Chapter 5

The Philippine Constitutions

Learning Objectives: At the end of the chapter, the students should be able to:
1.) Compare and contrast the four major constitutions of the Philippines
2.) Assess the social, political and cultural issues by the time the constitutions were
promulgated.
3.) Propose recommendation or solutions to the present day problems that were historically
rooted.

Concept of Philippine Constitution

The term constitution refers to “that body of rules and principles in accordance with
which the powers of sovereignty are regularly exercised.” It can be classified in two kinds, the
written and unwritten. The constitution by its nature is considered to be the supreme law of the
land as it protects the people from whom the authority and claim to obedience is derived.
Nonetheless, the constitutions of the Philippines have played pivotal role in shaping the history
of the country. The Philippines has had at least four major constitutional eras: 1) the 1899
Malolos Constitution which was framed by Philippine revolutionaries as the newly independent
Philippines’ organic law upon the cessation of Spanish rule; 2) the 1935 Constitution which was
drafted through a Constitutional Convention during the Philippine Commonwealth government
under the United States; 3) the 1973 Constitution which was written and promulgated during the
martial law rule of Ferdinand E. Marcos, and was known for the establishment of a
parliamentary form of government and (4) the present 1987 Constitution which was propagated
after the ouster of Marcos and the nonviolent EDSA revolution that propelled Corazon Aquino to
the presidency (Desierto, 2009: 392).

With the purpose of reading the different Philippine constitutions as primary sources, it is
therefore necessary to have a deeper understanding and background during the time wherein the
constitution was framed and implemented most particularly on the social, political, economic and
cultural issues. Thus, to have a clearer picture on the Philippine constitutions that affected the
GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 1
nation’s history; this chapter presents the constitutions itself as primary source in chronological
order followed by a discourse analysis and a comparison of these four constitutions in the latter
part.

The 1899 Malolos Constitution

The 1899 Malolos Constitution of the Philippines was known as the first republican
constitution ever written not only in the country but in Asia. Prior to the ratification of this
constitution, three constitutional plans were presented before the revolutionary president Emilio
Agunaldo --- a draft from Apolinario Mabini (called the ‘Mabini True Decalogue and
Constitutional Program’), a draft from Felipe Calderon (a political moderate and lawyer who
obtained help from jurist Cayetano Arellano), and still another from Pedro Paterno (president of
the Malolos Congress) (Desierto, 2009: 421).

In his narratives, Philippine constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas claims the ideological and
historical influences on each of the three plans:

“…Three drafts were submitted for the consideration of the committee: that of Pedro Paterno,
that of Apolinario Mabini, and Felipe Calderon’s own.

Paterno, the negotiator of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, had earlier drawn up a scheme with the
express purpose of winning over the Filipinos to the side of Spain after Admiral Dewey’s
crushing victory on May 1, 1898. His scheme envisioned an autonomous Philippine government
under the sovereignty of Spain. It was strongly influenced by the Spanish Constitution of 1868
[1869?], according to the historian Teodoro Agoncillo. With respect to government structure
and affirmation of individual liberties, it has been assumed that Paterno’s scheme was
substantially the same as his plan for Philippine autonomy under Spain. The cuestiones which
he included in this plan embodied the primary aspirations of the writers of the Propaganda
Movement. Among them were: equality of rights for Spanish subjects resident in Spain and in
the Islands, extension to the Philippines of the guarantees of the Spanish Constitution protecting
freedom of the press and of association, the right of petition, freedom of religion, academic

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 2
freedom, freedom to pursue any profession, and security of property and of domicile. Now,
however, Paterno submitted his plan with revisions, calling for a completely independent
Philippines.

The plan submitted by Apolinario Mabini, General Aguinaldo’s chief adviser, was embodied in
an elaborate Programa Constitucional which, according to Agoncillo, was also greatly
influenced not only by the Spanish Constitution of 1868 [1869?] but also by the General Statutes
of Universal Masonry. The document contained a very detailed Bill of Rights. It covered the
protection of property from arbitrary confiscation, reserving to the government the power of
eminent domain; freedom of religious belief and worship, limited by the requirement of a license
for public manifestations of religion; freedom of speech and of the press; right of peaceful
petition for the redress of grievances; freedom to form associations but requiring official
approval of their statutes and prohibiting the existence of religious orders whose Superiors
General were under the immediate authority of the Pope; due process in criminal prosecutions;
freedom from arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, supported by an equivalent of the right to a
writ of habeas corpus; security of the domicile and of papers and effects from arbitrary searches
and seizures.

