Evolution of Philippine Constitution
Malolos Convention
(1898)
 known as the Constitución Política
de Malolos and it was written in
Spanish
 Following the declaration of
independence from Spain on June
12, 1898 and transformation of the
dictatorial government to a
revolutionary government on 23
June
 convened in Barasoain Church in
Malolos (now Malolos City,
Bulacan)
 Pedro Paterno as president and
Gregorio Araneta as vice president
 opposed by Apolinario Mabini,
the Prime Minister of the
revolutionary government.
 ratified on November 29, 1898,
signed into law on December 23,
approved on January 20, 1899
 sanctioned by President Emilio
Aguinaldo on January 21, and
promulgated on January 22
 anchored in democratic traditions
that ultimately had their roots in
American soil, modeled on the
constitutions of France, Belgium,
and Latin American countries
Commonwealth Ferdinand Marcos Constitution
(1935)
 written with an eye to meeting the
approval of the United States
Government as well, so as to
ensure that the U.S. would live up
to its promise to grant the
Philippines independence and not
have a premise to hold onto its
“possession” on the grounds that it
was too politically immature and
hence unready for full, real
independence and shall be known
as the Republic of the Philippines..
 provided for unicameral National
Assembly and the President was
elected to a six-year term without
re-election.
 adopts 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
 ratified on 14 May 1935. amended
in 1940 and in 1947. This version
incorporates all the amendments.
 was submitted to US President
Franklin D. Roosevelt on 18
March 1935. He, in turn, certified
that it conforms with Public Act
(1973)
 On 24 August 1970, Congress
enacted RA No. 6132, otherwise
known as the Constitutional
Convention Act, for the purpose of
convening a Constitutional
Convention.
 While in the process of drafting a
new Constitution, President
Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial
Law on 21 September 1972.
 The draft constitution was
submitted to the Citizen's
Assemblies from January 10 to 17,
1973 for ratification. On 17 January
1973, President Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1102,
announcing the ratification of the
Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines.
 composed of a preamble and 17
articles, provides for the shift from
presidential to parliamentary
system of government
 retains the independence of the
Commission on Elections and
establishes two independent
constitutional bodies [Civil Service
Commission and the Commission
Freedom Constitution
(1987)
 following the People Power
Revolution which ousted
Ferdinand Marcos as president
 Corazon Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3, declaring a
national policy to implement the
reforms mandated by the people,
protecting their basic rights,
adopting a provisional constitution,
and providing for an orderly
translation to a government under a
new constitution.
 Proclamation No. 9, creating a
Constitutional Commission
(popularly abbreviated "Con Com"
in the Philippines) to frame a new
constitution to replace the 1973
Constitution which took effect
during the Marcos martial law
regime
 appointed 50 members to the
Commission, including several
former congressmen, a former
Supreme Court Chief Justice
(Roberto Concepcion), a Catholic
bishop (Teodoro Bacani) and film
director (Lino Brocka)
 finished the draft charter within
 states that the people have
exclusive sovereignty
 It states basic civil rights,
separated the church from the
state, and called for the creation of
an Assembly of Representatives
which would act as the legislative
body.
 It also calls for a Presidential form
of government with the president
elected for a term of four years by
a majority of the Assembly
 the authentic and official
constitution of La Republica
Filipina (Philippine Republic).
 "Nosotros los Representantes del
Pueblo Filipino, convocados
legítimamente para establecer la
justicia, proveer a la defensa
común, promover el bien general
y asegurar los beneficios de la
libertad, implorando el auxilió del
Soberano Legislador del Universo
para alcanzar estos fines, hemos
votado, decretado y sancionado la
siguiente"
1. Apolinario Mabini was against the
Malolos Congress and the Malolos
Constitution, because they clipped the
powers of the president. Mabini
believed that in an emergency such as
the Philippine-American War, a
No. 127 which was passed by the
U.S. Congress on 23 March 1935
and forwarded the same to the
Governor General of the Philippine
Islands for ratification of the
Filipino people
 “The Filipino people, imploring
the aid of Divine Providence, in
order to establish a government
that shall embody their ideals,
conserve and develop the
patrimony of the nation, promote
the general welfare, and secure to
themselves and their posterity the
blessings of independence under a
regime of justice, liberty, and
democracy, do ordain and
promulgate this constitution.”
on Audit] as well as the National
Economic Development Authority
[NEDA].
 constitution was further amended in
1980 and 1981. In the 1980
amendment, the retirement age of
the members of the Judiciary was
extended to 70 years
First, Marcos ordered a viva voce
plebiscite on January 10–15, 1973 in
which the voting age was reduced to
15 to ratify the new Constitution.[2]
Military men were placed prominently
to intimidate voters. Reports indicated
four months after it was convened
 issues were heatedly debated
during the sessions, including on
the form of government to adopt,
the abolition of the death penalty,
the continued retention of the Clark
and Subic American military bases,
and the integration of economic
policies into the Constitution
 ConCom completed their task on
October 12, 1986 and presented the
draft constitution to President
Aquino on October 15, 1986
 On February 11, 1987, the new
constitution was proclaimed
ratified and took effect.
 establishes the Philippines as a
"democratic and republican State",
where "sovereignty resides in the
people and all government
authority emanates from them".
