http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Constitution_ of_the_Philippines

http://www. chanrobles.com/ philsupremelaw.htm

http://www. lawphil.net/ sitemap.html

Best wishes to you!

In 1986, following the EDSA Revolution of 1986 which ousted Ferdinand Marcos as president, and following on her own inauguration, 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.[2] President Aquino later issued Proclamation No. 9, creating a Constitutional Commission to frame a new constitution to replace the 1973 Constitution which took effect during the martial law regime imposed by her predecessor. President Aquino appointed 50 members to the Commission. The members of the Commission were drawn from varied backgrounds, including several former senators and congressmen, a former Supreme Court Chief Justice (Roberto Concepcion), a Catholic bishop (Teodoro Bacani) and a noted film director (Lino Brocka). President Aquino also deliberately appointed 5 members, including former Labor Minister Blas Ople, who had been allied with President Marcos until the latter’s ouster. After the Commission had convened, it elected as its president Cecilia Munoz Palma, who had emerged as a leading figure in the anti-Marcos opposition following her retirement as the first female Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, .

The Commission finished the draft charter within four months after it was convened. Several 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. Brocka would walk out of the Commission before its completion, and two other delegates would dissent from the final draft. Nonetheless, a majority of voters approved the Constitution in a plebiscite held on February 2, 1987.

Preamble of the 1987 Constitution

The Preamble reads:

“ We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. ”

[edit] Significant Features of the 1987 Constitution

The Constitution establishes the Philippines as a “democratic and republican State”, where “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”. (Section 1, Article II) Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the powers of the national government are exercised in main by three branches — the executive branch headed by the President, the legislative branch composed of Congress and the judicial branch with the Supreme Court occupying the highest tier of the judiciary. The President and the members of Congress are directly elected by the people, while the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President from a list formed by the Judicial and Bar Council. As with the American system of government, it is Congress which enacts the laws, subject to the veto power of the President which may nonetheless be overturned by 2/3rds vote of Congress. (Section 27(1), Article VI) The President has the constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws (Section 17, Article VII), while the courts are expressly granted the power of judicial review (Section 1, Article VIII), including the power to nullify or interpret laws. The President is also recognized as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. (Section 18, Article VII)

The Constitution also establishes limited political autonomy to the local government units that act as the municipal governments for provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. (Section 1, Article X) Local governments are generally considered as falling under the executive branch, yet local legislation requires enactment by duly elected local legislative bodies. The The Constitution (Section 3, Article X) mandated that the Congress would enact a Local Government Code. The Congress duly enacted Republic Act No. 7160, The Local Government Code of 1991, which became effective on 1 January 1992.[3] The Supreme Court has noted that the Bill of Rights “occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law”.[4] The Bill of Rights, contained in Article III, enumerates the specific protections against State power. Many of these guarantees are similar to those provided in the American constitution and other democratic constitutions, including the due process and equal protection clause, the right against unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to free speech and the free exercise of religion, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to habeas corpus. The scope and limitations to these rights have largely been determined by Philippine Supreme Court decisions.

Outside of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution also contains several other provisions enumerating various state policies including, i.e., the affirmation of labor “as a primary social economic force” (Section 14, Article II); the equal protection of “the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception” (Section 12, Article II); the “Filipino family as the foundation of the nation” (Article XV, Section 1); the recognition of Filipino as “the national language of the Philippines” (Section 6, Article XIV), and even a requirement that “all educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors.” (Section 19.1, Article XIV) Whether these provisions may, by themselves, be the source of enforceable rights without accompanying legislation has been the subject of considerable debate in the legal sphere and within the Supreme Court. The Court, for example, has ruled that a provision requiring that the State “guarantee equal access to opportunities to public service” could not be enforced without accompanying legislation, and thus could not bar the disallowance of so-called “nuisance candidates” in presidential elections.[5] But in another case, the Court held that a provision requiring that the State “protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology” did not require implementing legislation to become the source of operative rights.[6]