In the end, the draft which won the approval of the Committee, and, subsequently, of the
Revolutionary Congress, was Calderon’s. It became the Malolos Constitution. By his own
admission, Calderon based his plan on the constitutions of South American Republics,
particularly those relating to the organization of the government. But, as Malcolm notes, the
provisions of Calderon’s Bill of Rights were, ‘in the main, literal copies of articles of the Spanish
Constitution’. This is clear even from a cursory comparison of the Malolos provisions with those
of the Spanish Constitution of 1869. The Bill of Rights included freedom of religion; freedom
from arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, supported by an equivalent of a right to a writ of
habeas corpus; security of the domicile and of papers and effects against arbitrary searches and
seizures; inviolability of correspondence; freedom to choose one’s domicile; due process in
criminal prosecutions; security of property, with the reservation of the government’s right of
eminent domain; prohibition of the collection of taxes not lawfully prescribed; free exercise of
civil and political rights; freedom of expression; freedom of association; right of peaceful

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 3
petition for the redress of grievances; free popular education; freedom to establish schools;
guarantee against banishment; prohibition of trial under special laws; prohibition of the
establishment of rights of primogeniture; prohibition of the entailment of property; prohibition of
the acceptance of foreign honors, decorations, or titles of nobility, and of the granting of such
honors by the Republic. In addition, Article 28 stated: ‘The enumeration of the rights granted in
this title does not imply the prohibition of any others not expressly stated’. Thus, there was a
suggestion that natural law was the source of these rights.”(Cited in Desierto, 2009: 422-423).

The 1899 Malolos Constitution was written in Spanish which was the official language of
the Philippines at the time. The content of the constitution had been influenced by the Spanish
Constitution of 1812 among others such as the charters of Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica and Guatemala, in addition to using the French Constitution of 1793as these countries
were claimed to have similar social, political, ethnological and governance conditions with the
Philippine Islands. The constitution was further composed of ninety-three articles divided into
fourteen titles; with further eight articles with transitory provisions, and a final additional article
(Malcolm, 1921).

The Malolos Constitution highlights the natural and civil rights of the Filipinos. It
includes civil liberties, protection of rights and the limitation of criminal procedure. These rights
were provided to address the issues on abuse of power of those who were in authority such as the
police officers. The concept of administrative action, nonetheless, was once again derived from
the Spanish Constitution of 1869 that led to the liberal ideas of several national heroes starting
with governor-general Carlos María de la Torre and secular priest José Burgos, and later
including such luminaries as Galicano Apacible y Castillo, Graciano López y Jaena, Marcelo
Hilario del Pilar y Gatmaitán and José Rizal. Calderón mentioned in his journal that the draft
constitution was meant to enshrine: "all those freedoms that Englishmen enjoyed in the Assize of
Clarendon (end to arbitrary arrest, a professional and independent judiciary) and in Magna
Carta (due process of law)" (Malcolm, 1921).

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 4
 Some of the provisions of the Malolos Constitution underscore the republican form of
government with the divisions of power among the three branches of government. Furthermore,
according to Title III, Article 5 of the Malolos constitution; "The State recognizes the freedom
and equality of all beliefs, as well as the separation of Church and State." The separation of the
church and state can be considered as the highlight of the constitution.

According to Title II, Article 4:

“The Government of the Republic is to be popular, representative, alternative and responsible,

and shall exercise three distinct powers: namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
Any two or more of these three powers shall never be united in one person or cooperation, nor
the legislative power vested in one single individual. The Government of the Republic is a
Responsible Government, a very important aspect of parliamentarianism where the executive
branch is directly responsible to the legislative branch”. This is further emphasized in Title V,
Article 50 and Title VII, Article 56.

Title V, Article 50 states that “The National Assembly of Representatives (the unicameral
legislature of the Republic) shall have the right of censure and each of the members the right of
interpellation”. Title VII, Article 56, on the other hand explains “that executive power resides in
the President of the Republic, who shall exercise it through his Secretaries convened in a
Council of government that is led by the President of the council of government”. Meanwhile,
Title IX, Article 75 emphasizes that “the secretaries of government shall be held jointly
responsible by the National Assembly for the general policies of Government, and individually
for their personal actions like in most parliamentary systems”.

