how does the malolos constitution define sovereignty essay brainly

Presidency of the Revolutionary Government of the Philippines. D. Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy, President of the Revolutionary Government of the Philippines and Captain General and Commander-in-Chief of its Army. Know all Filipino citizens: That the Assembly of Representatives of the nation, by virtue of its sovereign power, has decreed and I have sanctioned the political Constitution of the state.

I command all the authorities, civil as well as military, of whatever class or rank, to keep it and cause it to be kept, complied with and executed in all its parts, because it is the sovereign will of the Filipino people.

Done at Malolos , on the twenty-first of January in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-nine .

EMILIO AGUINALDO

The Konstitusyon Project

The malolos constitution: the best philippine constitution.

122 years ago today, the First Philippine Republic was proclaimed with the ratification of its constitution, the one we now know today as the Malolos Constitution . Unfortunately, this constitution, along with the republic, did not realize its full potential with the outbreak of the Philippine-American War a month later which led to the country falling under American rule by 1901.

Unfortunately, the legacy of the Malolos Constitution was forgotten as succeeding constitutions sought inspiration elsewhere rather than from the one the Malolos Constitution established. Thus as the discussions on constitutional reform flare up anew, it is time to reexamine this constitution and see if we can derive from it.

Best and compatible inspirations to draw from

According to the constitution’s primary author Felipe Calderon, he drew inspiration in crafting the Malolos Constitution from the Spanish constitution of 1812, the French constitution of 1793, as well as the constitutions in force at that time in Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. This is in contrast with the succeeding constitutions of the country, which primarily drew inspiration from the United States constitution and not much else.

The fact that the Malolos Constitution took inspiration from such diverse sources indicated that the Malolos delegates were at the very least enthusiastic to learn from the examples of as many countries as possible. And they did not just look at random countries. They specifically looked at countries that share a history and heritage with ours, as was the case for Spain and various countries in the Americas that used to be Spanish colonies.

They also looked at those that have a well-established legacy of liberty and democratic values. And no, it is not the United States but France. Remember that the French Revolution is one historical event that piqued the interest of many Filipinos as they were beginning to consider the idea of independence from Spain, like Andres Bonifacio who famously had a book on that particular subject.

Suffice to say, the Malolos delegates were passionate about crafting a good constitution for the Philippines, one that espoused the ideals of democracy and liberty while meets the unique historical and cultural landscape of the country. And they weren’t shy of learning and taking inspiration from a variety of sources that they had available.

Concise and comprehensible document

Whether reading the original in Spanish or its translations in English or Tagalog, the Malolos Constitution is itself not a lengthy document. Granted the needs of a state were not as much then as they would be now and the constitution itself was vague or silent on important provisions, it was able to sufficiently cover what needed to be covered as concise as possible.

Also worth noting is that this constitution was written quite comprehensibly. Easy enough to read for even non-lawyers to appreciate. There were no legalese gobbledygook to baffle the common folk and it was as straightforward as it can get. That is an achievement in itself considering a sizeable portion of the Malolos Congress delegates were lawyers.

Foundations for parliamentarism

A striking feature of the Malolos Constitution is that while it envisioned a republican state with the President as head, it did not actually establish a presidential system that we have today. Instead, what it established was sort of a parliamentary government , in which the President of the Republic is actually to be elected by the legislature, which the constitution calls the “Assembly of Representatives of the Nation.” This also meant the President would be answerable to the Assembly ensuring greater accountability unlike in the present presidential system.

Interestingly, while the President of the Republic is considered the head of state, the executive powers of a head of government lies with him as well. However, he does not hold all the powers of the executive. Instead these powers are exercised by the Council of Government, headed by a President of the Council, which scholars consider as the equivalent of a Prime Minister, and the cabinet secretaries.

Another power structure established in the constitution is the Permanent Commission, which has some of the powers of legislature and that of a head of state. The commission’s powers include:

• Declare whether or not there is sufficient cause to take legal action against the President, the Representatives, the Secretaries of Government, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Solicitor General
• Convene the Assembly in “extraordinary session” in certain cases.
• Act on unresolved matters as may be determined accordingly
• Substitute the Assembly in performing the Assembly’s powers except in creating and passing laws.

One can imagine that had the First Philippine Republic survived longer, the structure of government have been amended further to make the structure somewhat simpler. It might probably go by the French example which had the full parliamentary system in place by then (before Charles de Gaulle made the French government a semi-presidential one). In any case, a parliamentary system of some form would have made the difference for the country.

No (restrictive) economic policies

Another sensible thing the delegates of the Malolos Congress did was to make sure there were no restrictive economic policies that were included in the constitution they drafted. Come to think of it, that constitution had no economic policies stated…at all. And that is because the delegates knew all to well that a constitution should focus on establishing the basic foundations of a state, particularly the identity of the state, the rights of the people, and the form of government that shall administer the state.

It must also be noted that at the time, the Philippines was experiencing economic growth thanks in part to foreign-owned businesses that set up shop in the country. As an example, it was a British trading firm, JM Fleming and Co., that provided employment to Andres Bonifacio before he went on to establish the Katipunan. The influx continued after the Philippine Revolution ended, with the likes of Swiss businessman Frederick Zuellig establishing Zuellig Pharma in the country in 1903 .

Room for growth

While the Malolos Constitution itself was a short document and lacked some important provisions, it was neither a restricted nor restrictive constitution. In fact, there is room for further growth and evolution for this constitution had the First Philippine Republic managed to survive beyond the Philippine-American War. Considering that the First Philippine Republic envisioned the Mindanao, including the Moro-held areas as part of the country, it can be assumed that some arrangements would have to be made in order to fully integrate the area into the country. And a federal arrangement would have been one of the considerations to be made.

In fact, the federalism question was already raised during the time the constitution was being drafted, as the revolutionaries in Iloilo were keen on having a decentralized government in which Panay would be a federal state under the Philippine Republic. And while the Philippine Republic under President Emilio Aguinaldo did not oppose the foundation of that federal state that ould be known as the Estado Federal de Visayas on December 2, 1898, the constitution would not have a provision for a federal system. Eventually, the Malolos central government seemed to have instigated the fall of the federal state later in 1899.

Reevaluation

With all its shortcomings and its limited scope compared to subsequent Philippine constitutions, the Malolos Constitution remains the standard not only because it is the constitution of what is considered as the first republic in Asia. It was an example of a constitution that emulated not only the best of what the world had to offer but also the ones that were well-suited to the political, cultural, and economic conditions of the country. to the Moreso, it was a constitution that did not restrict itself and the country it is written for and made room for the continuing evolution and development of the country.

It is high time we look again at the Malolos Constitution and draw from its legacy a way for the Philippines to move forward and onward with a better constitution that we deserve.

