You are on page 1of 24

Constitutional Law 1

Prof. H.L. Roque


AY 2009-2010
Political Law, defined
 Branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the government organs of the State and defines the relations of the
State with the inhabitants of its territory

The Constitution & Constitutional Law


Constitutional Law  designates the law embodied in the constitution and the legal principles growing out of the interpretation and application of
its provision by the courts in specific cases

Constitution  the document which serves as the fundamental law of the state; that written instrument enacted by the direct action of the people
by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the
several departments for their safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic.
 Classifications: (a) written v. unwritten; (b) enacted (conventional) v. evolved (cumulative); (c) rigid v. flexible

Supremacy of the Constitution

Constitutional History

The 1935 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution


 Took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on that same date and not on the date its ratification was
proclaimed (de Leon v. Esguerra)
 Interpretation
o Verba legis
o Ratio legis
o The constitution has to be interpreted as a whole (Francisco v. HR)
o In case of doubt, the provisions should be considered self-executing, mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than
retroactive

Prudential Considerations
 Ashwander v. TVA. In the following cases, the court must refrain from passing on the issue of constitutionality or from exercising judicial review:
(1) Friendly, non-adversary proceedings. (no vital conflict); (2) Anticipation of a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of
deciding it. (premature case); (3) Formulation of a rule broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied. (4) Existence of other
grounds upon which the case may be disposed of (not the very lis mota); (5) A complaint made by one who fails to show injury as to its
operation. (no standing); (6) Instance of one who has availed himself of its benefit. (7) Possibility of a construction of the statute which can avoid
the resolution of the constitutional question.
 People v. Vera. Determination of constitutionality of the statute must be necessary to a final determination of the case.
 Soriano v. Estrada

Judicial Review: Actual Cases or Controversy


 A conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial determination
o A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect
on the individual challenging it.
 There is an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory.
 The power does not extend to hypothetical questions.
 Involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution
 Tan v. Macapagal. Taxpayer standing: expenditure of public funds, by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional
act.
 PACU v. Sec. of Education.
 Gonzales v. Marcos. When requisite pecuniary or monetary interest is absent, the petitioner cannot institute a taxpayer’s suit.
 Cruz v. DENR Sec.
 Rescue Army v. Municipal Court

Judicial review: locus standi


 One who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of
1
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 A personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act
that is being challenged and has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege
 Rule 65 (certiorari): direct Injury
 Legislator  There must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. (David v. Arroyo)
 Citizen  protection of public right; There must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled
early (David v. Arroyo
 Taxpayer
 Intergenerational rights and intergenerational justice
 Transcendental Importance
 Sol.Gen. v. MMA. Procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice. They are but mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. The transcendental importance to the public of the cases demands that they be settled promptly and
definitely brushing aside technicalities of procedure.
 Joya v. PCGG. When petitioner claims a privilege and not an enforceable constitutional right, they do not have requisite standing to file a
mandamus.
 Macasiano v. NHA
 Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC.
 Oposa v. Factoran. The SC affirmed the standing of minors, represented by their parents, to challenge the validity of logging concessions on the
basis of the concept of intergenerational responsibility for and right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
 Kilosbayan v. Guingona. The SC affirmed the right of petitioners to challenge the validity of the lotto contract of the PCSO on the argument that
the case was of transcendental importance.
 Tatad v. Garcia. The Court has allowed taxpayers to question CONTRACTS entered into by the National Government or GOCCs in contravention
of the law and to disallow when only municipal contracts are involved.
 Kilosbayan v. Morato. Reversed Kilosbayan v. Guingona ruling  petitioner had no substantial interest in the contract being challenged. The real
parties are those who are parties to the agreement or are bound either principally or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their rights with respect to
one of the contracting parties and can show the detriment which would positively result to them from the contract
 BAYAN v. Exec. Sec. No standing. As concerned citizens, taxpayers, and legislators, they fail to show that they have sustained or in danger of
sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, the VFA doesn‘t involve the exercise by Congress in
taxing/spending powers.
 Del Mar v. PAGCOR
 Anti-Graft League of the Philippines v. COMELEC. For a taxpayer’s suit, the following must concur: (a) public funds are disbursed by a political
subdivision or instrumentality; and, (b) a law is violated or some irregularity is committed, and that the petitioner is directly affected by the
alleged act.
 Sandoval v. PAGCOR

Political Questions
 A justiciable question is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests which may be
resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.
 Baker v. Carr. the mere fact that the suit seeks the protection of a political right doesn’t mean it presents a political question; arises not between
Federal-State Government, but bet co-equal branches of government; the case provided for guidelines for determining what political (questions)
are in nature: 1. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (textual); 2. A lack of
judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it (Functional); 3. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion (Functional); 4. The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution
without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government (Prudential); 5. an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to
a political decision already made (prudential); 6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments
on one question (prudential)
 Casibang v. Aquino
 Tanada v. Cuenco. There are two aspects of a political question: (1) Those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity; or, (2) In regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislature or executive
branches of government.
 Sanidad v. COMELEC. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why
he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to
its gross legislative power.
 Abueva v. Wood. Under the principle of separation of powers, it ruled that it was not intended by the Constitution that one branch of
government could encroach upon the field of duty of the other. Each department has an exclusive field within which it can perform its part
within certain discretionary limits.