An Analysis on the Contributions and Issues of the 1899 Malolos Constitution

The prominent Philippine historian and political philosopher, Cesar Adib Majul (1967)
believes that that what trigger the Filipino revolutionaries to fight against the Spanish authorities
in 1898 was the belief on “liberal ideology” during the 18th century Enlightenment. In his
seminal work entitled The Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine Revolution, Majul
shows that “the writings of key Philippine revolutionaries such as Jose Rizal, Emilio Jacinto,
GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 5
Apolinario Mabini, Felipe Calderon, among others, were consistent in affirming the
revolutionary advocacy for constitutional republicanism (ideas that also pivotally spurred the
American and French revolutions) as the foundation of representative government in the
Philippines”. One of the most significant reflections Majul has contributed was his presentation
of the historical evidence that “convincingly shows a profound transition in Philippine
conceptions of public order at the time of the Philippine revolution --- to one that recognizes the
basic dignity and equality of all persons, the primacy of fundamental individual human rights
over governmental assertions of power, and corollarily, the need for executive checks through
democratic processes most attuned to the Enlightenment conception of popular sovereignty”
(Cited in Desierto, 2009: 419).

Likewise, Vincente Pilapil (1965) affirms that “[t]he real cause of the Philippine
revolution was the political maturation and the national awakening” of Filipinos. It has to do
with the “stirrings of liberalism”. Moreover, Pilapil recognizes the significant link of the
Philippine political maturation to factors such as religious ideology; education; increased
communication and travel; the constitutionalization of Enlightenment ideology in the Spanish
constitution; clerical stratification between Spanish and Filipino priests; and the socioeconomic
divide between peninsulares, insulares, ilustrados and the general mass of Filipinos. The
following explanations were directly lifted from the writing of Desierto (2009: 420-421).

• Religious Ideology. For Pilapil, Philippine acceptance and advocacy of “notions of nationalism
and liberty” emerged from Catholic doctrines that “preach the worth and dignity of the human
person --- the same destiny which the Heavenly Father prepared for all men regardless of
accidental differences. “ The inequality being experienced by the Filipino people drove them to
questioning the incoherent teachings of the Spanish priests about Catholic doctrine.

• Education. Education provided Philippine revolutionaries and heroes (such as national hero
Dr. Jose Rizal) “new vistas of thought and desires” that stimulated the “search for other
realities”.

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 6
• Increased communication and travel. According to Desierto (2009) “The introduction of the
printing press in the Philippines was a critical discursive tool for expediting the popularization of
Enlightenment ideas of liberty and fundamental equality (p. 419).

• Constitutionalization of Enlightenment ideology in the Spanish constitution. “The

textualization of the democratic principle of sovereignty in Article III of the Spanish Constitution
(1812) rippled throughout Spain’s colonies, including the Philippines to which this 1812 Spanish
Constitution had been extended. Filipinos’ history of underrepresentation (and more frequently,
outright nonrepresentation) in the Spanish Cortes in Madrid, along with the beginnings of revolt,
independence, and secessionist movements in Spain’s Latin American colonies, would both
contribute to a popular acceptance of liberal Enlightenment ideology” (Desierto, 2009:419-420).

• Clerical stratification between Spanish and Filipino priests. Pilapil observes that the conflict
between the “regular (Spanish) and the secular (Filipino) clergy…expanded into a general
Spanish-Philippine race fight”. As elaborated by Desierto (2009) the “Philippine priests ---
masters of Catholic doctrine who witnessed abuses to their parishioners firsthand --- were the
first to agitate against un-Christian treatment by Spanish friars and colonial governors. The
execution of prominent Filipino priests Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora would have a lasting effect
on awakening the nationalist consciousness of Philippine revolutionaries and reformists” (p.
420).

• Socioeconomic divide between peninsulares, insulares, ilustrados, and the general mass of
Filipinos. According to Desierto (2009), “peninsulares were Spaniards born in the Iberian
peninsula, mostly composed of conservative and liberal high government officials and friars who
“brought with them into the [Philippine] archipelago the political divisions they had at home”.
Insulares were Spaniards born in the Philippines and comprised a critical minority that resented
the migration of peninsulares and the latter’s erosion of insulares’ commercial interests and
political bases of power. Ilustrados, however, was a relatively open and mobile middle class of
Filipinos distinguished by “high learning and education” --- and who, after foreign education and
travel to Spain, were demystified with Spanish colonial rule after witnessing “the decadence of
Spanish power and glory” firsthand. Finally, the general mass of Filipinos suffered the brunt of

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 7
socioeconomic inequality --- bereft of both economic means as well as higher education (that
could have enabled some social mobility) (p.421).