Share this:

• Agri-Commodities
• Asean Economic Community
• Banking & Finance
• Entrepreneur
• Executive Views
• Export Unlimited
• Harvard Management Update
• Monday Morning
• Mutual Funds
• Stock Market Outlook
• The Integrity Initiative
• Editorial cartoon
• Design&Space
• Digital Life
• 360° Review
• Biodiversity
• Environment
• Envoys & Expats
• Health & Fitness
• Mission: PHL
• Perspective
• Today in History
• Tony&Nick
• When I Was 25
• Wine & Dine
• Live & In Quarantine
• Bulletin Board
• Public Service
• The Broader Look

Today’s front page, Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Asia’s Cradle of Freedom: The Malolos Constitution and the First Philippine Republic  

• Dr. Pablo S. Trillana III
• January 17, 2022
• 5 minute read

On January 21 and 23, 2022, the Philippines will commemorate two landmark events: the 123rd anniversaries of Aguinaldo’s proclamation of the Malolos Constitution and his inauguration of the First Philippine Republic at the Barasoain Church in Malolos, Bulacan. In the saga of constitution-making in the world, it was the first constitutional Republic in all of then colonized Asia. We were the first to open the floodgates of freedom and independence in the region. And when people began thinking differently from yesterday as we did then, it changed the furrowed fields of colonial history into the recognizable faces of today’s independent and constitution-empowered Asia. We were Asia’s cradle of freedom.

Magellan’s defeat in the Battle of Mactan on April 27, 1521 foiled Spain’s first attempt to colonize the islands and showed our unquenchable desire to create our own communities of imagined perfection.  The 1565 second wave of Spanish conquest succeeded in pushing back our aspirations into colonial submission that lasted for more than three hundred long years. But we never lost an abiding faith in dreams of freedom and self-government.

Our ancient heart was both enduring and patient. The Cadiz Constitution of 1812 declared Spain’s dominions overseas (including the Philippines) as part of the Spanish nation and their subjects as citizens of Spain. We were given a seat in constitutional governance and we sent Ventura de los Reyes of Vigan as our representative to the Spanish Cortez. It was a quantum leap of forward movement that stoke the ancient fires of self- governance. But Spain suffered difficulties and decided, in 1837, to govern the islands through special laws. Our seat in the table of constitutional governance vanished and we were reduced to being governed through special laws.  

We grieved against our Spanish overlords. Our discontent smoldered and, from 1800 to 1872, we made them feel our lamentations with eleven, open revolts. But we were ignored, suppressed.  

When they garroted the innocent priests (Gomez, Burgos and Zamora) on February 17, 1872, our ancient heart not only grieved. It was incensed. And the boys of 1872 grew into the heroes of the pen, the sword and the moral compass. Almost single-handedly, Rizal gave clarity and voice to our discontent and created a climate of opinion that grew into a call for nationhood. The Katipuneros scrawled the call, “Viva La Independencia de Filipinas,” on the walls of Bernardo Carpio’s legendary Pamitinan caves in Montalban (now Rodriguez, Rizal) during the Holy Week of April 1895. A year later, in August 1896, Bonifacio and Aguinaldo would bring that call to the battlefields in an irrevocable cry to separate from Spain.

In those tumultuous yet luminous struggles against Spain, the boys of 1872 became the men and women of 1896. Even as they were fighting the Wars of Philippine Independence, first against Spain in swift decline (1896-1898) and then against America in swift ascent (1899-1901), they were also engaged in the task of state-ordering and nation-building.

When the Katipunan was being reorganized in late 1896 into a revolutionary government, General Edilberto Evangelista submitted a constitution but it remained unpromulgated. When Aguinaldo left Cavite for Bulacan in 1897, he established the Biak-na-Bato Republic and promulgated its constitution as prepared by Felix Ferrer and Isabelo Artacho. The Truce of Biak-na-Bato (December 15, 1897) forced Aguinaldo to go to Hong Kong in exile. Burning with revolutionary fervor, those he left behind continued to build the institutions of state order. In 1898, they framed the Makabulos Constitution of Tarlac and Jacinto’s Pagkakatatag ng Pamahalaan sa Hukuman ng Silangan.  

After Spain’s defeat by the American Navy Squadron in the mock battle of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, Aguinaldo returned to Manila within the month (May 19, 1898) and brought with him a constitution drafted by Mariano Ponce. Aguinaldo swiftly resumed the war. He declared independence in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898, convened the Malolos Congress on September 15, 1898, proclaimed the Malolos Constitution on January 21, 1899, inaugurated the First Philippine Republic two days later, and became our first President. It was classic state-ordering in times of war. And the Malolos Constitution and the First Philippine Republic became the pinnacle achievements of our own free choice.  

Within a month, however, Aguinaldo and the revolutionaries rebooted to face a second colonizer, the Americans. Spain had ceded the Philippines to the Americans for $20 million in the Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898). The wealthy industrialist (Andrew Carnegie) offered to pay the money to keep the Philippines independent and free. But the islands were geopolitical pivots, both beautiful and irresistible, in the great, shimmering Asia-Pacific region and the Americans were expanding their world of commerce and Manifest Destiny. They snapped the possession from Spain, ship-loaded 72,000 soldiers to the islands, bankrolled the war with $300 million, and subdued the country with the final capture of Aguinaldo in Palanan, Isabela on March 23, 1901.   

Yet the belly-fire of divergent constitution-framing did not die. In 1899, the local government of Negros proclaimed the Constitution of the Negros Canton with a federal form of government. In 1902, Macario Sakay promulgated a constitution and established the Tagalog Republic in Southern Luzon. And in 1913, Ricarte attempted to rekindle the fires of revolution and published his Rizaline Constitution. But the Americans preferred to breathe the fires of conquest and commerce.   

The sublime desire for self-government and the defeat of the Spaniards, however, broke centuries of repression into the glory days of the Malolos Constitution and the First Philippine Republic. Though short-lived, both demonstrated our capacity for social ordering through the powerful impulse of law-making. The Malolos Constitution implored the aid of the Almighty in the establishment of the nation-state and created a government that was popular, representative and responsible. It defined Filipino citizenship and clarified the rights and liberties as well as the duties and responsibilities of citizens.

It divided the powers of government between the Assembly of Representatives elected in accordance with law (the legislature), the President of the Republic (the executive) elected by the Assembly and the Supreme Court and other courts as organized by law (the judiciary). The Assembly was to choose the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the President. And the Malolos Constitution instituted provincial assemblies for the local governance of the islands.

The unique feature of the Malolos Constitution was the supremacy of the legislature with its Permanent Commission, selected from Members of the Assembly, who could assume, during the recesses of the Assembly, all legislative powers including the power to adopt emergency measures. It was a hybrid parliamentary form of government with ideas that flowed from the Cadiz Constitution and the constitutions from France, Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.

Conceived in sacrifice and blood, the Malolos Constitution and the First Philippine Republic became bedrocks of future constitution-making and nation-building in the country. To remember them is to honor them.  

The author, Dr. Pablo S. Trillana III was a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, a Professor of Constitutional Law (San Beda) and a Littauer Fellow Awardee, Kennedy School (Harvard).

2022 Samsung QLED and Lifestyle TVs recognized by top global certification institutes for eye comfort, safety and color accuracy

Achieve a better you this 2022 with these deals at shopee’s brands spotlight festival.