2
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 IBP v. Zamora. The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is something that is for the President to decide, but the Court may look into
the factual basis of the declaration to determine if it was done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Mootness
 Constitutional questions must be raised at the earliest time possible.
 A moot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value.
 Exceptions: (1) where there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
people; (4) capable of repetition yet evading review.
 Gonzales v. Narvasa
 Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec. The Court may still decide the case provided that the party raising it in a proper case has been and/or continues to be
prejudiced or damaged as a direct result of its issuance.
 Lacson v. Exec. Sec
 David v. Arroyo. There must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question

THE CONCEPT OF STATE


 A community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and
possessing a government to which a great body of the inhabitants render habitual obedience; a politically organized sovereign community
independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning
under a regime of law.
Elements of a State:
a. People (Art. IV)  Inhabitants of the State, the number of which is capable for self-sufficiency and self-defense of both sexes for perpetuity
i. Citizens
 ART. IV, §1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution; [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 Prior to the 1973 constitution  if a Filipina married an alien, she loses her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect
Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
 Under the 1973 Constitution Children born of Filipino Mothers were already considered Filipinos
 Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 constitution only applies to those persons who were born under
the 1935 constitution.
 R. A. No. 9139.
 Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commission on Immigration: vests citizenship on the wife who might herself be lawfully naturalized; she need not
prove her qualifications but only that she is not disqualified.
 In re Ching: Ching complied with the requirements of CA 625 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable
yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege.
 In Re Florencio Mallare  3 years within the allowable period.
 Aznar v. COMELEC. It was never proven sufficiently that Osmena lost his citizenship in any of the modes enumerated under CA 63. By
virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. it was incumbent upon
the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine citizenship.
 Tecson vs. COMELEC: The 1935 Constitution during which regime FPJ had first seen light, confers citizenship to all persons whose
fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.
 Advocates and Adherents of Social justice vs. Datumanong. RA 9225 is a law about dual citizenship and not dual allegiance, since it
provides that a Filipino who has previously renounced his Filipino citizenship can reacquire it without renouncing his foreign
citizenship.
ii. Natural-born Citizens
 ART. IV, §2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
 Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching age of majority.
 Direct Naturalization: judicial proceedings; special act of the legislature; collective change of nationality (cession); adoption
 Derivative Naturalization: wife of naturalized husband; minor children of naturalized parent; alien women upon marriage to a national
[does not always follow – subject to restrictions; Alien woman married to a Filipino shall acquire citizenship ONLY if she herself may be
lawfully naturalized)
 Co v. HRET: the exercise of the right of suffrage and participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship

3
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
Loss and Reacquisition
 ART. IV, §3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
 Loss:
o Naturalization in a foreign country
o Express renunciation (expatriation)
o Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to the constitution or laws of a foreign country
o Cancellation of certificate of naturalization
o Res judicata does not set in citizenship cases.
 Reacquisition
o By naturalization
o By repatriation (RA 8171)
 Bengzon III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal: Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. That means
that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand,
if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural
born Filipino
 Labo v. COMELEC. He lost citizenship by naturalization in another country, a mode of losing citizenship enumerated in CA 63. Even if it
be assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the
Australian citizen was igamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship.
 Frivaldo v. COMELEC. Frivaldo’ naturalization was forced upon him to avoid the persecution of Marcos. Further, his participation in the
Philippine elections mean his forfeiture of his American citizenship and therefore his Philippine citizenship should be restored. Valles v.
COMELEC
 Yu v. Defensor-Santiago. In 1971, Yu was originally issued a Portuguese passport, valid for 5yrs. He renewed it for the same period
upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. On Feb 19, 1978, he was naturalized as a Filipino Citizen. On July 21,
1981 he applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport by the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Sometime in April 1980, he declared
his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed like the Companies Registry in Hongkong. These acts constitute
express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship
 Republic v. Guy.
 Jao v. Republic. There is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be effected by a judicial proceeding. All that is
required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizen, upon the
termination of her marital status, "is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the
said oath in the proper civil registry"
iii. Effect of Marriage
 ART. IV, §4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed,
under the law, to have renounced it.
iv. Dual Allegiance
 ART. IV, §5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
 v. dual citizenship: arises when, as a result of concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a citizen of said states (involuntary)
 dual allegiance refers to the situation where a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states (result
of an individual’s volition and is prohibited by the Constitution
 Mercado v. Manzano: The SC stressed that the constitutional policy is not against dual citizenship but not dual loyalty, such as that
often manifested by naturalized Filipinos who while processing allegiance to their adoptive land retain their allegiance to their native
land and even involve themselves in its political affairs. The mere application or possession of an alien certificate of registration does
not amount to renunciation
a. Territory  a fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the State
 Art. I. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
 Straight Baseline Method  method of delineating the territorial sea. It consists of drawing straight lines connecting the outermost points
on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast
o Territorial Sea: 12 nautical miles from the baseline
o Contiguous Zone: 24 nautical miles from the baseline/ 12 nautical miles from the edge of the territorial sea
o EEZ: 200 nautical miles from the baseline [there can be a continental shelf without EEZ, but not an EEZ without a continental shelf]