The drafting of the first constitution had undergone through a lengthy debate and was
finally promulgated on 21 January 1899. The debate and discussions on the constitution,
however, may logically be observed to have rooted from factions that had happened between the
Magdalo and Magdiwang groups of the the Katipunan. The Katipunan was formed and led by
Andres Bonifacio with the aim to attain Philippine independence from Spain. It was however
discovered by Spanish authorities that trigger the creation of the Philippine Revolutionary
government in 1896. The government was then called as the Republic of Biak-na-Bato with the
Constitution of Biak-na-Bato as its guiding law. The constitution, however, was never fully
realized and was never fully implemented. Subsequent to the several battles between the Spanish
and Philippine Revolutionary Army, a truce was signed called the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in 1897.
Emilio Aguinaldo had replaced Bonfiacio as leader.

Calderón believed that most delegates personally liked Paterno but disliked Mabini, that’s
why he intentionally revised the version of Paterno to make it more appealing to the members of
the Congress. But eventually, Calderón made his own version of the law and claimed to have
patterned after South American constitutions, particularly that of Costa Rica. It was submitted to
the approving committee on 8th of October. Although it was opposed by Mabini’s faction, the
version of Calderón was eventually approved with some modifications (Aguilar, 2015:283).

However, the separation of the church and state has been questioned by some historians.
Teodoro Agoncillo (1960), for instance, has labeled the Malolos congress as “triumphant
conservatism” for it did not offer a clear explanation for the victory of church–state separation by
one vote. Likewise, Majul (1967) offered a thorough and very comprehensive narrative on the
relevance of Filipinization of the Catholic Church. The analyses and narrative of Agoncillo and
Majul, however, was claimed to be inadequate which has resulted in a number of oppositions.
Although, they made use of Felipe G. Calderón’s Mis Memorias Sobre la Revolución Filipina
(My Memoirs of the Philippine Revolution, 1907) as the main source, the analysis as claimed by
Aguilar (2015) lack an “interpretive frame with which they explained the divisiveness of this

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 8
issue, not necessarily n terms of historical issue”. As explained by Aguilar (2015, “the
significance of church–state relations as debated in Malolos and the events that transpired at that
time and in its immediate aftermath had not been analyzed in Philippine historiography with the
benefit of writing in an age of a more mature Philippine nationalism but with church–state
relations remaining a sensitive social issue” (p. 280).

In his analysis, Nicolas Zafra (1979) contends that the dominant position assigned to the
National Assembly was a deliberate preference of the members of the Malolos Congress for the
“embodiment of popular sovereignty” in the legislature. Zafra further explans that:

“The readiness with which the Malolos Congress accepted Calderon’s plan of
government, with its distinctive features, was understandable. It reflected the Filipino
attitude prevailing at the time towards the Spanish colonial administrative system.
The members of Congress knew well enough, both from personal experience and from
their knowledge of their country’s history, that the pattern of government which Spain
established in the Philippines was undesirable. That system with a governor and
captain general endowed with almost unlimited powers, proved to be oppressive and
tyrannical. Under that system the Filipinos did not have adequate protection in the
enjoyment of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The members of
the Congress strongly believed with Calderon that a pattern of government
dominated, not by a powerful executive but by a national assembly responsive to the
needs and desires of the people, was more conducive to the wellbeing and happiness
of the people.” (Cited in Desierto, 2009:423-424)

The 1935 Constitution

The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines has served as the basic law of the land from
1935 to 1972. The law created the Philippine Commonwealth and provides that “upon
withdrawal of American sovereignty in the country and the declaration of Philippine
independence, said commonwealth shall be known as the Republic of the Philippines”. Just like
the Malolos Constitution, the 1935 Constitution enumerates the composition, powers and duties
of the three branches of government (the Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and creates the
General Auditing Office and lays down the framework in the establishment of the civil service in
the country. The Constitution vests the President with the veto power on legislative bills and
emergency powers in times of war and other national emergencies. Also, the Constitution adopts

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 9
the Regalian Doctrine or the Principle of State ownership for all its natural wealth and provides
for the proper utilization of such wealth by its citizens (Javier and Nera, 2007).