Three generations of excellence: How Mapúa continues to shape the lives of its graduates

• March 21, 2024

Embracing individuality in education

PetroGreen funds scholarship program for Mapúa Students in Davao

FitFlop re-sets brand presentation for Spring 24

Unboxing vivo V30, price starts at Php 24,999

• March 20, 2024

PHL 2nd ‘happiest’ country in SE Asia: report

Meralco boosts investments to improve service reliability and support infrastructure development 

Maya accelerates ‘digi-palengke’ thrust in Cavite

Shopee opens 2024 Apprentice Program to mentor young tech trailblazers

Pioneer Insurance powers car sharing start-up DOON

The 75th PAL Interclub: Celebrating a brilliant legacy

Embark on an unforgettable adventure at Timezone Marquee Mall, Pampanga

AIA Philippines launches comprehensive plan to protect Filipinos at any life stage

Building hope in Tuguegarao: Bahayanihan initiative constructs homes for a brighter future 

Watch vivo V30 Series Grand Launch on March 20 

NU.U Asia launches #YesToSummer campaign

• March 19, 2024

HUGO Watches introduces newest collections at exclusive pop-up store in SM Makati 

Empowering women entrepreneurs across Southeast Asia

SB Finance’s eSALAD wins Best Loan Offering at 15th Retail Banker International Asia Trailblazer Awards

Parokya Ni Edgar performed at the HONOR X9b 5G Bagsakan Concert

• March 18, 2024

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

MALOLOS CONSTITUTION POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

We, the Representatives of the Filipino people, lawfully convened, in order to establish justice, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the benefits of liberty, imploring the aid of the Sovereign legislator of the Universe for the attainment of these ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following:

POLITICAL CONSTITUTION TITLE I

Of the Republic

The political association of all the Filipinos constitutes a nation, whose states is called the Philippine Republic.

The Philippine Republic is free and independent.

Sovereignty resides exclusively in the people.

TITLE II Of the government

The Government of the Republic is popular, representative, alternative, and responsible, and is exercised by three distinct powers, called the legislature, the executive, and the judicial. Two or more of these powers shall never be vested in one person or corporation; neither shall the legislative power be intrusted to a single individual. TITLE III Of religion

The state recognizes the freedom and equality of religious worships, as well as the separation of the church and the state.

TITLE IV Of the Filipinos and their national and individual rights

The following are Filipinos:

All persons born in Philippines territory. A vessel flying the Philippine flag shall, for this purpose, be considered a portion of the Philippine territory.

The children of a Filipino father or mother, although born outside of the Philippines.

Foreigners who have obtained a certificate of naturalization.

Those who, without this, have acquired residence ("vecindad") in any town of the Philippine territory.

Residence is considered as acquired by staying two years without interruption in any locality of the Philippine territory, having an open abode and a known mode of living, and contributing to all the charges of the nation. The condition of being a Filipino is lost in accordance with the laws.

No Filipino or foreigner shall be arrested of imprisoned except by reason of a crime and in accordance with law.

All persons detained shall be released or delivered to the judicial authority within the twenty-four hours following the act of detention. All arrest shall be without effect or shall be carried to commitment within the seventy-two hours following the delivery of the detained person to a competent judge. Notice of the order issued shall be given to the interested party within the same period.

No Filipino shall be imprisoned except by virtue of a writ issued by a competent judge. The decree under which the writ is issue shall be ratified or confirmed, the presumed criminal having been heard, within the seventy-two hours following the act of commitment.

No person shall enter the domicile of a Filipino or foreigner residing in the Philippine Islands without his consent, except in urgent cases of fire, flood, earthquake, or other similar danger, or of unlawful aggression proceeding from within, or in order to assist a person within calling for help. Outside of these cases, the entrance into the domicil of a Filipino or foreigner residing in the Philippine Islands, and the searching of his papers or effects, can only be decreed by a competent judge and executed in the daytime. The searching of these papers and effects shall always be done in presence of the interested party or of a member of his family, and, in their absence, of two witnesses residing in the same town ( pueblo). However, if an offender found in flagrante and pursued by the authorities or their agents should take refuge in his domicil, these may enter the same, but only for the purpose of his apprehension If he should take refuge in the domicil of another, request should first be made of the latter.

No Filipino shall be compelled to change his domicil or residence except by virtue of a final judgment.

In no case can correspondence confined to the post-office be detained or opened by government authorities, nor can those made by telegraph or telephone be detained. But, by virtue of a decree by a competent judge, any correspondence can be detained and that carried through the mails may also be opened in the presence of the accused.

All decrees of imprisonment, for the search of domicil, or for the detention of correspondence, whether written, telegraphic, or by telephone, shall be for cause. If the decree should lack this requisite, or if the causes on which it may be founded are judicially declared unlawful or manifestly insufficient, the person who may have been detained, shall have the right to demand the liabilities which ensue.

No Filipino shall be prosecuted or sentenced except by a judge or tribunal, who, by virtue of the laws in force prior to the commission of the crime, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, and in the form which the latter prescribed.

Outside of the cases prescribed in this Constitution, all persons detained or imprisoned without the legal formalities shall be discharged upon their own petition or that of any Filipino. The laws shall determine the form if proceeding summarily in this case, as well as the personal and pecuniary liabilities incurred by the person who may order, execute, or cause to be execute, the illegal detention or imprisonment.

No person shall be deprived temporarily or permanently of his property or rights, or disturbed in his possession, except by virtue of a judicial sentence. Those functionaries who, under any pretext, should infringe this provision, shall be personally responsible for the damage caused.

No person shall be deprived of his property except by reason of public necessity and welfare, previously justified and declared by the proper authority, and after paying indemnity to the owner prior to the act of expropriation.

No person shall be obliged to pay any tax which has not been voted upon by the Assembly or by the public corporations legally authorized to impose it, and whose assessment is not made in the form prescribed by law.

No Filipino in the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights shall be hindered in the free exercise of the same.

Neither shall any Filipino be deprived of:

The right of expressing freely his ideas and opinions either by word or by writing, availing himself of the press or any other similar means.

The right of joining any association for all the objects of human life which may not be contrary to public morals; and finally,

Of the right to petition, individually collectively, the different departments of government and the public authorities.

The right of petition shall not be exercised through any kind of armed force.

The exercise of the rights expressed in the preceding article shall be subject to the general provisions which regulate them.

Crimes committed upon the occasion of the exercise of the rights granted in this title shall be punished by the courts in accordance with the ordinary laws.

Any Filipino can found and maintain establishments of instruction or education, in accordance with the regulations that may be established. Popular education shall be obligatory and gratuitous in the schools of the nation.

Any foreigner may establish himself freely in Philippine territory, subject to the provisions governing the matter, exercising therein his industry, or devoting himself to any profession for the exercise of which the law does not require any certificates of fitness from the national authorities.

No Filipino who is in the full enjoyment of his political and civil right shall be hindered from going freely from the territory, nor from removing his residence or property to a foreign country, without prejudice to the obligation to contribute to the military service and the maintenance of the public charges.

A foreigner who has not been naturalized shall not exercise in the Philippines any office to which any authority or jurisdiction is attached.

Every Filipino is obliged to defend the country with arms when he is called upon by the law, and to contribute to the expenses of the state in proportion to his holdings.

The enumeration of the rights granted in this title does not imply the prohibition of any others not expressly stated.

No previous authorization shall be necessary for the prosecution of public functionaries before ordinary tribunals, whatever may be the crime they have committed. A superior order shall not exempt them from responsibility for the manifest, clear, and determinate infraction of a constitutional provision. In other cases, it shall only exempt the agents who do not exercise any authority.