b. Government
i. Definition
4
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
E. O. No. 292, §2(1),(2),(4), & (10)
 The agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized
ii. De Jure and De Facto governments
 De jure  has a rightful title but no power or control, either because the same has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet
actually entered into the exercise thereof
 De facto  actually exercises power or control but without legal title
 Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh: de facto  Independent government established by the inhabitants of the country who rise in
insurrection against the parent state.
 In Re Saturnino Bermudez. Petitioner's allegation of ambiguity or vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous, it
being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent
President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, and to no other persons.
 In Re Letter of Associate Justice Reynato Puno. The existing legal order was overthrown by the revolutionary government. The little
resistance met by the new government, control of the state, appointment of key officers in the administration, departure of officials of
the previous regime, and the revamp of the military and judiciary signaled the point where the legal system had ceased to be obeyed
by the Filipino people.
 Estrada v. Desierto.
iii. Constituent and Ministrant functions
 Constituent – compulsory because constitutive of society
 Ministrant: undertaken to advance the general interest of the society
 ACCFA v. CUGCO. The implementation of the land reform program of the government according to Republic Act No. 3844 is most
certainly a governmental, not a proprietary, function. The CIR has no jurisdiction but nevertheless the collective bargaining agreements
must be enforced.
iv. Parens Patriae
 Government of the Philippine Islands v. Monte de Piedad: the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal
actions for and in behalf of particular individual
c. Sovereignty
 Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a state by which the State is governed
 Legal: power to issue commands
 Political: sum of all the influences which lie behind the law
 Internal: the supreme power over everything within its territory
 External: freedom from external control
 Permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and imprescriptible.
 Macariola v. Asuncion. Political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are
automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by the affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipal laws remain in force.
 Ruffy v. Chief of Staff. The rule suspending political laws only affects the civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory and is not intended to
bind the enemies in arms. Thus, members of the armed forces continued to be covered by the National Defense Act, the Articles of War, and
other laws relating to the armed forces even during the Japanese occupation. By the acceptance of the petitioners‘ appointments as officers
in the Philippine Army they became amenable to the Articles of War.
 Peralta v. Director of Prisons: at the end of the occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory, the political laws which had
been suspended during the occupation shall automatically become effective again.
 Alcantara v. Director of Prisons. Judgments from courts created by de facto governments were good and valid and remain good and valid,
and therefore enforceable after liberation, provided that such judgments do not have a political complexion. Alcantara’s sentence has no
political complexion. He is convicted on an offense punishable under the municipal law.

d. State Immunity
Art. XVI, §3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
i. Characterization of Suit
 Begosa v. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration. A suit against the State, regardless of who is named as defendant, if it
produces adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in the disbursement of funds or loss or property, the public official
proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity.
 Republic v. Feliciano. Feliciano seeks to prove that his ownership of the land as evidenced by his information is valid and makes a claim
to recover said property. However, the court ruled that the state did not give its consent to be sued and thus immune from the
complaint. Although the proclamation stated that it shall be ―subject to private rights if any there be‖, this cannot be construed as an
express waiver of immunity.
ii. Rationale for Immunity
 There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends (“Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty”)

5
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Sanders v. Veridiano. The doctrine of state immunity is applicable not only to our own government but also to foreign states who are
subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
 United States v. Guinto. Implied Consent  when the state enters into a business contract, by right of economic or business relations,
may be sued.
 The Holy See v. Rosario. Aside from the privilege of sovereign immunity established by the DFA, the Holy See is nonetheless immune
from suit because the transaction entered into was not for profit or for gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because the
squatters living there made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation (construction of Papal Nuncio‘s
residence).
iii. Waiver of Immunity
 Sayson v. Singson. Singson’s cause of action is a money claim against the government. The suit filed is a suit against the State.
 Republic v. Purisima. Express waiver of immunity cannot be made by a mere counsel of the government but must be effected through
a duly-enacted statute. Neither does such answer come under the implied forms of consent as earlier discussed.
 Amigable v. Cuenca. Implied Consent  when it would be inequitable for the State to claim immunity
 Ministerio v. City of Cebu
 Santiago v. Republic
 Lim v. Brownell
 United States v. Ruiz. NO Implied Consent  state enters into a business contract, by right of sovereign power and in the exercise of
sovereign functions
 Republic v. Villasor. Consent to be sued does not include consent in the execution of judgment against it. Such execution will require
another waiver, because the power of the court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not
be seized under writs of execution or garnishment, unless such disbursement is covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law.
 In re Pinochet
 Congo vs. Belgium, ICJ
 Flowers vs. Clinton

iv. Suits Against Government Agencies


 Philippine National Railways v. IAC
 National Irrigation Administration v. Fontanilla. If its charter is silent, inquire into its function based on the purpose for which it was
created  proprietary (purpose: to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit; suable) or governmental (if it is in the
interest of health, safety and for the advancement of public good and welfare affecting the public in general, NOT suable)?
 Social Security System v. Court of Appeals: If its charter provides that it has the right to sue and be sued, it is an express consent and it
is suable.
v. Suability vs. Liability
 Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands.