It can be observed that the 1935 Constitution does not contain original ideas of
government. It has been influenced by the United States Constitution with adoption on some of
the provisions of the Malolos constitution and the three organic laws that were enforced in the
Philippines before the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, namely: the Instruction of Pres.
William McKinley to the Second Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900; the Philippine Bill of
July 1, 1902; and the Jones Law of August 26.

Article XVII (which later became Article XVIII after the Constitution was amended) declares:
“The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and
the proclamation of the Philippine Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall
henceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.”

The Constitution was ratified by the 1935 Constitutional Convention which served the
interest both of the Commonwealth and the Republic. Nevertheless, it was amended three times.
Among the amendments are: (1) Establishing a bicameral legislature; (2). Allowing the
reeligibility of the President and the Vice-President for a second four-year term of office; (4)
Creating a separate Commission on Elections; and (4). The so-called Parity Amendment which
gave to American citizens equal right with the Filipinos in the exploitation of our natural
resources and the operation of public utilities (Javier and Nera, 2007).

Analysis on its Issues and Contributions

Jose M. Aruego (1949), a notable member of the 1934 Constitutional Convention,
confirms that the 1935 Philippine Constitution had its roots “in the past of the Filipino people”,
their “political institutions” and “political philosophies”. Arguego (1949) expounds that:

“…The Constitution drew rather heavily from the different organic acts under
which the Filipino people had been governed for the last three and a half decades,
particularly the Jones Law enacted by the Congress of the United States on
GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 10
 August 29, 1916. Where Philippine precedents were lacking, rather than attempt
to set up institutions or follow political philosophies never set up or adopted
before in any other country, the Convention considered precedents of American
origin that might with advantage be incorporated into our political system; and
this, with reason, in view of the fact that our political heritage was largely
dominated by American political thought. But, even in this case, the Convention
carefully considered the precedents from the point of view of their adaptability or
suitability to Filipino psychology and traditions.

But while the dominating influence was American, the Constitution bears traces,
in some respects, of the influence of the Malolos Constitution of the ephemeral
Philippine Republic, the German Constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of
Spain, the Mexican Constitution, and the Constitutions of several South American
countries, and the English unwritten constitution --- all of which had been
frequently consulted during the Convention days.” (Cited in Desierto, 2009: 432)

Drawing from the above influences, Aruego shows that the 1935 Constitution is founded on
several fundamental principles:

• Popular sovereignty. “The republican government serves as political agents of the people, and
is based on the political equality of all Filipino citizens”.

• Strong but Limited government. “The unitary model of government is vested with a general
grant of powers, subject to certain limitations for the protection of the fundamental rights to
personal life, liberty, and property”. Aruego notes, however, that “these rights, by express and
implied provisions of the Constitution, must yield in certain cases to the superior right of the
State to preserve itself”. Necessarily, the “rights of persons to life, liberty or property guaranteed
in the bill of rights are likewise subject to the inherent overruling trinity of powers of the State ---
the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power of taxation.”

• Separation of Powers. Aruego explains that that “the Convention incorporated this principle in
the Constitution “in order to prevent the emergence and rise of arbitrary and perhaps tyrannical
government with the accompanying insecurity of personal life and liberty, resulting from the
concentration of powers in the hands of a single person or of a group of persons.” Thus, the
principle of separation of powers was “intended as a doctrine of liberty and not of efficiency”.

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 11
• Independence of the Judiciary. As a ‘consecrated tradition’ long before the 1935 Constitution,
the Convention introduced various provisions on appointment, term of office, fiscal autonomy
and judicial autonomy to help secure independence for the judiciary.

• Strong Executive Power. Aruego narrates that the “powers of government are distributed in
the Constitution in such a way as to make the executive power strong, representing as it is the
arms of the government to maintain and preserve internal peace and order, to execute the laws, to
defend the country from foreign aggression, and to represent it in foreign relations.”

• Nationalization of Natural Resources and Public Utilities. This is to guarantee “conservation

and development of national patrimony as a “manifestation of the strong nationalistic sentiment.”

• Public Service Morality. Considering Philippine experience with misuses of power in various
instances of its colonial history, the Convention was concerned that public officers “should not
make use of [their] offices as an instrument or agency for the protection or enhancement of
private fortunes.” The 1935 Constitution textualized the concept of public office as a “personal
public trust created for the benefit of the public, not of the person who may happen to be its
incumbent.”

• National Solidarity. “The 1935 Constitution purposely employs language that shows Filipino
identity, language, and political aspirations”.