The guarantees provided for in articles 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 20, shall not be suspended in the Republic nor in any part of it, but only temporarily and by means of a law, when the security of the state in extraordinary circumstances requires it. This having been promulgated in the territory to which it may apply, special law shall govern during such suspension, according to what the circumstances may demand. The latter as well as the former shall be voted in the national Assembly, and in case this is closed, the government is authorized to issue the same, in conjunction with the permanent commission, without prejudice to the calling of the former at the shortest possible time and giving account of what may have been done. But neither one nor the other law shall suspend any other guarantees than those mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, nor authorize the government to banish or deport any Filipino from the country. In no case can the military or civil heads establish any penalty other than that previously provided by law.

In the Philippine Republic no person shall be tried under a special law or by special tribunals. No person or corporation shall have privileges nor emoluments except as a compensation for public service which are fixed. " El fuero de Guerra y marina" ( the jurisdiction, privileges and powers of the army and navy) shall extend solely to the crimes and misdemeanors having intimate connection with military and naval discipline.

No Filipino shall establish rights of primogeniture in succession ( "mayorazgos") , nor institutions entailing property, nor institutions entailing property, nor accept honors, decoration of orders (" condecoraciones") or titles of honor and nobility from foreign nations without authorization of the government. Neither shall the government of the Republic establish institutions specified in the previous paragraph, nor grant honors, decoration of orders ( "condecoraciones") , or titles of honor and nobility to any Filipino. The nation may, however, reward by special law approved by the Assembly eminent services rendered by citizens to their country.

TITLE V Of the Legislative Powers ARTICLE 33

The legislative power shall be exercised by an Assembly of Representatives of the nation. The Assembly shall be organized in the form and under the conditions determined by the law which may be passed to that effect.

The members of the Assembly shall represent the whole nation and not exclusively the voters who chose them.

No Representative can receive from his electors any imperative instruction.

The Assembly shall meet every year. The president of the Republic has the prerogative to convoke it, suspend and close its sessions and dissolve it, with its concurrence or with that of the permanent commission in its default, and within the periods established by law.

The Assembly shall be open at least three months each year without including in this time that which is required for its organization. The President of the Republic shall convoke it on the 15 th April at the latest.

In an extraordinary case, he may convoke it outside of the legal period, with the concurrence of the permanent commission, and prolong the legislature when the term does not exceed one month, and when this is not done more than two times in the same legislature.

The National Assembly, together with the extraordinary Representatives, shall form the constituent assembly in order to proceed to the modification of the Constitution and to the election of a new President, convoked at least one month prior to the expiration of the power of the former. In case of the death or resignation of the president of the Republic, the Assembly shall meet immediately in its own right and at the call of the President or of the permanent commission.

In the meantime, while the choice of the President of the Republic has not yet taken place, his powers shall be exercised by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, who in his turn shall be relieved by a member of this tribunal, according to the laws.

Any meeting of the Assembly held outside of the period of the ordinary legislature shall be illegal and void. From this is excepted the case provided for in article 39, and that where the Assembly is constituted into a tribunal of justice, in which case it cannot exercise other that judicial functions.

The sessions of the Assembly shall be public. However, they can be made secret at the petition of a certain number of its members, fixed by the rules, it being decided afterwards by an absolute majority of votes of the members present whether the discussion of the same should be continued in public.

The President of the Republic shall communicate with the Assembly by means of messages, which shall be read from the rostrum by a Secretary of the government. The Secretaries of the government shall have a seat in the Assembly with the right to take the floor whenever they request it, and may be represented in the discussion of nay particular project by commissioner designated by decree of the President of the Republic.

The Assembly may be constituted into a judicial tribunal, by means of a decree issued by it, or by the permanent commission, in its absence, or by the President of the Republic at the proposal of the Solicitor General or of the council of the government , in order to try crimes committed against the security of the state by the President of the Republic and the members of the council of the government, by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and by the Solicitor General of the nation. The laws shall determine the mode of procedure for the accusation, trial ( instruccion) , and pardon.

No member of the Assembly shall be prosecuted or molested for the opinions which may have expressed or the votes which he may have cast in the performance of his office.

No member of the Assembly shall be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding without previous authorization from the same or the permanent commission, to which an account of the act shall immediately be given for proper action. The imprisonment, detention, or apprehension of any member of the Assembly shall not take place without previous authority from the same or the permanent commission. But once notice of the act of commitment has been given to the Assembly, responsibility ensues, if within two days following the notice it does not authorize the detention or does not show the reasons upon which its refusal is founded.

The national Assembly shall, furthermore, have the following powers:

To make for its internal government.

To examine the legality of the elections and the legal qualifications of its member elect.

To appoint its president, vice-president, and secretaries upon its organization.

While the Assembly has not been involved, its president, vice-president, and secretaries shall continue in their office during four legislatures; and

To accept resignations presented by its members, and to grant leaves of absence according to the rules.

No bill shall become law without having been previously voted upon by the Assembly. In order to pass any law, there must be present in the Assembly at least a fourth part of the total number of members whose certificates of election have been approved and who have taken the oath of office.

No bill can be approved by the Assembly without having been voted upon as a whole, and then article by article.

The Assembly has the right to criticize the government, and each of its member that of interpellation.

The introduction of laws belongs to the President of the Republic and the Assembly.

A Representative of the Assembly who has accepted from the government a pension, employment, or commission with a salary, shall be understood to have renounced his office. There is excepted from this provision the office of Secretary of the government of the Republic and other offices provided for by special laws.

The office of Representative shall be for a term of four years, and those who exercise it are, by way of reimbursement, entitled according to the circumstances to a sum determined by law. Those who absent themselves during the whole legislature shall not be entitled to reimbursement, but may recover this right by assisting all the following ones.

TITLE VI Of the permanent commission ARTICLE 54

The Assembly, before adjournment, shall elect seven of seven of its members to constitute a permanent commission during the period that it is closed, the latter being obliged to designate a president and secretary in its first session.

In the absence of the Assembly, the permanent commission shall have the following powers:

To declare whether or not there is sufficient reason to proceed against the President of the Republic, the Representatives, Secretaries of the Government, President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Solicitor General, in the case provided for by the Constitution.

To call the Assembly to special session in those cases where it should constitute itself into a tribunal of justice.

To give course to business that may have been pending in order that it may be considered.

To call the Assembly into a special session whenever the exigency of the case demands; and

To take the place of the Assembly in all its function according to the Constitution, with the exception of the right to make and pass laws.

The permanent commission shall meet whenever it is convoked by the person who presides over it, in accordance with the Constitution.

TITLE VII Of the Executive Department ARTICLE 56

The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic who shall exercise it through his Secretaries.

The administration of the private interests of the towns, provinces, and the state, correspond respectively to the municipal ( populares) assemblies, the provincial assemblies, and the administration in power according to the laws, and upon the basis of the most ample decentralization and administrative autonomy.

TITLE VIII Of the President of the Republic ARTICLE 58

The President of the Republic shall be elected by an absolute majority of the Assembly and special Representatives, assembled in a constituent assembly. His appointment shall be for a term of four years, and he may be re-elected.