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
a. Separation of Powers
 Purpose: to prevent the concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to irreparable error or abuse in
its exercise to the detriment of republican institutions
 Marbury vs. Madison. In essence, court declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that
the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the
Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. The critical importance of this case is the assumption of the
several powers by the Supreme Court. The court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on which the document
meant. as such the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever
since.
 Boumedienne vs. Bush.
 Springer v. Government of Phil. Islands.
 Angara v. Electoral Commission. The power of judicial review the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in light of
their conformity with the Constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the courts over other departments, but merely an
expression of the supremacy of the Constitution.

b. Non-delegation Doctrine
 Premised on the ethical principle that delegated power constitutes not only a right but also a duty to be performed by the delegate
through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another
 Permissible delegations
6
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
o To the people at large
o Delegation(system of initiative and referendum)
o Emergency powers of the president
o Tariff powers of the President
o Delegation to administrative bodies
o Delegation to LGUs
 Pelaez v. Auditor General. Completeness Test  law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions so that there is nothing
for the delegate to do except to enforce it + Sufficient Standard Test  mans out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by
defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued. Both tests must concur

Non-delegation doctrine Is it an undue delegation of legislative power?

Pelaez v. Auditor-General (creation of municipalities) YES

US v. Ang Tang Ho (Gov.Gen set prices) YES

People v. Rosenthal (Blue Sky Law) NO

Ynot v. IAC (carabaos) YES

Rodriguez v. Gella (war and national emergency) YES

Araneta v. Dinglasan YES

Chiongbian v. Orbos (reorganization of Mindanao for NO


ARMM)

People v. Dacuycuy (Public School Teachers) YES

c. Amendments & Revision


 Amendment: alteration of one or a few specific isolated provisions of the constitution
 Revision: re-examination of the entire Constitution or an important cluster of provisions in the Constitution
 Gonzales v. COMELEC. Doctrine of Proper Submission  plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided that the
people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a
genuine manner.
 Tolentino v. COMELEC. Submission of piece-meal amendments is unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people had to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision.
 Javellana v. Executive Secretary
 Occena v. COMELEC. Petitioners challenged the validity of 3 BP resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, on the basis that the
Javellana ruling is not binding and that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law of the land. The SC dismissed the petition,
saying that it was much too late in the day to deny the force and
 application of the 1973 Constitution.
 Almario v. Alba. Petitioners sought a postponement of the plebiscite on the 1984 constitutional amendments, to give the people more
time to study the proposed changes particularly those relating to urban reform and the inclusion of “grant” as an additional mode of
acquiring public lands. The issue here according to the Supreme Court is WON the voters are aware of the wisdom, the desirability or
the dangers of abuse of the additional mode of acquisition. The court however ruled that the petitioners have failed to make out a case
that the average voter does not know the meaning of grant of public land or of urban land reforms and that there was still enough time
to study said proposed changes.
d. Proposal (ART. XVII, §1) Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-
fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention.
 Constituent Assembly: ¾ of all its members (Senate and HoR vote separately)
 for both amendments and revisions
e. Direct Proposal (ART. XVII, §2) Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right.

7
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Initiative – power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or top propose and enact legislation through an election
called for the purpose
 By a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represent by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein
 For amendments ONLY
 Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC. That the Act does not provide a subtitle for the initiative on the Constitution simply means that the
main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on National and Local Laws (not the Constitution  with regard to RA 6735)
 Lambino vs. COMELEC (PIRMA). This petition violates the Section 2 Article XVII of the constitution. The petition to be signed by the
people should contain a definite proposal of the amendment of the constitution; not merely a general question of whether thay
approve of the amendment or not.
f. Constitutional Convention (ART. XVII, §3) The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention,
or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.  for both amendments and
revisions
g. Plebiscite Requirement (ART. XVII, §4). Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision. Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on
Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES & STATE POLICIES


