You are on page 1of 2

My topic for today pertains to Constitutional Interpretation.

In Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioners, duly appointed and qualified judges
seek to prohibit the commissioner of Internal revenue from making any deduction of withholding
taxes from their salaries.
They alleged that the deduction is contrary to the provision of the 1987 Constitution mandating
that "during their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased".
They argued that the 1987 Constitution does not contain the provision similar to 1973
Constitution which specifically stipulated that no salary of any public officer or employee shall be
exempt from the payment of income tax.
The Supreme Court stated that in case of doubt in the interpretation of the law, the Court must
ascertain the intent of the framers of the Constitution or the law-making body
So the Court referred to the debates, interpellations and opinions expressed by the
constitutional commissioners regarding the provision in question,
The Court then established that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution was to
make the salaries of members of the Judiciary taxable.
_______________
In Francisco v House of Representatives, Chief Justice Hilario Davide was defendant to a prior
impeachment complaint. Four months later, a second impeachment complaint was filed by Rep.
Gilbert Teodoro on the results of the JDF inquiry. Under Section 17 of Rules of Procedure, no
impeachment procedures against the same official cannot be initiated within one year from the
date of a previous impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated. A major issue between the
HOR and the petitioners was on the definition of the word Initiate in the Constitution. The HOR
argued that Initiate did not mean to file.
The Court turned to the Constitution itself which employs the 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.

The Court resorted to statutory construction and reviewed the oral arguments of the
Constitutional Commission; they found that intent of the framers was that initiation means the
act of taking initial action, which constitutes filing.
Supreme Court ruled that the second impeachment complaint was therefore in violation of the
Constitution as it was done within a year of the first complaints initiation.
_______________
Meanwhile in Manila Prince v GSIS, SC ruled that the Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987
Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipino is self-executing.
It 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. Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution
are self-executing.
The Court also defined patrimony in its plain and ordinary meaning... so when the Constitution
speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, but
also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. The Court stated that the Manila Hotel has played
and continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of Philippine history and
culture. In this sense, it is part of the national patrimony of the country.

You might also like