The President of the Republic shall have the initiative of the laws as the members of the Assembly, and he shall promulgate the laws when they have been passed and approved by the latter, and shall supervise and insure their execution.

The power to cause the laws to be executed shall extend to all that is conducive to the consideration of public order in the country and to the security for the state abroad.

The President of the Republic shall promulgate the laws within twenty days after they have been transmitted to him by the assembly for final approval.

Iff within this time they shall not have been promulgated, the President shall return them to the Assembly with a statement of the causes of their detention, in which case the latter shall proceed to their reconsideration; and if they are not repassed by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present, the latter shall not be understood to insist upon their passage. If the law shall have been repassed in the manner indicated, the government shall promulgate it within ten days, causing its nonconformity to appear therein. The government shall be obliged to do the same if it allows the term of twenty days to pass without returning the law to the Assembly.

When the promulgation of a law has been declared urgent by express vote of an absolute majority of the Assembly, the President may by means of a message, stating his reasons, call upon them to reconsider it, which request shall not be denied, and after the same law has been approved anew, it shall be promulgated within the legal period, without prejudice to the President's right to cause to be put therein his nonconformity.

The promulgation of laws shall be effected by publication in the official periodical of the Republic, and they shall take effect after thirty days from the date of the publication.

The President of the Republic shall command the army and navy, declare war and ratify treaties, with the previous consent of the Assembly.

Treaties of peace shall no be final until after they have been approved by the Assembly.

Besides the necessary powers for the execution of the laws, the President shall have the following prerogatives:

To confer military and civil employment according to the laws.

To appoint the Secretaries of the government.

To direct the diplomatic and commercial relations with other powers.

To see that speedy, and complete justice is administered in the entire territory.

To pardon offenders according to the laws, except what is provided relative to the Secretaries of the government.

To preside over national ceremonies and to receive the envoys and representatives of foreign powers accredited to him.

The President of the Republic needs the authority of a special law:

In order to eliminate or exchange any part of Philippine territory.

In order to annex any other territory to the Philippines.

In order to admit foreign troops in Philippine territory.

In order to ratify treaties of alliance, offensive and defensive, special treaties of commerce, those which stipulate to give subsidy to a foreign power, and all those which may bind the Filipinos individually.

In no case shall secret articles of a treaty nullify those which are public.

In order to grant amnesties and general pardons.

In order to coin money.

The President of the Republic has the power to make rules for the compliance and application of the laws, in accordance with the requisites prescribed in the same.

The President of the Republic may, with the previous concurrence of a majority vote of the Representatives, dissolve the Assembly before the expiration of its legal term. In case, new elections shall be ordered within three months.

The President of the Republic shall be only responsible in case of high treason.

The compensation of the President of the Republic shall be fixed by a special law, and cannot be changed until the end of the presidential term of office. TITLE IX OF the Secretaries of the government ARTICLE 73 The council of the government shall be composed of a President and seven Secretaries, who shall have charge of the portfolios of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Finance, War and Navy, and Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce.

All that which the President ma order or decide in the exercise of his authority shall be assigned by the proper Secretary. No public officer shall comply with any order lacking this requisite.

The Secretaries of the government are jointly responsible to the Assembly for the general policy of the government, and individually for their personal acts. The Solicitor General of the nation shall prosecute and the Assembly shall judge them. The laws shall determine the cases in which the Secretaries of the government are responsible, the penalty to which they are subjected, and the mode of proceeding against them.

If they should be convicted by the Assembly, their pardon needs the previous petition of an absolute majority of the Representatives.

TITLE X Of the Judicial Department ARTICLE 77

The power to apply the laws in civil and criminal cases in the name of the nation, shall belong exclusively to the courts. The same Code shall govern in the entire Republic without prejudice to certain modifications which in special circumstances the laws may prescribe. There shall not be established in them more than one system of law for all citizens in all ordinary in all ordinary trials, civil and criminal.

The courts shall not apply general and municipal regulations except in so far as they in harmony with the laws.

The exercise of the judicial power resides in one Supreme Court of Justice and in the tribunals prescribed by the laws. Their membership, organization, and other attributes shall be governed by the organic laws.

The President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Solicitor General shall be appointed by the National Assembly in concurrence with the President of the Republic and the Secretaries of the government, and shall be absolutely independent from the legislative and executive departments.

Any citizen may bring a public action against all the members of the Judicial Department for offenses which they may commit in the exercise of their power.

Of the provincial and municipal assemblies

The organization and powers of the provincial and municipal assemblies shall be governed by their respective laws. These shall observe the following principles:

The government and management of the private interests of the province or towns by their respective corporations, the principle of popular and direct election being the basis of the organization of said corporations.

Publicity of their sessions within the limits prescribed by law.

Publications of the budgets, accounts, and important ordinances.

The invention of the government, and in a proper case by the national Assembly in order to prevent the provincial and municipal corporations from exceeding their powers, to the prejudice of general and individual interests.

The determination of their powers in matter of taxes, in order that the provincial and municipal taxation may never be antagonistic to the system of taxation of the state.

TITLE XII Of the administration of the state ARTICLE 83

Each year the government shall present to the Assembly a budget of the income and expenses, showing the alterations made in those of the preceding year, at the same time inclosing a balance of the last fiscal year according to law.

No payment shall be made unless it be in accordance with the Appropriations Law or other special one, in the form and under the responsibilities which laws may determine.

The government needs to be authorized by law in order to dispose pf any property of the state or to secure a loan upon the credit of the nation.

The public debt which the government may have contracted according to this Constitution, shall be under the special guaranty of the nation. No indebtedness shall be created without voting at the same time for the means by which to pay it.

All the laws relating to incomes, public expenditures, or public credits shall be considered a part of those of the budgets, and shall be published as such.

Every year the Assembly shall, at the recommendation of the President of the Republic, fix the military forces of land and sea.

TITLE XIII Of the amendments of the constitution ARTICLE 89

The Assembly on its own motion or at the recommendation of the President of the Republic, may resolve to amend the Constitution, prescribing for this purpose, the article or articles which are to amended.

This declaration made, the President of the Republic shall be dissolve the Assembly, and convene the constituent assembly which shall meet within the following three months. The resolution provided for in the preceding article shall be inserted in the notice of the convention.

TITLE XIV Of the observance of and oath to the constitution and the languages ARTICLE 91

The President of the Republic, the government, the Assembly and all Philippine citizens shall faithfully keep the Constitution; and the legislative power, immediately after approving the Appropriation Law, shall examine if the Constitution has been strictly observed and the infractions corrected, providing for whatever is convenient in order to exact responsibility from the transgressors.

The President of the Republic and all other officials of the nation shall not enter upon the performance of their duties without previously taking the oath of office. The President of the Republic shall take this oath before the national Assembly. All other officials shall take it before authorities prescribed by law.

The use of the language spoken in the Philippines is optional. It can only be regulated by law, and solely as regards acts of public authorities and judicial affairs. For these acts, the Spanish language shall be used for the present.