The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest
president should act and decide quickly
without hindrance from the legislature.
In principle, Mabini was wary of
putting all the powers of state in the
hands of one man, but since he was
advising this one man, it was not a
problem—yet. Against Mabini’s
objections, the Malolos Congress
drafted and approved a Constitution,
the draft of which was transmitted to
Emilio Aguinaldo. Upon Mabini’s
advice, Aguinaldo returned it in
December 1898 with a number of
proposed amendments. Congress
refused. It is not well-known that
Mabini had submitted a draft
Constitution for consideration, and so
did his rival Pedro Paterno—but both
were ignored by the Malolos Congress,
which formally adopted its version of
the Constitution on Jan. 20, 1899.
Aguinaldo promulgated it the next day.
Mabini’s letters to the president at this
critical moment, and his stinging
memoirs written while in exile in
Guam, provide an insider’s view into
these events. The Malolos Congress
feared the military and a strong
president, so the Constitution clipped
that mayors and governors were given
quotas for “yes” votes on the
constitution and negative votes were
often not recorded.[3] Results report
that 90 percent of the citizens have
voted for the constitution even though
some communities did not participate
in the “citizens assemblies.”[4] Over
the next few years, Marcos would hold
four more plebiscites—in 1973, 1975,
1976, and 1978—through citizen
assemblies to legitimize the
continuation of martial rule.[5]
Second, he intimidated the Supreme
Court to approve it. Using the stick and
carrot method on the justices of the
Supreme Court, President Marcos was
able to force the Supreme Court to
uphold martial law and the new
constitution. Previously, around 8,000
individuals, including senators, civil
libertarians, journalists, students, and
labor leaders, were arrested and
detained without due process upon the
declaration of martial law.[6] With
many of them filing petitions to the
Supreme Court for habeas corpus, they
challenged the constitutionality of the
proclamation. However, the Supreme
shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to
be seized. • No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress
of grievances. • No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be required for the exercise of
civil or political rights.
their wings and gave more power and
precedence to Congress. At this time,
news of abuses by the military had
reached the ears of Mabini. He issued
orders against torture, illegal arrest and
seizure of property, etc. In the wake of
recent reports of “palit-puri,” or sex in
exchange for favors, committed by
some scum in the police force today,
we read Mabini and wonder how he
could see into the future. In the last
chapter of his “Revolucion Filipina,”
he wrote: “I shall not end these
remarks to my countrymen without
putting on record the boundless disgust
I felt whenever I heard of the rape of
Filipinas by Filipino soldiers. I admit
these were isolated cases, very difficult
to present in times of general disorder
and the uncontrolled outbreak of
passions, but I am sure that the first
instances would not have been
repeated if the commanders concerned
had punished such outrages
energetically and without hesitation.
How shall we get foreigners to respect
our women when we ourselves set the
example of offending them? Can we
Filipino men expect to be respected
Court issued its final decision, in
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, which
essentially validated the constitution.
This would be the final legitimizing
decision on the constitutionality of
Martial Law: in G.R. No. L-35546
September 17, 1974, the Supreme
Court dismissed petitions for habeas
corpus by ruling that martial law was a
political question beyond the
jurisdiction of the court; and that,
furthermore, the court had already
deemed the 1973 Constitution in full
force and effect, replacing the 1935
Constitution. After the landmark
decision, Chief Justice Roberto V.
Concepcion went into early retirement,
50 days before his originally scheduled
retirement date, in silent protest over
the majority in the Javellana v.
Executive Secretary case. He argued
against the validity of the new
constitution and its questionable
aspects, together with Justices Claudio
Teehankee, Calixto Zaldivar, and
Enrique Fernando. Martial law
imposed government control over all
forms of media. On September 22,
1972, Marcos issued Letter of
when our women are not….” Instruction No. 1, ordering the Press
Secretary and Defense Secretary to
assume control over all media outlets.
All periodicals were padlocked,[7] and
media personalities who had criticized
Marcos, his family, or his
administration were taken to Camp
Crame without any charges being filed.
Among them were publishers Joaquin
“Chino” P. Roces (Manila Times) and
Eugenio Lopez Jr. (Manila Chronicle),
and columnists Max Soliven and Luis
D. Beltran.[8] Marcos issued at least
eleven Presidential Decrees that
suppressed press freedom. Journalists
who did not comply with the new
restrictions faced physical threats, libel
suits, or forced resignation.[9] With
such stringent censorship regulations,
most of the periodicals that were
allowed to operate were crony
newspapers, such as Benjamin
Romualdez’s Times Journal, Hans
Menzi’s Bulletin Today, and Roberto
Benedicto’s Philippine Daily Express.
These newspapers offered “bootlicking
reportage” on the country’s economy
while completely eschewing political
issues.[10] Hence, President Marcos’
absolute rule had a “cloak of
legality”[11] and incontestability,
making it nearly impregnable.
However, specific factors converged
and eventually led to the fall of the
dictatorship and the eventual
restoration of democracy in the
Philippines.