 A.

Ratio Legis Est Anima: Consider Intent of the Framer/Object To Be Accomplished

 B. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat: Construe the Constitution As A Whole

 C. Self-Executing Rather Than Needs An Implementing Statute

 D. Mandatory Rather Than Directory

 E. Prospective Rather than Retroactive

 “Consider intent of the framers/Object to be accomplished”

 The Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or
remedied.

 In construing constitutional law, the history must be taken into consideration

because there are certain considerations rooted in the historical background of the
environment at the time of it adoption. (Legaspi vs Minister of Finance)
 Issue: Whether the 1973 Constitution as amended by Plebiscite-Referendum of
1976, retained the same amendments after it was again amended in the
Plebiscite held on April 7, 1981

 Held: The ancient and familiar rule of constitutional construction that has
consistently maintained its intrinsic and transcendental worth is that the
meaning and understanding conveyed by the language, albeit plain, of any,
of its provisions do not only portray the influence of current events and
developments but likewise the inescapable imperative considerations
rooted in the historical background and environment at the time of its
adoption and thereby caused their being written as part and parcel thereof.
 Issue: Whether or not the right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of Republic Act
No. 3844 is applicable to share tenants

 Held: The Code did not mention tenants, whether leaseholds or share tenants,
because it outlaws share tenancy and envisions the agricultural leasehold
system as its replacement, and the agrarian court’s literal construction would
wreak havoc on and defeat the proclaimed and announced legislative intent
and policy of the state of establishing owner-cultivatorship for the farmers
who invariable were all share tenants before the enactment of the Code and
whom the Code would now uplift to the status of the lessees
 Issue:Whether EO 284 violates Sec. 13, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution

 Held: On its face, the language of Section 13, Article 7 is prohibitory so that it must
be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the
privilege of holding multiple government offices or employment. Verily,
wherever the language used in the constitution is prohibitory, it is to be
understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation.
 “Construe the Constitution As A Whole”

 Every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.

 Provisions should not be construed separately from the rest; it should be

interpreted as a whole and be harmonized with conflicting provisions so as to give
them all force and effect.

 Sections in the constitution with a particular subject should be interpreted together

to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution.
 Issue:Whether the proposal to hold special elections is constitutional and legal

 Held: It is further argued that while synchronization may be constitutionally

mandated, it cannot be used to defeat or to impede the autonomy that the
Constitution granted to the ARMM.

 We find this to be an erroneous approach that violates the basic principle in

constitutional construction ut magis valeat quam pereat: that Constitution is to
be interpreted as a whole, and one mandate should not be given importance
over the other except where the primacy of one over the other is clear.
 “Provisions are complete by themselves and becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary legislation.”

 General Rule: Constitutional provisions are self-executing except when provisions

themselves expressly require legislations to implement them.

 Just because legislation may supplement and add or prescribe a penalty does not
render such provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation.

 In case of doubt, construe such provision as self-executing rather than non-self

executing
 Issue: Whether or not Section 10, Paragraph 2, Article 12 of the the 1987
Constitution is a self-executing provision

 Held: In case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather

than non-self executing. Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the
provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to determine when, or
whether, they shall be effective. These provisions would be subordinated to
the will of the lawmaking body, which could make them entirely meaningless
by simply refusing to pass the needed implementing statute.