ARTICLE 94 Transitory provisions

In the meantime, without prejudice to the provisions of article 48 and to the committee which may have been appointed by the Assembly to draft and report the organic laws for the development and application of the rights granted to Filipino citizens, and for the government of the public powers determined by the Constitution, the laws in force in these Islands prior to their emancipation shall be considered as laws of the Republic. In the same way the following shall be considered in force: The dispositions of the Civil Code regarding marriage and the civil registry, suspended by the Governor General of these Islands; the Instructions of April 26, 1888, for the enforcement of articles 77, 78, 79, 82 of said Code; the Law of Civil Registry of June 17, 1870, to which articles 332 of the same code refers, and the regulations of December 13, 1870, for the enforcement of this law, without prejudice to the local heads continuing in charge of the registrations in the civil registry and intervening in the celebration of the marriage of Catholics.

While the laws referred to in the foregoing article are not yet approved, the provisions of the Spanish laws provisionally made effective by said article may be modified by any special law.

Once the laws approved by the Assembly in accordance with article 94 have been promulgated, the government of the Republic is authorized to issue decrees and regulations necessary for the immediate constitution of the different organs of the state.

The actual President of the revolutionary government shall henceforth assume the title of President of the Republic and shall exercise this office until, after the constituent assembly has been convoked, it shall have proceeded to the election of the person who is to fill the office definitely.

This Congress, with the members composing it and those who are yet coming by election or appointment, shall last four years, that is to say, during the whole of the present legislature, beginning from the 15 th of April of next year.

Notwithstanding the general established in paragraph 2, article 4, during the time that the country may have to struggle for its independence, the government is authorized while Congress is closed, to determine whatever questions and difficulties not provided for by the laws, may arise from unforeseen events, by means of decrees which shall be brought to the knowledge of the permanent Commission and the Assembly at its first meeting held in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

ARTICLE 100

The execution of article 5, title 3, is hereby suspended until the meeting of the constituent assembly. In the meantime, the municipalities of those places which require the spiritual services of any Filipino priest, shall provide for his necessary support.

ARTICLE 101

Notwithstanding the provisions of articles 62 and 63, the laws returned by the President of the Republic to the Congress shall not be repassed until the legislature of the following year, these being suspended under the responsibility of the President and his council of government. Having been repassed according to these conditions, its promulgation becomes obligatory within ten days, the President stating his nonconformity thereto. If it should be repassed in subsequent legislatures, it will be considered as a law approved for the first time.

Additional article

All the lands, building, and other properties belonging to the religious corporations in these Islands shall be understood to have been restored to the Filipino state on the 24 th of May last, the day in which the dictatorial government of Cavite was constituted. Barasoain, January twentieth, eighteen hundred and ninety.

The President of Congress, PEDRO A. PATERNO

The Secretaries, PABLO TECSON, PABLO OCAMPO Adopted from Malcolm, G., Philippine Constitutional Law, Appendix A, p. 568

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Filipino.biz.ph - Philippine Culture

Home | Tourism | Showbiz | Culture | Trivia | History | Arts | Churches | Related Products | Directory

The Malolos Constitution.

Filipino.biz.ph Recommends

» Laguna Business Directory - The complete business directory for businesses in Laguna, Philippines.

» Tunay na Lasang Pinoy - Savor traditional Pinoy food.

» Filipina Beauty - Be naturally beautiful with Filipina beauty secrets and beauty products

» KC Gems Elegant, inexpensive hand-made bead accessories perfect for you or as gifts for your loved ones.

» KabayanCentral.Com -

Choose your gifts from among 7,100 Filipino items in the pioneer Philippine-based e-store

» e-Kain.Com -

Send the party to your loved ones! Be part of the family's celebration!

» Help the Street Children! -

Make a dream come true this Christmas through the Salesians of Don Bosco. Help the street children.

Contact Details | Write to Webmaster | | Policies

Copyright and disclaimers © 2006, 2009 Filipino.biz.ph . Filipino.biz.ph is a KabayanCentral.com site. All rights reserved.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Lessons Learned From The Philippine Language Policy of The Malolos Constitution

Being a multilingual country, the Philippines has been faced with the issue of promulgating a language for official use and a language that would represent national unity since time immemorial. This paper shall try to look into the root of the problem by studying the language policy of the first Philippine Republic, the Malolos Constitution. Insights from the constitution's language policy shall be given so as not to repeat the mistake of the past and to further the current language policies of the Philippines.

Related Papers

wilfrido villacorta

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.

Jessie Grace Rubrico

John Albert Nares

rufus montecalvo

Criticisms of the national language policy of the Philippines began during the drafting of the1935 Constitution of the Philippines and still opposition continues to this day. What makes the arguments from the opposition interesting is that they question the assumptions of the policy makers,leaders and the general population regarding issues of Filipino nationalism and identity. The question of language and nationalism in the Philippines we find out is more than a cultural one, but as the early criticisms and the ongoing criticisms would show, actually is a political one as well. The most well-formed arguments against the national language come from two sides. The first we may label as the non-essentialist/utilitarian side which says that the correspondence between language and national identity is an exaggeration, that the essence of a person can be expressed in whatsoever language he or she uses. The second is from the regionalistic perspective, a much-maligned point of view among nationalist narratives. There is a continuing sense of marginalization that is felt by the various ethnolinguistic groups across the Philippines due to the perception of the elevation of one language among the numerous ones in the archipelago to the status of a national language. Though to a certain extent still essentialist, in that the advocates of the regionalistic point of view stress the importance of their ethnolinguistic identities, the feelings of marginalization still lingers and provides a major inspiration for serious criticisms of the national language policy which was and is still being seen as an imposition. To open new avenues regarding the issue, therefore, more than to rehash the old arguments,a new political consciousness must be realized. This is manifested by calls for changes in the prevailing Manila-centric political structure of the country, towards a more egalitarian orientation in the form of a federal decentralized government.

Marlon Mandane Gacis

This is a reaction paper regarding what has been happening in the field of Philippine education. We, Filipinos, had been aware of what certain groups like Tanggol Wika, were campaigning about, the hegemonic domination of "Filipino" over other Philippine languages. In fact, the language itself has been threatened by many changes in technology such as the Internet, rendering it and other Philippine languages undeveloped languages. Kindly read on this one and the historical revisions to justify their goal is exposed.

The Politics of English in Asia: Language Policy and Cultural Expression in South and Southeast Asia

Beatriz Lorente

The grip of English in the Philippines signifies an enduring and flawed image of national development that is monocentric with an English-dominant core. It traces the trajectory of this dominance of English in the Philippines from its introduction as the de facto medium of instruction in the public school system during the American colonial era to its incorporation as the indispensable competitive edge of Filipinos in the current era of globalization. This privileged position of English in the country’s linguistic economy has been reinforced by the Filipino elite’s symbolic struggles over power in the wake of post-colonialism and the country’s structural insertion at the margins of the global economy as a source of cheap, English-speaking migrant labor. The grip of English in the country may be mitigated by the introduction of mother tongue based multilingual education (MTBLE). The framework of MTBLE appears to conceive of national development in terms of widening access to valuable material and symbolic resources such as literacy and higher levels of formal education. As the MTBLE is still in its infancy, the extent to which it can live up to its promise remains to be seen

Isaac Donoso

The Philippines suffers an enduring linguistic problem that is not identified as such. Through the 20th century the goal has been to study a foreign language hoping for economical competitiveness in an Asian context. At present, this very context has revealed the fallacy of abandoning the education of the citizens in its own setting, if not pointed out the problem—Diglossia. By using an alien means of communication in the schools, the whole education has been alienated, and the result is a society that does not know their history (in Spanish), much less have a future other than to be manpower in a capitalist market (in English). Highlighting the experience of the multilingual European Union, the paper explains a model for the Philippine setting in the context of the “House Bill 162: The Multilingual Education and Literacy Act of 2010.”

