Petition

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

*In the matter of the Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and for the Issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto against the Government of tthe Republic of the Philippines with Permissive Joinder of Parties Enjoining all Filipino citizens as Compulsory Oppositors*

**FERDINAND A. OREAS**

*Administraive Consulant*

1228 Ninos Innocentes Paralegal

and Research Consultancy

***Petitioner***

**THE GOVERNMEN AND ALL CITEZENS**

**OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES**

*Represened By*

Solicior General, ATTY. JOSE C. CALIDA

***Opposiors***

x----------------------------------------------------------X

P E T I T I O N

To Declare the 1987
Philippine Constitution Unconstitutional
And For the Issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto
with Permissive Joinder of Parties

I, FERDINAND A. OREAS, of age, male, single, Filipino and with residence and postal address at 16-E Zamboanga Alley, Intan Street, Barangay 153, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, 1400 Metro Manila, Philippines, by myself and unto the Highest Institution of Justice in the land -- The Philippine Supreme, after first being sworn to in accordance with law, hereby respectfully state:

**THAT,** Sec. 3, Art. XV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution provides:

**Section 3. (1)** This Constitution shall be officially be promulgated in English and in Pilipino, and translated into each dialect spoken by over fifty thousand people, and into Spanish and Arabic. In case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.

 THAT, Sec. 2, Art. I of the 1986 Philippine Constitution provides:

**Section 2.** The provisions of xxx ARTICLE XV (General Provisions) of the 1973 Constitution , as amended, are hereby adopted as part of this Provisional Constitution, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Proclamation.

**THAT,** Sec. 8, Art. XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

**Section 8.** This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish.

**THAT,** as aforecited, the Philippine Constitutions of 1973, 1986, and 1987 all required they be promulgated in such other languages as thereto stated other than its original text that is written in English;

**THAT,** in particular, the aforementioned Philippine Constitutions mandated they be promulgated in the following:

* 1973 Constitution
+ 1. English and Pilipino
+ 2. Dialect spoken by over fifty thousand people; and
+ 3. Spanish and Arabic

* 1986 Constitution
+ 1. English and Pilipino
+ 2. Dialect spoken by over fifty thousand people;
+ 3. Spanish and Arabic

* 1987 Constitution
+ 1. English and Filipino
+ 2. Major regional languages
+ 3. Arabic and Spanish

NO OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

**THAT,** to the date of the filing of the foregoing Petition, the only known and available translation of the Philippine Constitution is the Filipino version that is published both electronically and in paper print by The Official Gazette which title reads:

Ang
Konstitusyon
ng
Republika ng Pilipinas

Ipinalimbag
ng
LINANGAN NG MGA WIKA SA PILIPINAS
1991

[For the complete text, see Appendix A; Konstitusyon ng Republika ng Pilipinas]
 THAT, as suggested by the article title, the pertained Filipino translation was published in 1991 by the Linangan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas which, on August 4 of the same year was abolished because of the enactment of Republic Act 7104 creating the Commission on the Filipino Language;
 THAT, despite the aforementioned 1991 Filipino version of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the same remained UNOFFICIAL to date considering the following:
 1. The phrase “Ipinalimbag ng Linangan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas” as per publication title is connotative of the authority the translation warrants. Whether literal or otherwise, the title dicisively declares limitation and scope of authority of the Linangan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas as an institution responsible not for the TRANSLATION but for its PUBLICATION. In effect, the agency manifestly declares it is merely responsible as PUBLISHER not as the editor let alone AUTHOR of the translation. The former takes responsibility only to the extent of its printed disemination while the latter, of the editorial integrity of its content and composition. Thus it is undebatable the same UNOFFICIAL;
 2. Despite said 1991 publication and the 1991 creation of Commission on the Filipino Language, there has been no manifest declaration whatsoer that the copy is the one recognized by the Commission as the one legitimate and official. One the contrary, The Philippine News Agency, on 11 October 2017 published the following news feature:
Komisyon ng Wikang Filipino (KWF)
Eyes Official Translation of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

KWF AIMING TO COME UP WITH OFFICIAL TRANSLATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ 1935, 1973, AND 1987 CONSTITUTIONS. KWF SET SUCH GOAL TO HELP THE PUBLIC BETTER UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE SUCH CONSTITUTIONS, NOTED THE AGENCY’S EDUCATION AND NETWORKING CHIEF, JOHN ENRICO TORRALBA.
“The Constitutions were originally written in English but different translations of these can generate various interpretations,” he said.
He said having official translations in Filipino and other regional languages nationwide would help minimize misinterpretation of the Constitutions’ provisions.
According to the 1987 Constitution, Filipino is the country’s national language.
“This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages, Arabic, and Spanish,” the 1987 Constitution also reads.
RA 7104 (Commission on the Filipino Language Act of 1991) created the Commission on the Filipino Language which eventually became known as KWF.
Such commission shall create and maintain “a division of transaction which shall encourage through incentives, undertake and vigorously support the translation into Filipino and other Philippine languages of important historical works and cultural traditions of ethno linguistic groups, laws, resolutions and other legislative enactments, executive issuances, government policy statements and official documents, textbooks and reference materials in various disciplines and other foreign materials which it may deem necessary for education and other purposes,” reads RA 7104.
KWF came up with its early translations of the Philippines’ three Constitutions based on inputs the agency generated during a forum on the matter, said Torralba.
He said KWF would present such translations during another forum this month to gather feedback from lawyers and other participants on these versions.
The forum scheduled on Tuesday (Oct. 24) in Metro Manila also aims in generating additional inputs that will help KWF further refine the agency’s translations of the Constitutions, he noted.
KWF may further conduct similar fora in the future so the agency can come up with the most accurate translations possible, Torralba said.
Inputs generated during the discussions will help guide KWF in translating other laws as well, he added.
-- (PNA)