• Promotion of Individual and Social Welfare. For the Convention, the state “is not an end in
itself for the glorification of which the life, liberty, property or happiness of the individual may in
all cases be sacrificed as if though it were everything and the individual nothing. Neither is it a
means for the realization of the best life only by the individual, for which the group may at all
times, if necessary, be staked. It is an instrument to enable more both the individual and society
together to attain their greatest happiness, progress, and welfare.”

• Social Justice. The Convention theorized “social justice as a necessary precondition to the
well-being and economic security of the Filipino people”. As result, it was necessary for the

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 12
Constitution to highlight human social injustices, in order to truly secure to the Filipino people
“the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and democracy.” (Desierto,
2009:432-434)

Although very appealing in the ear, the 1935 Constitution was still seen to have gaps and
lapses. These specific weaknesses have been shown and identified in the study of Dean Irene
Cortes. These include the:

1.) The presidential tenure (upon President Manuel Quezon’s political maneuvering, the 1935
Constitution had been amended to permit the president to run for reelection, which
amendment, according to Dean Cortes, exposed a reelection-minded president to incessant
partisan political demands);
2.) Presidential disability (being a literal copy of the US Constitution’s corresponding provisions
on this subject, the 1935 Constitution also carried the latter’s defects on the procedure to be
followed in the event of presidential disability);
3.) The vice-presidency (Dean Cortes advocated that the vice-president should also serve as a
member of the cabinet to administratively and politically prepare him/her in the event of
transition to the presidency);
4) The need to establish a constitutional electoral tribunal (to pass upon protested elections of
constitutional officers);
5) The president’s power of certification of urgency of bills (which, by allowing the president to
bypass the requirement of printing in final form three calendar days before the congressional
vote, created an additional leverage for the executive);
6) Presidential supervision over local governments (which undermined the practical
development of local autonomy);
7) Power over habeas corpus and martial law (the president on his/her own entirely determined
the need for and duration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and/or the
establishment of martial law, greatly threatening constitutionally guaranteed individual
rights); and

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 13
 8) Emergency powers (the vague terminology of which became the basis for the virtual
surrender of all legislative powers to the president in times of emergency) (Lifted from
Desierto, 2009:438).

The 1973 Constitution

With the weaknesses and lapses of the 1935 Constitution, the impact of the law of more
than three decades as a sovereign nation was claimed to be unsatisfactorily. It has resulted in the
framing of the 1973 Philippine Constitution. With the “felt necessities of the times” highlighting
the new and grave problems arising from an ever increasing population, there was an urgent call
for solution. Thus, the Congress in joint session on March 16,1967, passed resolution of both
Houses No. 2 (as amended by Resolution No. 4, passed on June 17, 1971), authorizing the
holding of a constitutional convention in 1971.

Meanwhile, on September 21, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation
No. 1081 placing the entire country under Martial Law with the purpose “To broaden the base of
Citizens’ participation in the democratic process, and to afford ample opportunities for the
citizenry to express their views on important matters of local or national concern”. Moreover, the
Presidential Decree No. 86 was issued on December 31, 1972 creating a Citizens Assembly in
each barrio in municipalities and in each district in chartered cities throughout the country. With
the same decree, the barangays were obliged to conduct a referendum on national issues between
January 10 and 15, 1973.

Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 86-A, the following questions were submitted before the
Citizens’ Assemblies or Barangays with the following questions:

1. “Do you approve of the New Constitution?” and

2. “Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?”

According to Proclamation No. 1102 issued on January 17, 1973, 14,976,561 members of all the
Barangays (Citizens’ Assemblies) voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as against

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 14
743,869 who voted for its rejection. 4. Amendments. The 1973 Constitution had been amended
on four occasions. Among the important amendments are:
A. That making the then incumbent President, the regular President and regular Prime Minister;
B. That granting concurrent law-making powers to the President which the latter exercised even
after the lifting of martial law in 1981;
C. That establishing a modified parliamentary form of government;
D. That permitting natural-born citizens who have lost their citizenship to be transferees of
private land, for use by them as residence; e. that allowing the “grant” of lands of the public
domain to qualified citizens; and f. that providing for urban land reform and social housing
program.