1. Democracy and Republicanism
2. Renunciation of War as Instrument of National Policy
 Lim v. Executive Secretary. There is a marked antipathy in the Constitution towards foreign military presence in the country, or of foreign
influence in general.
3. The Incorporation Clause
 Yamashita vs. Styler. Under Par. 356 of the Rules of the Land Warfare, a Military Commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals
must be designated by the belligerent (the belligerent‘s representative in this case is Styer). According to the Regulations Governing the
Trial of War Criminals in the Pacific, the trial of persons, units and organizations accused as war criminals will be the Military Commissions
to be convened by or under the authority of the Commander in Chief, US Army Forces. Articles of War Nos. 12 and 15 recognized the
military Commission appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of
the war not ordinarily tried by court martial.
 Oposa vs. Factoran.
 Kuroda vs. Jalandoni: By virtue of the doctrine of incorporation, the Courts have applied the rules of international law in a number of cases
even if such rules had not previously been subject to statutory enactments, because there generally accepted principles of international law
are automatically part of our own laws.
 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion. A strict observance of the Extradition Law indicates that the only duty of the Secretary of Justice is to file
the extradition petition after the request and all the supporting papers are forwarded to him by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. It is the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs who has the authority to conduct the evaluation process.
 Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources
 David vs. Arroyo
 Teodoro vs. CA (Manalo brothers). Writ of Amparo: a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
4. Civilian Supremacy
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora. There is no breach of Section 4 Article II. The joint exercise merely constitutes a permissible
use of military assets for civilian law enforcement; military participation in the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately
circumscribed as evidenced by the LOI. Furthermore, leadership is vested in the PNP, a civilian institution, and their assigned role specifically
gives them the responsibility of directing and managing the deployment of the marines. There is no incursion of the military because the
marines weren‘t incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP - the marines, in effect, merely provided assistance in these visibility
patrols; hence, such deployment does not destroy the civilian character of the PNP.
5. Protection of the People
6. Separation of Church and State
7. Independent Foreign Policy
8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
 BAYAN v. Executive Secretary.
9. Promotion of Social Justice
10. Respect for Human Rights
11. Recognition of the Sanctity of Family Life
8
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Silva v. Court of Appeals
 Hernandez v. Court of Appeals
12. Recognition of the Role of the Youth
13. Recognition of Fundamental Equality Before Law
 Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. NLRC
14. Advancement of the Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
 Oposa v. Factoran. Generally, the provisions of Article II of the Constitution do not confer rights as they are merely declaration of principles
and policies. However, the right to a balanced and healthful ecology gives rise to a cause of action that may be enforced by any citizen.
 C & M Timber Corporation v. Alcala
15. Priority to Education, Science & Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
 Guingona v. Carague. The Court disagrees that Congress’s hands are hamstrung by the provision provided. There are other imperatives of
national interest that it must attend to; the amount allotted to education, 27.8B, is the highest in all department budgets thereby complying
with the mandate of having the highest priority as stated above. The enormous national debt, incurred by the previous administration,
however, still needs to be paid. Not only for the sake of honor but because the national economy is itself at stake. Thus, if Congress allotted
more for debt service such an appropriation cannot be considered by this Court as unconstitutional.
16. Affirmation of Labor as Primary Social Economic Force
17. Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy
 Tanada v. Angara. These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts.
They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of
laws. The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not "self-executing provisions, the
disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but
guidelines for legislation."
18. Indispensable Role of Private Sector
19. Promotion of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform
20. Recognition and promotion of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities
21. Role of Non-Governmental Organizations
22. Recognition of the Vital Role of Communication and Information
23. Autonomy of Local Governments
24. Guarantee of Equal Access to Opportunities for Public Service
25. Honesty and Integrity in the Public Service
26. Policy of Full Public Disclosure
 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
 Neri vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
 Senate vs. Ermita

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

ART. VII, §1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.
 Marcos v. Manglapus. The Executive power is vested in the President. Whatever is not judicial, whatever is not legislative, is residual power
exercised by the president.
 Pimentel v. Aguirre. AO 372 temporarily holding back LGU funds is prohibited. LGU’s enjoy fiscal autonomy which means they have the power to
create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national gov’t. A basic feature of
local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. This is mandated by the constitution. The
release shall be made directly to the LGU within 5 days after every quarter of the year and it shall not be subject to any holdback that may be
imposed by the national gov’t for any purpose.
 Laurel v. Garcia.
 Beltran v. Makasiar. The privilege form immunity from suit (which is aimed to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from
any hindrance or distraction considering that President’s job requires all of her time and attention) pertains to the President by irtue of the office
and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President’s behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in
which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such
accused. Moreover, the President has the right to waive such privilege but it is only him/her that could decide to do so.

Qualifications
ART VII, §2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and
write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such
election.

9
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
The Vice-President
ART. VII, §3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same
manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-President may be appointed as a
Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.

Term Limits
ART. VII, §4 (1-2). The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The
President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for
which he was elected.

How Elected
ART. VII, §4 (3..). Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday
of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall
be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner
provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall
have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court,
sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
 Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos

Oath
ART. VII, §5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the
following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-
President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and
consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

Prohibitions
ART. VII, §6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and
shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government
or any other source.

Rules on Succession
 ART. VII, §7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. If the President-elect fails to
qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified. If a President shall not have been chosen, the
Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. If at the beginning of the term of the President,
the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President. Where no
President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the
President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-
President shall have been chosen and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall
be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned
in the next preceding paragraph.
 ART. VII, §8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the
President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of
death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.
 ART. VII, §9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall
nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
10
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 ART. VII, §10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-
President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to
elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill
calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon
its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and
shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date
of the next presidential election.
 ART. VII, §11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the
Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as
Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the
Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that
purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the
Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble,
determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.
 Estrada v. Desierto. Immunity from suit during his tenure is deemed implied in the Constitution. The immunity, however, does not extend to
non-official acts or for wrongdoing.