 UNREASONABLE DELAY TANTAMOUNT TO FAILURE OF PROMULGATION
 THAT, assuming the translation official, the four-year lapse prior its publication runs counter with what is contemplated by the principle of reasonable period of time relative completion of what is the required medium of promulgation as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution;
THAT, again assuming it official, what is pertained above unreasonable is all the more exacerbated in the cases of the 1986 and the 1973 Philippine Constitutions that if such translation a requisite to promulgate such Constitutions, then it may be argue that those Constitutions only promulgated in the 1991 which is all the more an idea untenable;
 SYNTAX AND CONSTRUCTION: COMPARATIVE CONNOTATION
THAT, comparative analysis of the aforecited Constitutions, it appears that only the 1987 Philippine Constitution failed to comply with its mandated requisite for promulgation that it be “promulgated in English and Filipino.”;
THAT, unlike the 1973 and 1986 Constitutions (where the latter adopted verbatim the pertinent provision of the former) which provide they be “promulgated in English and in Pilipino”, the pertained construction syntactically connotes a different promulgation requirement;
THAT, by phrasing the text “shall be promulgated in English and in Pilipino,” syntax and construction connote both Constitutions may be promulgated in either language English or Pilipino where promulgation in the English language (despite without any Pilipino translation) suffices a valid, legitimate, and therefore constitutional promulgation;
THAT, unfortunately for the 1987 Philippine Constitution which relative text constructed in such phrase “shall be promulgated in English and Filipino”, fundamentals of grammar may not simply be ignored where use of the preposition “in” modifies both nouns “English” and “Filipino” syntactically joined by the conjunction “and” which therefore connote the Constitution requires it be promulgated in both languages English and Filipino as against the two other Constitutions of 1973 and 1986 which connotation suggests promulgation is either languages;
THAT, wanting for an official translation in the Filipino language, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed to comply with the very mandate of its letters that it be promulgated in both languages English and Filipino;
 SIGNIFICANCE OF A FILIPINO TRANSLATION
THAT, unlike the 1973 and 1986 Constitutions where the English text suffices a valid and therefore constitutional promulgation, the 1987 Philippine Constitution requires for the counter translation in the Filipino language if to qualify the English text a complied promulgation;
THAT, to put simply, the English text of the 1987 Philippine Constitution may only be regarded Constitutional only if it be promulgated together with its official Filipino translation otherwise there is failure of promulgation HENCE the Constitution unconstitutional;

```
FAILURE OF TRANSLATION VIZ-A-VIZ QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

```

THAT, much as it is now beyond dispute the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed to comply with its mandated requisite for promulgation,

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

 UNREASONABLE DELAY TANTAMOUNT TO FAILURE OF PROMULGATION
 THAT, assuming the translation official, the four-year lapse prior its publication runs counter with what is contemplated by the principle of reasonable period of time relative completion of what is the required medium of promulgation as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution;
THAT, again assuming it official, what is pertained above unreasonable is all the more exacerbated in the cases of the 1986 and the 1973 Philippine Constitutions that if such translation a requisite to promulgate such Constitutions, then it may be argue that those Constitutions only promulgated in the 1991 which is all the more an idea untenable;
 SYNTAX AND CONSTRUCTION: COMPARATIVE CONNOTATION
THAT, comparative analysis of the aforecited Constitutions, it appears that only the 1987 Philippine Constitution failed to comply with its mandated requisite for promulgation that it be “promulgated in English and Filipino.”;
THAT, unlike the 1973 and 1986 Constitutions (where the latter adopted verbatim the pertinent provision of the former) which provide they be “promulgated in English and in Pilipino”, the pertained construction syntactically connotes a different promulgation requirement;
THAT, by phrasing the text “shall be promulgated in English and in Pilipino,” syntax and construction connote both Constitutions may be promulgated in either language English or Pilipino where promulgation in the English language (despite without any Pilipino translation) suffices a valid, legitimate, and therefore constitutional promulgation;
THAT, unfortunately for the 1987 Philippine Constitution which relative text constructed in such phrase “shall be promulgated in English and Filipino”, fundamentals of grammar may not simply be ignored where use of the preposition “in” modifies both nouns “English” and “Filipino” syntactically joined by the conjunction “and” which therefore connote the Constitution requires it be promulgated in both languages English and Filipino as against the two other Constitutions of 1973 and 1986 which connotation suggests promulgation is either languages;
THAT, wanting for an official translation in the Filipino language, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed to comply with the very mandate of its letters that it be promulgated in both languages English and Filipino;
 SIGNIFICANCE OF A FILIPINO TRANSLATION
THAT, unlike the 1973 and 1986 Constitutions where the English text suffices a valid and therefore constitutional promulgation, the 1987 Philippine Constitution requires for the counter translation in the Filipino language if to qualify the English text a complied promulgation;
THAT, to put simply, the English text of the 1987 Philippine Constitution may only be regarded Constitutional only if it be promulgated together with its official Filipino translation otherwise there is failure of promulgation HENCE the Constitution unconstitutional;

```
FAILURE OF TRANSLATION VIZ-A-VIZ QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

```

THAT, much as it is now beyond dispute the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed to comply with its mandated requisite for promulgation,
wanting for an official translation in the Filipino language, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has failed to comply with the very mandate of its letters that it be promulgated in both languages English and Filipino;