The Constitution is the Supreme Law

Summary: The Constitution is the supreme law; it guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and no statute or internal policy may validly contravene it. Recent congressional controversies illustrate the tension between institutional rules and constitutional rights, underscoring the need for clear judicial and procedural safeguards.  

Introduction

The Philippine Constitution stands as the highest law of the land, framing the powers of government and protecting individual rights. This essay examines the legal and democratic premises behind that claim, explains the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, and analyzes why statutes, house rules, or internal policies cannot lawfully contradict constitutional provisions. It concludes with practical recommendations for reconciling institutional discipline with constitutional freedoms. 

--- 

Constitutional Supremacy

The 1987 Constitution was expressly designed to restore democratic institutions and to operate as the ultimate legal standard against which all laws and government acts are measured. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, any statute, rule, or policy that conflicts with the Constitution is void. This principle preserves the rule of law by ensuring that ordinary legislation and internal regulations remain subordinate to constitutional text and the interpretive authority of the courts. 

--- 

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in Article III of the Constitution, which prohibits laws abridging speech, the press, and the right to assemble and petition the government. This protection is broad: it covers spoken and written statements, symbolic acts, and political advocacy. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that these freedoms are essential to democratic governance and public accountability. 

--- 

Limits on Legislative and Institutional Rules

While Congress has authority to adopt internal rules for orderly proceedings, that authority is not absolute. Legislative power is constrained by constitutional limitations—procedural or substantive rules cannot be used to circumvent constitutional guarantees or to deprive individuals of due process. Jurisprudence shows that internal rules may be reviewed when they produce outcomes inconsistent with constitutional rights or when they are applied in a manner that violates due process. 

--- 

Contemporary Context and Tensions

Recent events involving disciplinary actions in the House of Representatives highlight the friction between institutional discipline and constitutional speech protections. Media reports show a high‑profile suspension of a member for social media conduct, with competing claims about whether the sanction was a legitimate enforcement of house rules or an impermissible restriction on political expression. Such disputes illustrate the need for transparent standards and for judicial or independent review when internal rules risk curtailing constitutionally protected speech. 

--- 

Recommendations

- Ensure procedural safeguards. Internal rules should incorporate clear notice, opportunity to be heard, and appeal mechanisms to satisfy constitutional due process.  

- Harmonize rules with constitutional text. Drafting committees must vet house rules against constitutional provisions and relevant jurisprudence to avoid conflicts.  

- Promote transparency and proportionality. Sanctions for speech-related conduct should be narrowly tailored and publicly justified to withstand constitutional scrutiny.  

- Seek judicial clarification when necessary. Courts remain the final arbiter of constitutional meaning; timely judicial review can resolve institutional overreach before rights are irreparably harmed. 

--- 

Conclusion

The Constitution is supreme; freedom of expression is protected; and no law or internal policy may validly contravene these principles. Balancing institutional order with constitutional freedoms requires careful rule‑making, transparent enforcement, and respect for due process. In a healthy democracy, rules should discipline conduct without silencing legitimate political speech.