Issues and Contributions

Former Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando had declared the
1973 Constitution a ‘triumph for moderation’, since the ‘forces of gradualism’ had prevailed
when the members of the 1971 Constitutional Convention ‘heeded the counsel of realism’ and
the supposed need to strengthen governmental power in the face of insurgency”. Nevertheless,
the 1973 Constitution had institutionalized a parliamentary form of government that highlightes
the union of powers between the executive and legislative powers. Theoretically, in this form of
government, “the President was, in the main, largely symbolic, since executive and legislative
power was ultimately wielded by the Prime Minister (who could dissolve the National Assembly
and call for a general election)”. The Bill of Rights (Article IV of the 1973 Constitution),
however, did not substantially depart from its predecessor 1935 Constitution. As Chief Justice
Enrique Fernando (1977) discussed, the Bill of Rights contemplated various forms of liberty: 1)
liberty and property (the limits imposed by police power, taxation, eminent domain, and the
safeguards of due process, equal protection, and nonimpairment clauses); 2) intellectual liberty
(religious freedom, free speech and press including assembly and petition, and freedom of
association); and 3) physical liberty (the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, freedom of the
person, home and possession, and the rights of an accused) (Cited in Desierto, 2009: 439.

However, the 1973 Constitution’s parliamentary form of government has not

implemented what has been planned in the 1971 Convention. Instead of having a “symbolic

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 15
power” of the presdent, the Constitutional amendments in October 1976 maintained the powers
of then President Marcos and create an Interim Batasang Pambansa (interim National Assembly)
to function as the legislature. As Desierto (2009) explains:

The powers of the President and the Prime Minister under the 1973 Constitution
were then merged in then President Marcos, who also became a member of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa. Under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution,
however, then President Marcos was authorized to continue to exercise legislative
powers until martial law ‘shall have been lifted’, and if, in his judgment, ‘there exists
a grave emergency or threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the Interim Batasang
Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on
any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in
order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of
instructions which shall form part of the law of the lands’. Subsequent amendments
to the 1973 Constitution in 1980 and 1981 would further entrench the powers of then
President Marcos .By the time Martial Law was lifted on January 17, 1981; it was an
altogether different political landscape from that initially envisaged under the
reformist clamor that inspired the 1973 Constitution. As bluntly described in the
Report of Missions for the International Commission of Jurists, Martial Law under
Marcos was democracy in decline --- where “[t]he Executive rules by decree. There
is no legislature, no elections, and very little judicial review. The people are not
allowed to choose their representatives. Citizens languish in jails without charge,
many since Martial Law was declared. Military authority is supreme.” (pp. 439-
441).

The 1987 Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a Constitutional Commission created under Article
V of Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 which promulgated the Provisional
Constitution or “Freedom Constitution” following the installation of a revolutionary government
“through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people”. Pursuant to Proclamation No. 3,
President Corazon Aquino promulgated on April 23, 1986 Proclamation No. 9, the “Law
Governing the Constitutional Commission of 1986,” “to organize the Constitutional
Commission, to provide for the details of its operation and establish the procedure for the
ratification or rejection of the proposed new Constitution”. Meanwhile, the Constitutional
Commission- a body which has also the authority in the writing of the basic charter in Philippine
history since the Malolos Constitution at the turn of the century was organized on June 2, 1986 at
the Batasang Pambansa Building in Diliman, Quezon City. With the Malolos Constitution of

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 16
1898, the 1935 Constitution, and the 1973 Constitution as “working drafts,” the Commission in
addition to committee discussions, public hearings and plenary sessions, conducted public
consultations in different parts of the country. Consequently, the proposed new Constitution was
approved by the Constitutional Commission on the night of Sunday, October 12, 1986.

According to the former President Corazon Aquino, the 1987 “should be “truly reflective
of the aspirations and ideals of the Filipino people” (Gavilan, 2016).

President Corazon Aquino addresses the 1986 Constitutional Commission (ConCom) during its
inaugural session. (Photo from the Official Gazette in Gavilan, 2018)

Among these principles as contained in the new Constitution are the following:
1. Recognition of the aid of Almighty God (see Preamble);
2. Sovereignty of the people through which, the Philippines is a republican and democratic state
(Art. II, Sec. 1); with a tripartite system of government composed of a bicameral legislature (a
Senate composed of twenty-four nationally-elected Senators, and a House of Representatives
constituted by over two hundred representatives elected according to legislative districts), an
independent judiciary, and an executive branch whose powers are exercised singularly by an
elected president.
3. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (see Art., Sec. 6);

