Scribd
Upload
69 views

The Constitution The Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: 267 SCRA 408 (1997) (Bellosillo) )

The document discusses several key topics regarding the Philippine Constitution: 1) The doctrine of constitutional supremacy establishes that any law or contract that violates the Constitution is null and void. 2) Constitutional provisions can be self-executing, meaning they become operative without additional legislation, or non-self-executing, requiring supplementary laws. Provisions are presumed to be self-executing. 3) Amendments or revisions to the Constitution can be proposed through Congress, a constitutional convention, or a people's initiative process. Proposed changes must be ratified through a plebiscite.

Uploaded by

Joana Rose Fantonial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views

The Constitution The Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: 267 SCRA 408 (1997) (Bellosillo) )

The document discusses several key topics regarding the Philippine Constitution: 1) The doctrine of constitutional supremacy establishes that any law or contract that violates the Constitution is null and void. 2) Constitutional provisions can be self-executing, meaning they become operative without additional legislation, or non-self-executing, requiring supplementary laws. Provisions are presumed to be self-executing. 3) Amendments or revisions to the Constitution can be proposed through Congress, a constitutional convention, or a people's initiative process. Proposed changes must be ratified through a plebiscite.

Uploaded by

Joana Rose Fantonial
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

THE CONSTITUTION

The Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

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. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
267 SCRA 408 [1997] [Bellosillo])

Self-executing and Non-self-executing Provisions of the Constitution

A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in


Article 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. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997] [Bellosillo])

Provisions of the Constitution are presumed to be Self-executing

Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce


a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions are self-
executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the power to ignore and
practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. This can be cataclysmic.
(Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408 [1997] [Bellosillo])
AMENDMENTS OR REVISION
(Article XVII, 1987 Constitution)

Ways of Proposing Amendments or Revision

One: Congress may directly propose amendments or revision by three-


fourths (3/4) vote of all its members. In such a case, Congress will not be acting
as a legislative body but rather, as a constituent assembly – a non-legislative
function of Congress.

Another: through a Constitutional Convention. A constitutional convention is


a body separate and distinct from that of the Congress itself whose members
shall be elected by the people of their respective districts.

There are two (2) ways by which a constitutional convention may be


convened; First, Congress may directly call a constitutional convention, by two-
thirds of all its members; second, Congress, instead of directly calling a
constitutional convention, may submit the issue of calling such a convention to
the people, by majority vote of all its members.

A third: through People’s Initiative.

People’s initiative on the Constitution is done through a petition, but the


petition will have to be signed by at least twelve (12) percent of the total number
of registered voters provided that in each legislative district, at least three (3)
percent of the registered voters therein shall sign the petition.

People’s initiative on the Constitution is limited only to proposing


amendments to the Constitution, not revision thereof. (Santiago v. COMELEC)

The provisions of R.A. No 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Law)


dealing with initiative on the constitution implements people’s initiative on the
Constitution under Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution.

Ratification

Any proposed amendment or revision of the Constitution will have to be


submitted to the people in a plebiscite to be ratified by majority of the voters.
The Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality of a Legislative or Executive
Act

A legislative or executive act that is declared void for being


unconstitutional cannot give rise to any right or obligation. (Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation, G.R. No. 187485, October 8,
2013 cited in Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III,
et al. G.R. No., 209287, 728 SCRA 1, July 1, 2014, En Banc [Bersamin])

The Operative Fact Doctrine

The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or


executive act prior to the determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative
fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or
disregarded. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its
effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or
unconstitutional law produces no effect. But its use must be subjected to great
scrutiny and circumspection, and it cannot be invoked to validate an
unconstitutional law or executive act, but is resorted to only as a matter of equity
and fair play. It applies only to cases where extraordinary circumstances exist,
and only when the extraordinary circumstances have met the stringent
conditions that will permit its application. (Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v.
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al. G.R. No., 209287, 728 SCRA 1, July 1, 2014,
En Banc [Bersamin])

Operative Fact Doctrine Applied in the DAP (Disbursement Acceleration


Program) Case

We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and


implementation of the DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity
and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related
issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.

As already mentioned, the implementation of the DAP resulted into the


use of savings pooled by the Executive to finance the PAPs that were not covered
in the GAA, or that did not have proper appropriation covers, as well as to
augment items pertaining to other departments of the Government in clear
violation of the Constitution. To declare the implementation of the DAP
unconstitutional without recognizing that its prior implementation constituted
an operative fact that produced consequences in the real as well as juristic worlds
of the Government and the Nation is to be impractical and unfair. Unless the
doctrine is held to apply, the Executive as the disburser and the offices under it
and elsewhere as the recipients could be required to undo everything that they
had implemented in good faith under the DAP. That scenario would be
enormously burdensome for the Government. Equity alleviates such burden.

The other side of the coin is that it has been adequately shown as to be
beyond debate that the implementation of the DAP yielded undeniably positive
results that enhanced the economic welfare of the country. To count the positive
results may be impossible, but the visible ones, like public infrastructure, could
easily include roads, bridges, homes for the homeless, hospitals, classrooms and
the like. Not to apply the doctrine of operative fact to the DAP could literally
cause the physical undoing of such worthy results by destruction, and would
result in most undesirable wastefulness. (Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v.
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al. G.R. No., 209287, 728 SCRA 1, July 1, 2014,
En Banc [Bersamin])

The Doctrine of Operative Fact Extends as well to a Void or Unconstitutional


Executive Act

The term executive act is broad enough to include any and all acts of the
Executive, including those that are quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial in nature.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Roque Power Corporation (G.R. No.


187485, October 8, 2013), the Court likewise declared that “for the operative act
doctrine to apply, there must be a ‘legislative or executive measure,’ meaning a
law or executive issuance.” Thus, the Court opined there that the operative fact
doctrine did not apply to a mere administrative practice of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, x x x.

It is clear from the foregoing that the adoption and the implementation of
the DAP and its related issuances were executive acts. The DAP itself, as a
policy, transcended a merely administrative practice especially after the
Executive, through the DBM, implemented it by issuing various memoranda and
circulars. (Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et
al. G.R. No., 209287, 728 SCRA 1, July 1, 2014, En Banc [Bersamin])
The Presumption of Good Faith Stands in the DAP Case despite the Obiter
Pronouncement

The quoted text of paragraphs 3 and 4 shows that the Court has neither
thrown out the presumption of good faith nor imputed bad faith to the authors,
proponents and implementers of the DAP. The contrary is true, because the
Court has still presumed their good faith by pointing out that “the doctrine of
operative fact x x x cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementers of
the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper
tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.” X x x

It is equally important to stress that the ascertainment of good faith, or the


lack of it, and the determination of whether or not due diligence and prudence
were exercised, are questions of fact. The want of good faith is thus better
determined by tribunals other than this Court, which is not a trier of facts.

For sure, the Court cannot jettison the presumption of good faith in this or
in any other case. The presumption is a matter of law. It has had a long history.
Indeed, good faith has long been established as a legal principle even in the
heydays of the Roman Empire. X x x

Relevantly the authors, proponents and implementers of the DAP, being


public officers, further enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their functions. This presumption is necessary because they are clothed with
some part of the sovereignty of the State, and because they act in the interest of
the public as required by law. However, the presumption may be disputed.

At any rate, the Court has agreed during its deliberations to extend to the
proponents and the implementers of the DAP the benefit of the doctrine of
operative fact. This is because they had nothing to do at all with the adoption of
the invalid acts and practices. (Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. v. Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., G.R. No. 209287, February 3, 2015, En Banc
[Bersamin], Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration)

You might also like