MEMORANDUM

Questions Presented
1. What is the doctrine of constitutional supremacy? Is this embodied in any provision in
the constitution?
2. Is there a hierarchy of laws observed in the Philippines? If yes, is there statutory basis
for this hierarchy?
3. Do laws enjoy presumption of constitutionality? Cite cases.
4. If a person seeks to declare a law as unconstitutional, what action/s should s/he file in
court? Can the law be collaterally attacked? Cite cases.
5. What are the requisites for the court to exercise judicial review? Is there any provision
in the constitution which states these requisites? Cite cases.

Discussion
I
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must
conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.
No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The
Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law.
Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its
rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been
changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty
of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power (Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political
Law, Central Lawbook Publishing, Co., Inc. 1991 Ed., p. 11). This is known as the
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy.
Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that
law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or
entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel
v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997)
However, this doctrine is never embodied in any of the provisions in the
Constitution, even the clause 'supreme law of the land' is nowhere to be found. One might
wonder, how did the framers miss this part? Where in fact the US Constitution where our
charter is patterned expressly provides the supremacy clause.
The answer is that the framers did not intentionally miss out that part but
exceedingly created something more than such clause. They incorporated what is now
known as the power of judicial review by the Judiciary.
Article VIII lays down the power of judicial review and imply judicial supremacy,
to wit:
Article VIII, Sec.1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Article VIII, sec.5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.
(2) review, revise, reverse, or affirm on appeal or certiorari. As the law or the rules of
court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts, in:
(a) all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
or regulation is in question.

II.
Although Philippine Laws have various sources, there is no showing of any
express statutory provision or jurisprudence suggesting a Hierarchy of Philippine Laws.
Apart from the aforementioned Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, nothing in our
laws states any hierarchy, rank or order that follows after the Constitution.
Article VII paragraph 2 and 3 of the New Civil Code provides that, "When the
courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when
they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (5a)".
Hence, true to the legal maxim LEGES POSTERIORES PRIORES
CONTRARIAS ABROGANT.

III.