminish any of his rights before the effectivity of the New
Constitution.

13. What is the meaning of the Principle of Supremacy of the Constitution?

Rule: A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a
nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority from which it
emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It prescribes the
permanent framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments their
respective powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government is
founded. The fundamental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to which all other
laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all
public authority administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract
violates any norm of the constitution, that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative
or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void
and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. G.R. No. 122156
February 3, 1997 MANILA PRINCE

14. What is the meaning of the Principle of Separation of Powers?

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct
that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in
the workings of the various departments of the government. G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936 JOSE
A. ANGARA vs. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO
and DIONISIO C. MAYOR

15. What is the Principle of Checks and Balances in the Constitution?

The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination
in the workings of the various departments of the government. xxx
And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other
departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936 JOSE A.
ANGARA vs. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO and
DIONISIO C. MAYOR

16. What is the meaning of the Principle of Presumption of Constitutionality?

There is strong presumption of constitutionality accorded to statutes.

It is established doctrine that a statute should be construed whenever possible in harmony with,
rather than in violation of, the Constitution. The presumption is that the legislature intended to
enact a valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further than may be necessary to
effectuate the specific purpose of the law. It is presumed that the legislature has acted within its
constitutional powers. So, it is the generally accepted rule that every statute, or regularly accepted
act, is, or will be, or should be, presumed to be valid and constitutional.

He who attacks the constitutionality of a law has the onus probandi to show why such law is
repugnant to the Constitution. Failing to overcome its presumption of constitutionality, a claim that
a law is cruel, unusual, or inhuman, like the stance of petitioner, must fail. G.R. No. 164763
February 12, 2008 ZENON R. PEREZ vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
SANDIGANBAYAN
Should there be no transgression, the Court shall not declare a law to be “constitutional” as it enjoys
that presumption, it shall only declare the same to be “not unconstitutional”

PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, an act, law or statute or imposition by the

officers of the other branches of the government is presumed to be not unconstitutional.