Multiple Office & Other Activities


 ART. VII, §13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any
other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
 Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
 Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit

Prohibited Appointments
ART. VII, §13. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be
appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries

Appointments by Acting President


ART. VII, §14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety
days from his assumption or reassumption of office.

Midnight Appointments
 ART. VII, §15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall
not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service
or endanger public safety.
 De Rama v. Court of Appeals. Section 15 applied only to an outgoing President. There is in fact no law prohibiting local elective officers from
appointing during the last day of their term.
 In Re Appointment of Valenzuela. The appointments of the two judges fall within the time banned under Section 15. The court reiterates that
Section 4 is to be understood as effective except in instances denied by Section 15. The Court declares void the appointments.
 Aytona vs. Castillo. As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered especially where the appointed is qualified. But there are
exceptions such as when mass ad interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing President are to be considered by the
Commission on Appointments that is different from that submitted by an incoming President who may not wholly approve of the selections,
especially if it is doubtful that the outgoing President exercised double care in extending such appointments.

The Appointments Clause

11
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 ART. VII, §16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and
other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
 Appointments solely by the President
o Those vested by the Constitution on the President alone
o Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law
o Those whom he may be authorized to appoint
o Those officers lower in rank whose appointment is vested by law in the President alone
 Sarmiento v. Mison. In this case, only appointments under the first sentence of Section 16 Article VII need the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or naval captain is required to gain consent from the Commission on
Appointments.
 Bermudez v. Torres. When the Constitution or the law clothes the President with the power to appoint a subordinate officer, such conferment
must be understood as necessarily carrying with it an ample discretion of whom to appoint. It is the considered view of the Court that the phrase
“upon recommendation of the Secretary,” found in Section 9, Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the Revised Administrative Code, should be
interpreted to be a mere advise, exhortation or endorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character and not binding or obligatory upon the
party to whom it is made. The recommendation is here nothing really more than advisory in nature.
 Manalo v. Sistoza.
 Calderon v. Carale. The Congress cannot, by law, expand the list of public officials required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments
as provided under Article VII Section 16.

Ad Interim Appointments
 ART. VII, §16. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
 Matibag v. Benipayo. The court has to choose between 1.) giving the Pres. the power to make ad interim appointments, w/out constitutional
limit, where, if the CA fails to confirm it, the appointee can even serve office for the whole 7 years through continuous successive renewals AND
2.) the Pres. ad interim appointee can only serve while the Congress is in recess and if the CA doesn’t confirm the appointment, then such
appointment shouldn’t be renewed
 Pimentel vs. Ermita (Hyatt 10). PGMA did not infringe on the rights of Congress—the power to appoint is executive in nature and the Committee
on Appointments, though it be composed of members of Congress, derives executive power from the Constitution. A department secretary is
considered an alter ego of the President; it is only fitting that she personally appoint such a position of great trust and confidence.

Executive Control and the “Take Care” Clause


 ART. VII, §17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
 Mondano v. Silvosa. Control means the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance
of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of former.
 Villena v. Secretary of the Interior. All executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the
various executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the
situation demand that he acts personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by the
and through the executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of Executive Departments when performed and promulgated in the
regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
(Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Principle)
 Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary. The general rule has always been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the
legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy. A public office is either created by the
Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the
same legislature that brought it into existence. The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive department
are concerned, the President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may grant him
the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures. The President has authority to effect organizational changes in the department or the
agency under the executive structure. This finds support in Sec. 78 of RA 8760 which provides that the actual streamlining & productivity
improvement in agency organization & operation shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the
President.
 Ang-Angco v. Castillo. the power of control of the President may extend to the power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees
who belong to the executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such can be justified

12
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
under the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power toappoint but that it does not include officers or employees who belong
to the classified service for as to them that inherent power cannot be exercised.
 Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v. Pano. The President’s control of all executive departments is of constitutional origin. Implicit then is his authority
to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries. Hence, the President can rule on the correctness of a
decision of a department secretary.
 De Leon v. Carpio. There is no question that when Secretary of Justice directed to reinstate the petitioners, Sec. Ordonez was acting in the
regular discharge of his functions as an alter ego of the President. Carpio should therefore have respected his acts, which is in the Department of
Justice under the direct control of its Secretary. As a subordinate in this department, Carpio was (and is) bound to obey the Secretary’s
directives, which are presumptively the acts of the President of the Philippines.
 Chavez vs. Romulo. The right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but subject to regulation. The maintenance of peace and order and the
protection of people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear arms is to be construed in connection and in
harmony with these constitutional duties. The President as chief executive has the holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her
government. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them.