Silliman Journal

Leslie Anne Liwanag

This paper comparatively studies the language policies and practices of the Philippines and Thailand in order to gather insights and lessons for ongoing language planning of both countries, as well as of the other countries of the ASEAN region, and of any other countries that are grappling with the issues and challenges of being multicultural and multilingual or are gearing for regional integration/cooperation and globalization. The aspects of language policies and practices of the said two countries analyzed by this paper are: [1] the profiles of their language policies and practices, [2] their socio-historical and political contexts, [3] their underpinning motivations, [4] their implementations and their structural/organizational mechanisms, [5] their implications on nationalism and multiculturalism, [6] their implications on the development of human and intellectual capitals, and [7] their implications on regional integration and globalization.

Ma. Celeste Orbe

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics

Christopher J. Dawe

RELATED PAPERS

Dave Parish

Engineering for Rural Development

Marian Kachniarz

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

John Buynak

Harold Cardenas

La Revue de Médecine Interne

Nabil Bel Feki

WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation

Y. Abousleiman

Vinayak Shet

Tectonophysics

Yuyu Wahyudin

José Ángel González Delgado

fauzi sayuti

INTERNATIONAL REFEREED JOURNAL OF NURSING RESEARCHES

Meryem Yılmaz

Digestive and Liver Disease

M. Bragazzi

Reformasi Hukum Trisakti

Fajar Wasitomo

Seminar Nasional Riset Terapan

Anita Qoiriah

Chemical Physics Letters

Mauro Rustici

Journal of Petroleum Technology

Alfredo Perez

Adam Satria

Journal of Hepatology

Liviu Iarovoi

The North African Journal of Food and Nutrition Research

IHEME GIDEON

Barbara Ayelen Ramirez Santiago

David Hildebrand

Ensino & Multidisciplinaridade

EDILENE DA SILVA SOUZA

Robert Bauchwitz

Social Psychology and Society

Rita Karmakar

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, the preamble, matters of debate, common interpretation, giving meaning to the preamble, the preamble’s significance for constitutional interpretation.

by Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean of Berkeley Law School; Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California - Berkley Law School

by Michael Stokes Paulsen

Distinguished University Chair and Professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution—the document’s famous first fifty-two words— introduces everything that is to follow in the Constitution’s seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. It proclaims who is adopting this Constitution: “We the People of the United States.” It describes why it is being adopted—the purposes behind the enactment of America’s charter of government. And it describes what is being adopted: “ this Constitution ”—a single authoritative written text to serve as fundamental law of the land. Written constitutionalism was a distinctively American innovation, and one that the framing generation considered the new nation’s greatest contribution to the science of government. 

The word “preamble,” while accurate, does not quite capture the full importance of this provision. “Preamble” might be taken—we think wrongly—to imply that these words are merely an opening rhetorical flourish or frill without meaningful effect. To be sure, “preamble” usefully conveys the idea that this provision does not itself confer or delineate powers of government or rights of citizens. Those are set forth in the substantive articles and amendments that follow in the main body of the Constitution’s text. It was well understood at the time of enactment that preambles in legal documents were not themselves substantive provisions and thus should not be read to contradict, expand, or contract the document’s substantive terms.  

But that does not mean the Constitution’s Preamble lacks its own legal force. Quite the contrary, it is the provision of the document that declares the enactment of the provisions that follow. Indeed, the Preamble has sometimes been termed the “Enacting Clause” of the Constitution, in that it declares the fact of adoption of the Constitution (once sufficient states had ratified it): “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Importantly, the Preamble declares who is enacting this Constitution—the people of “the United States.” The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof. We the People are the stewards of the U.S. Constitution and remain ultimately responsible for its continued existence and its faithful interpretation. 

It is sometimes observed that the language “We the People of the United States ” was inserted at the Constitutional Convention by the “Committee of Style,” which chose those words—rather than “We the People of the States of . . .”, followed by a listing of the thirteen states, for a simple practical reason: it was unclear how many states would actually ratify the proposed new constitution. (Article VII declared that the Constitution would come into effect once nine of thirteen states had ratified it; and as it happened two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify until after George Washington had been inaugurated as the first President under the Constitution.) The Committee of Style thus could not safely choose to list all of the states in the Preamble. So they settled on the language of both “We the People of the United States.”

Nonetheless, the language was consciously chosen. Regardless of its origins in practical considerations or as a matter of “style,” the language actually chosen has important substantive consequences. “We the People of the United States” strongly supports the idea that the Constitution is one for a unified nation , rather than a treaty of separate sovereign states. (This, of course, had been the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation, the document the Constitution was designed to replace.) The idea of nationhood is then confirmed by the first reason recited in the Preamble for adopting the new Constitution—“to form a more perfect Union.” On the eve of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln invoked these words in support of the permanence of the Union under the Constitution and the unlawfulness of states attempting to secede from that union. 

The other purposes for adopting the Constitution, recited by the Preamble— to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”—embody the aspirations that We the People have for our Constitution, and that were expected to flow from the substantive provisions that follow. The stated goal is to create a government that will meet the needs of the people. 

As noted, the Preamble’s statements of purpose do not themselves grant powers or confer rights; the substantive provisions in the main body of the Constitution do that. There is not, for example, a general government power to do whatever it judges will “promote the general Welfare.” The national government’s powers are specified in Article I and other provisions of the Constitution, not the Preamble. Congress has never relied on the Preamble alone as the basis for a claimed power to enact a law, and the Supreme Court has never relied on the Preamble as the sole basis for any constitutional decision. Still, the declared purposes for the Constitution can assist in understanding, interpreting, and applying the specific powers listed in the articles, for the simple reason that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that is faithful to its purposes.

Finally, the Preamble declares that what the people have ordained and established is “ this Constitution”—referring, obviously enough, to the written document that the Preamble introduces. That language is repeated in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which declares that “this Constitution” shall be the supreme law for the entire nation. The written nature of the Constitution as a single binding text matters and was important to the framing generation. The U.S. Constitution contrasts with the arrangement of nations like Great Britain, whose “constitution” is a looser collection of written and unwritten traditions constituting the established practice over time. America has a written constitution, not an unwritten one. The boundaries of what may be said and done in the name of the Constitution are marked by the words, phrases, and structure of the document itself. To be sure, there are disputes over what those words mean and how they are to be applied. But the enterprise of written constitutionalism is, at its core, the faithful interpretation and application of a written document adopted by the people as supreme law: “this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble to the Constitution has been largely ignored by lawyers and courts through American history. Rarely has a Supreme Court decision relied on it, even as a guide in interpreting the Constitution. But long ago, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court declared “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” If the Preamble is read carefully and taken seriously, basic constitutional values can be found within it that should guide the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Court has rejected the relevance of the Preamble in constitutional decisions. In 1905, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts , the Supreme Court ruled that laws cannot be challenged or declared unconstitutional based on the Preamble. The Court declared: “Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.” In the few occasions over the last century in which the Preamble has been mentioned, the Court has summarily denied its relevance to constitutional law.

