🇺🇸 U.S. Constitution – Key Features & Jurisprudence
-
Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution (1787) creates three co-equal branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), each with restraints on the others.
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is the foundational U.S. Supreme Court case establishing judicial review: courts can invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
-
Bill of Rights / Civil Liberties: After ratification, the first Ten Amendments protect individual freedoms (speech, religion, due process, etc.). Many later decisions (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges) illustrate how those rights are interpreted and extended.
-
Federalism: Powers divided between federal government and states. Courts regularly decide on limits of both. U.S. Supreme Court has held laws of federal and state governments subject to constitutional constraints.
-
Amendment Process: The U.S. Constitution is difficult to amend (needs supermajorities in Congress + ratification by states), hence stable but somewhat rigid.
🇵🇭 1987 Philippine Constitution – Key Features & Jurisprudence
-
Strong Judicial Review & Expanded Powers: The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to review acts of any branch or instrumentality of government, and to declare void those that violate constitutionally-protected rights or commit “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
-
Social Justice, State Policies & Transformative Constitutionalism: Unlike the U.S. text, the 1987 Constitution has many “state policies” or “declarations” (e.g., social justice, equitable wealth distribution, environmental protection) beyond just individual civil and political rights. The Constitution attempts to guide not only what government may not do but also what it should do (e.g. protecting the environment, reforming land, ensuring social welfare).
-
Justiciability of Non-Bill of Rights Provisions: Some state policy sections (outside the Bill of Rights) have been held by the Supreme Court to be enforceable; others not. One famous example: Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083 (1993) where the Court said that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology (from the State Policies / Declarations) is self-executing and may be enforced; plus it recognized “intergenerational responsibility” (current generations suing on behalf of future ones) in environmental protection.
-
Checks on Executive / Local Governments: Like the U.S., the PH Constitution provides for local government autonomy, separation of powers, impeachment, term limits, etc. But the expansion is more textual about social welfare and equality of access. Also, certain rights are newly recognized or emphasized (e.g., rights of persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, environmental rights).
-
Amendment & Charter Change: The 1987 Constitution allows amendments (via Congress + plebiscite, or via constitutional convention), though many see its economic provisions and limits on foreign ownership etc. as more entrenched. Its background is post-dictatorship, with the aim of protecting against abuses.
🔍 Comparing & Contrasting (Key Differences)
-
Textual Basis of Judicial Review
- U.S.: Judicial review (courts’ power to declare laws unconstitutional) is implied by the structure of the Constitution (later confirmed in Marbury).
- Philippines: Judicial review is explicitly written into the Constitution (e.g. “grave abuse of discretion”). More direct.
-
Role of Social/Economic Rights & State Policies
- U.S.: Mostly civil and political rights; social and economic policies are generally left to legislature and state governments. Courts are often reluctant to enforce positive rights (e.g. right to housing, education).
- PH: Constitution includes many social justice / social welfare provisions; some are held enforceable (self-executing or judicially enforceable) via Supreme Court decisions.
-
Intergenerational Rights / Environmentalism
- U.S.: Environmental rights are not constitutionally explicit (in most states / federal level), though sometimes inferred under “public trust” doctrines, or via statutes; future generations less prominently recognized.
- PH: Oposa v. Factoran recognized that minors may sue on behalf of future generations for damage to environment; ecology is constitutional policy, and can be enforced even if outside the bill of rights.
-
Flexibility vs. Protection from Abuse
- U.S.: Strong protections, but the system can sometimes lag social change; amendment is hard.
- PH: More protections built into the constitution for vulnerable groups; but some critics argue sometimes the social policy provisions are vague, making judicial enforcement inconsistent. Also, some entrenched economic provisions are resistant to change.
⚖️ Landmark Jurisprudence (verified)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) – U.S. Supreme Court; judicial review doctrine.
- Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (July 30, 1993) – PH Supreme Court; right to a balanced and healthful ecology; intergenerational responsibility; standing; enforceability of social justice policy provisions.
📚 Sources
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); Oyez & U.S. Supreme Court historical archives.
- Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083 (1993), Philippine Supreme Court decisions.
- “The Constitution of the Philippines and transformative constitutionalism” – article analyzing how the 1987 Constitution handled social justice, etc.
- “Constitutional performance assessment: 1987 Philippine Constitution” – discusses institutional design, rights, etc.
Assisted by ChatGPT AI app, September 14, 2025.