Commander-in-Chief Powers
 ART. VII, §18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may
call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of
all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court
may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
 Lacson v. Perez
 Aquino v. Military Commission No.2.
 Olaguer v. Military Commission No.34. Civilians cannot be tried by military courts if the civil courts are regular and functioning (Open Court
Doctrine)
 David v. Arroyo. The Court held that the declaration of PP 1017 is constitutional as a valid exercise of the President’s calling-out power of the
AFP. Its application by the police however was unconstitutional (i.e. warrantless arrest of Randy David, raid of Daily Tribune).
 Sanlakas vs. Exec. Sec

Pardoning Power
 ART. VII, §19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations,
and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress

Probation/Parole Pardon Commutation Reprieve Amnesty

 Not given by president but by  Granted by the Chief  Reduction of sentence  Suspends penalty  By proclamation of the
law Executive, a private act  You do not extinguish  Neither commute Chief executive with the
 It doesn't really shorten  Pleaded and proved by penalty nor extinguish concurrence of Congress, a
They continue to suffer the person since courts penalty public act
punishment except that it is take no judicial notice  Courts take judicial notice
not in jail thereof  Granted to classes of
 You must serve the minimum  Granted to one after persons or communities
of the sentence conviction (to prevent who may be guilty of

13
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 The kind granted to the President from political offenses before or
Teehankee: minimum should exercising executive after the institution of the
have been 30years of power in derogation of criminal prosecution and
reclusion perpetua (murder + the judicial power) sometimes after the
frustrated murder); but was  Abolishes and forgives conviction
given parole after only the punishment (looks  Abolishes the offense itself
17years --- commutation! forward) (looks backward)
 Does not automatically  As if the offender
restore rights to hold committed no crime
public office, or the
right of suffrage unless
expressly provided
 Never exempts culprit
from the payment of
civil indemnity imposed
upon him by the
sentence

 People v. Casido  pardon void but amnesty valid


 People v. Patriarca, Jr.  amnesty granted.
 Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr. A pardon is a deed, the validity of which depends upon its delivery and acceptance. Monsanto is deemed to have
abandoned her appeal when she accepted the pardon. As a result, the unreversed conviction of the Sandiganbayan became final. Pardon
granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly
grounded on the person’s innocence, it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
 Sabello v. DECS. Generally, the question of whether or not petitioner should be reappointed to his former position is a matter of discretion for
the appointing authority. However, in the instant case, petitioner was unfairly deprived of what is rightfully his, the discretion is qualified by the
requirement of giving justice to the petitioner. It is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the appointing power, but discretion tempered
with fairness and justice.
 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice.
 Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol
 Barrioquinto v. Fernandez
 Torres v. Gonzales. Conditional Pardon  in the nature of a contract between the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal; by the pardonee’s
consent to the terms stipulated in the contract, the pardonee has placed himself under the supervision of the Chief Executive or his delegate
who is duty bound to see to it that the pardonee complies with the conditions of the pardon.
 People v. Vera
 Tesoro v. Director of Prisons

Borrowing Power
 ART. VII, §20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of
the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of
every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt,
and containing other matters as may be provided by law.
 Constantino vs. Cuisia. The Court upheld the Constitutionality of the program saying that buyback is a necessary power which springs from the
grant of the foreign borrowing power and that bonds, being representations of an issuer’s contractual promise to pay back money borrowed, are
also within the Executive power to contract.
 loans
Foreign Affairs Power
 ART. VII, §21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate.
 Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading
 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John Gotamco & Sons, Inc.

14
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Abaya vs. Exec. Sec. An exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive without
the need of a vote by Congress.
 DBM vs. Fernandez and Kolonwel (2008)
 Salonga vs. Exec. Sec(2009)
 Pimentel vs. Exec Sec. The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however,
is limited to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to
submit a treaty to the Senate, or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty
which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President
alone, which cannot be encroached by the Court via mandamus.

Power over Budget


ART VII, §22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general
appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Opening Address
ART VII, §23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

The Nature of Legislative Power


Art. VI, Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

Composition and Qualifications


 ART. VI, §2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as
may be provided by law.
 ART. VI, §5(1) (2). (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed
by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) The party-list representatives shall
constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
 R. A. No. 7941
 BANAT v. COMELEC
 Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC
 Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC. Court ruled that the seats reserved for party-list groups in Congress are to be reserved for
the marginalized sectors, and that party-list nominees must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors after petitioners filed a
complaint calling for the disqualification of several party-list groups from the 2001 party-list elections.
 Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC. If a person retains his domicile of origin, for purposes of the residence requirement for representatives the
one-year period is irrelevant because, by legal fiction, wherever he may be, he is a resident of his domicile or origin. If a person re-establishes a
previously abandoned domicile or acquire a new one, the one-year requirement must be satisfied.
 Coquilla v. COMELEC
 Domino v. COMELEC. A person’s domicile once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is established.
To successfully establish a new domicile of choice one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.
 Tobias v. Abalos. RA 7675 recognized San Juan and Mandaluyong as distinct representative districts and was challenged for not mentioning any
census which indicated that the two cities had the minimum requirement of 250k inhabitants needed to constitute a district, and for resulting in
the membership of the House of Representatives to go above the 250- member limit. Court held that Congress had made due consideration of
the minimum requirement in the creation of new representative districts, and that the 250-member limit provided in the Constitution is not an
absolute value.
 Mariano v. COMELEC. The Constitution does not preclude the Congress from increasing its membership be passing a law, other than a general
reapportionment law. Thus, a law converting a municipality into a highly urbanized city automatically creates a new legislative districe, and
consequently increases the membership of the House.