But the Preamble states basic values that should guide the understanding of the Constitution.  First, it is created by “We the People.” It is the people who are sovereign. This makes clear that the United States is to be a democracy, not a monarchy or a theocracy or a totalitarian government that were the dominant forms of government throughout world history. Early in American history, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall stressed the importance of the government being created by the people. The State of Maryland claimed that it was the state governments who formed the United States and that therefore it is the states who are sovereign. The Court rejected this, quoting the Preamble and declaring: “The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established,’ in the name of the people.”

Second, the Constitution exists to create effective governance for the nation. The Preamble states that the Constitution exists “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.” The emphasis on establishing a “Union” and a successful government for it is not surprising because the Constitution was created in response to the failures of the Articles of Confederation which was a compact among the states where there was a weak national government with little power.  Throughout American history there have been battles over federalism and the authority of the federal government to take actions of unquestionable desirability: limiting slavery, banning child labor, prohibiting race discrimination, protecting the environment. The guidance of the Preamble has been overlooked: the Constitution exists to ensure that the national government has the authority to do all of these things which are part of a “more perfect Union” and “the general Welfare.”

Third, the Constitution exists to provide “Justice.” Long ago, the Magna Carta declared that justice requires both a fair process and fair results. In fact, even before that the Bible, in Deuteronomy 16:20, says, “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.” Commentators have suggested that the word “justice” is repeated twice to convey the importance of both procedural and substantive fairness. In American constitutional law, this means a requirement for both procedural due process (the government must follow adequate procedures when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property) and substantive due process (the government must have adequate reasons when taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property).

Fourth, the Preamble states that the Constitution exists to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Constitution is founded to protect individual freedom. It is a society where personal liberty, not a duty to the state, is central. Interestingly, despite this commitment, the Framers of the Constitution saw no need to provide a detailed statement of rights in the Constitution they drafted. In part, this is because they thought the structure of government they were creating would ensure liberty. Also, they were afraid that enumerating some rights inherently would be taken to deny the existence of other rights that were not mentioned. They wanted liberty to be broadly protected and not confined to specific aspects of freedom mentioned in the text of the Constitution.

Equality is not mentioned in the Preamble. This is not surprising for a Constitution that explicitly protected the institution of slavery and gave women no rights. But as the Supreme Court has explained for over a half century, equality is an implicit and inherent part of liberty.

The Preamble thus does much more than tell us that the document is to be called the “Constitution” and establish a government. The Preamble describes the core values that the Constitution exists to achieve: democratic government, effective governance, justice, freedom, and equality.   

The Preamble—or “Enacting Clause”—of the Constitution is more than just a pitcher’s long wind-up before delivering the pitch to home plate. It is the provision that declares the enactment of “this Constitution” by “We the People of the United States.”  That declaration has important consequences for constitutional interpretation. While the Preamble does not itself confer powers and rights, it has significant implications both for how the Constitution is to be interpreted and applied and who has the power of constitutional interpretation—the two biggest overall questions of Constitutional Law. 

Consider two big-picture ways that the Preamble affects how the Constitution is to be interpreted. First, the Preamble specifies that what is being enacted is “ this Constitution ”—a term that unmistakably refers to the written document itself. This is at once both obvious and hugely important. America has no “unwritten constitution.” Ours is a system of written constitutionalism —of adherence to a single, binding, authoritative, written legal text as supreme law.

This defines the territory and boundaries of legitimate constitutional argument: the enterprise of constitutional interpretation is to seek to faithfully understand, within the context of the document (including the times and places in which it was written and adopted), the words, phrases, and structural implications of the written text . 

The words of the Constitution are not optional. Nor are they mere springboards or points of departure for individual (or judicial) speculation or one’s subjective preferences: where the provisions of the Constitution set forth a sufficiently clear rule for government, that rule constitutes the supreme law of the land and must be followed. By the same token, where the provisions of the Constitution do not set forth a rule—where they leave matters open—decision in such matters must remain open to the people, acting through the institutions of representative democracy. And finally, where the Constitution says nothing on a topic, it simply says nothing on the topic and cannot be used to strike down the decisions of representative government. It is not open for courts, legislatures, or any other government officials to “make up” new constitutional meanings that are not supported by the document itself. 

Second, the Preamble, by stating the purposes for which the Constitution has been enacted, might well be thought to exert a very gentle interpretive “push” as to the direction in which a specific provision of the Constitution should be interpreted in a close case. The Preamble does not confer powers or rights, but the provisions that follow should be interpreted in a fashion consistent with the purposes for which they were enacted. As Justice Joseph Story put it in his treatise on the Constitution, published in 1833, using the example of the Preamble’s phrase to "provide for the common defence”: 

No one can doubt, that this does not enlarge the powers of congress to pass any measures, which they may deem useful for the common defence.  But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words . . . ; if one would promote, and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation to be adopted?  Are we at liberty, upon any principles of reason, or common sense, to adopt a restrictive meaning, which will defeat an avowed object of the constitution, when another equally natural and more appropriate to the object is before us?  2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §462 at 445 (1833).

Finally, the Preamble has important implications for who has the ultimate power of constitutional interpretation. In modern times, it has become fashionable to identify the power of constitutional interpretation almost exclusively with the decisions of courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court. And yet, while it is true that the courts legitimately possess the province of constitutional interpretation in cases that come before them, it is equally true that the other branches of the national government—and of state government, too—possess a like responsibility of faithful constitutional interpretation. None of these institutions of government, created or recognized by the Constitution, is superior to the Constitution itself. None is superior to the ultimate power of the people to adopt, amend, and interpret what is, after all, the Constitution ordained and established by “We the People of the United States.” 

James Madison, one of the leading architects of the Constitution, put it best in The Federalist No. 49 : 

[T]he people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived . . . . The several departments being perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?

The Preamble thus may have much to say—quietly—about how the Constitution is to be interpreted and who possesses the ultimate power of constitutional interpretation. It enacts a written constitution, with all that that implies. It describes the purposes for which that document was adopted, which has implications for interpreting specific provisions.  And it boldly declares that the document is the enactment of, and remains the property of, the people —not the government and not any branch thereof— with the clear implication that We the People remain ultimately responsible for the proper interpretation and application of what is, in the end, our Constitution.

Further Reading:

Michael Stokes Paulsen & Luke Paulsen, The Constitution: An Introduction (2015) (Chapters 1 and 2).

Michael Stokes Paulsen, Does the Constitution Prescribe Rules for Its Own Interpretation? , 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 857 (2009).

Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury , 101 Mich. L. Rev. 2706 (2003).

Michael Stokes Paulsen, Captain James T. Kirk and the Enterprise of Constitutional Interpretation: Some Modest Proposals from the Twenty-Third Century, 59 Albany L. Rev. 671 (1995).

Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Most Dangerous Branch: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is, 83 Geo. L.J. 217 (1994). 

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students