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 17
4. Supremacy of civilian authority over the military (see Ibid., Sec. 3);
5. Separation of church and state (see Ibid., Sec. 6);
6. Recognition of the importance of the family as a basic social institution and of the vital role of
the youth in nation-building (see Ibid., Secs. 12,13; Art. XV);
7. Guarantee of human rights (see Art. III, Secs. 1-22);
8. Government through suffrage (see Art. V, Sec. 1);
9. Separation of powers (see Art. VI, Sec. 1);
10. Guarantee of local autonomy (see Art. X, Sec. 2);
11. Independence of the judiciary (see Art. VIII, Sec. 1);
12.High sense of public service morality and accountability of public officers (see Art. XI, Sec. 1);
13. Nationalization of natural resources and certain private enterprises affected with public
interest (see Art. XII, Secs. 2, 3, 17, 18);
14. Non-suability of the State (see Art. XVI, Sec. 3);
15. Rule of the majority; and
16. Government of laws and not of men. Rule of the Majority .Under the new Constitution: a. A
majority vote of all the respective members of the Congress is necessary to elect the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and a majority of all the members
of Congress to concur to a grant of amnesty and to pass a law granting tax exemptions. In
case of a tie in the election for President (or Vice-President), the President shall be chosen by
the majority vote of all the members of both Houses of Congress.

Justice Cortes noted that “the Philippine constitution establishes a highly centralized
unitary system of government and distributes its powers among three departments but assigns to
the president the dominant role in that governmental schem.” (in Desierto, 2009: 393).

Issues and challenges posed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution

According to accounts, “members of the ConCom engaged in heated debates during the
various sessions on many issues, including the death penalty, economic policies, land reform,
form of government, and even the retention of American military bases in Clark and Subic,
among others”. According to ConCom President Cecilia Munoz-Palma, “the ConCom was able

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 18
to finish its work after more or less 111 days and on October 12, 1986, the draft constitution was
passed – with 44 delegates voting for it and two against – and was presented to Aquino 3 days
after” (cited in Gavilan, 2018).

ConCom President Cecilia Munoz-Palma hands over the draft constitution to President Corazon
Aquino. (Photo from the Official Gazette in Gavilan, 2018)

It was on February 2, 1987 when a national plebiscite was held after a nationwide
information campaign on the draft constitution. The question voters had to answer was: "Do you
vote for the ratification of the proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines with the
ordinance appended thereto?”. On February 11, 1987, through Proclamation No. 58, Aquino
proclaimed the results of the plebiscite which was the approval of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. It immediately took effect on that same day (Gavilan, 2018).

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 19
 ACTIVITIES

Name:________________________________ Date:___________________
Professor:____________________________ Score:__________________

I. Fill in the box by comparing and contrasting the four major constitutions in the Philippines in
terms of the following:

1899 Malolos 1935 1973 1987

Constitution Constitution Constitution Constitution
Preamble

The National
Territory

Declaration of
Principles and
State Policies

Executive
Department

Legislative
Department

Judicial
Department

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 20
II. Given the following issues being encountered by the Philippines today, how would you
address the following?

A. A change in the Philippine system of government from unitary to federal system

1. Are you in favor with this proposed amendment in the 1987 Philippine Constitution? Why?
Why not?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________.
2. What do you think are the reasons behind the proposed federal system of the government?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3.What must be the pros and cons of having a federal system of government in the country?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
4.How do you see the Philippines in 10 years after the approval of the federal system of
government?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 21
B. War on Drugs: President Duterte’s Campaign Against Drugs

1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this program.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. What right/s in the constitutions is/are being violated in the implementation of this program?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3. If you are the President, how will you address the issue on drugs?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________.

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 22
REFERENCES

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. 1960. Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic. Quezon City: University of
the Philippines.

Aguilar, F. (2015). Malcolm, G. A. (1921). The Malolos Constitution. The Academy of Political
Science , 91-103. Southeast Asian Studies , 279-311.

Desierto, D. (2009). A Universalist History Of The 1987 Philippine Constitution. Historia

Constitucional, 383-444.

Gavilan, Jodesz. 2018. Fast Facts: 1987 Philippine Constitution. Retrieved from ____________.

Javier, Judette and Nera, Jack Victor. 2007. The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines. Retrieved
from http://elibrary.supremecourt.gov.ph/
Malcolm, G. A. (1921). The Malolos Constitution. The Academy of Political Science , 91-103.

GYDABELLE M. OLAYA 23