MOREOVER, it must be noted that constitutional law is not simply the literal application of the words of the Charter. The ancient and familiar rule of constitutional construction is that the meaning and understanding conveyed by the language, albeit plain, of any of its provisions do not only portray the influence of current events and developments but likewise the inescapable imperative considerations rooted in the historical background and environment at the time of its adoption and thereby caused their being written as part and parcel thereof. (Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance)
Presumption of Constitutionality
Every law is presumed valid.
The presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution—and only when such a conclusion is reached by “the required majority” may the Court pronounce in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape that the challenged act must be struck down. (Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, 715 SCRA 293 [2014])
Effects of Unconstitutionality
The general rule is that an unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as though it had never been passed. (See Manila Motor Co., Inc. vs. Flores, 99 Phil. 738 [1956])
But where the part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. (Government vs. Springer, 50 Phil. 259 [1927].
The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected, as conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. (Lindasan vs. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496 [1967])