Term of Office
15
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 ART. VI, §4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was
elected.
 ART. VI, §7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Policy Against Gerrymandering


 Gerrymandering  formation of one legislative district out of separate territories for the purpose of favoring a candidate or a party.
 ART. VI, §5(3). (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with
a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
 Ceniza v. COMELEC. Corollary to independence is the concomitant loss of the right to participate in provincial affairs, especially provincial
elections, since these provincial officials have ceased to have jurisdiction and authority over said cities. Classification based on income is
substantial. Revenue would show if the city is capable of existence and development and relative development.

Equitable Representation
ART. VI, §5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on
the standards provided in this section.

Rule on Vacancies

Salaries
 PHILCONSA v. Mathay. The Constitution’s wording is singular (‘term’ not ‘terms’); hence, both the Senators and the Representatives who
approved such an increase were taken as a single unit.

Parliamentary Immunities
 ART. VI, Sec. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment,
be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
 Martinez v. Morfe
 Osmena v. Pendatun. The interpretation of the phrase disorderly behavior is the prerogative of the House concerned and cannot be judicially
reviewed.
 Jimenez v. Cabangbang. Privilege speeches and debates  (1) remarks must be made while the legislature or the legislative committee is in
session; and, (2) they must be made in connection with the discharge of duties.
 People v. Jalosjos. Members of Congress are not exempt from detention for crime. They may be arrested, even when the House is in session, for
crimes punishable by a penalty of more than 6 months

Full Disclosure & Conflict of Interest


ART. VI, §12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial
and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed
legislation of which they are authors.

Incompatible & Forbidden Offices


 ART. VI, §13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during
the term for which he was elected.
 Adaza v. Pacana. Forfeiture is automatic upon assumption of such other office incompatible with his seat in Congress.

Practice of Law & Financial Interest


 ART. VI, §14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
16
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Puyat v. De Guzman. A congressman tried to circumvent the law by buying stocks from his client, then attempting to appear as counsel on the
pretext of “direct interest.” Court saw through this ruse and disallowed his appearance as counsel in court.
 Arroyo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Sessions
ART. VI, §15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by
law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Officers of the Congress


 ART. VI, §16(1). The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective
Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona. Majority = political party to which most number of lawmakers belonged – concept of plurality. The Constitution
is silent as regards the manner of electing officers other than the Senate President and the House Speaker. Hence, it is within the province of the
Legislative, not the SC, as conferred by the Constitution.

Quorum Requirement
 ART. VI, §16(2). A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may
compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
 Avelino v. Cuenco. The basis for determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of Senators who are in the
country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.

Power to Control Proceedings


 ART. VI, §16(3). Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence
of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
 Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan. Members of Senate may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of the Obudsman.
 Vera v. Avelino. The Senate has not exceeded its powers. The senate did not usurp the powers of the Electoral Tribunal. Independent of a
constitutional or statutory grant, the Senate has, under parliamentary practice, the power to inquire into the credentials of any member and the
latter’s rights to participate in its deliberations. The constitution provides limits upon the plenary rights of the legislative. The Electoral Tribunal
on the other hand, is given jurisdiction over all contests relating to elections
 Paredes v. Sandiganbayan. Members of the House may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of the Obudsman.

The Journal and the Enrolled Bill Doctrine


 ART. VI, §16(4). Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered
in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
 United States v. Pons
 Mabanag v. Lopez Vito. An enrolled bill is one duly introduced and finally passed by both Houses, authenticated by the proper officers of each,
and approved by the President. It is conclusive upon courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the
President.
 Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of
Congress and approved by the Executive, on which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and
undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system, the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
 Astorga v. Villegas. Enrolled bill prevails, except to matters, which under the Constitution, must be entered into the Journal.
 Morales v. Subido
 Arroyo v. De Venecia

Adjournments
ART. VI, §16(5). Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to
any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The Electoral Tribunals


 ART. VI, §17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members,
three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political

17
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.
 ART. VI, §19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the
House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker.
 Bondoc v. Pineda. Camasura’s expulsion from the Tribunal is a clear impairment of the Tribunal’s prerogative to be the sole judge of election
contests.
 Guerrero v. COMELEC.
 Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal. Every member of the Tribunal may as his conscience dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a
case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests would stand in the way of an impartial judgment. But the SET cannot be legally function
absent its entire Senate membership, and no amendment of its rules can confer on the 3 Justices-members alone the power of valid adjudication
of a senatorial election contest. The litigants would just have to place their trust of vindication in the fitness and sense of justice of the Members
of the Tribunal.
 Suanes v. Disbursing Officer of the Senate
 Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Jurisdiction and Power of electoral tribunals include rule-making powers. In the absence
of further constitutional provisions relating to procedure to be followed in filing protests before the HRET, incidental power to promulgate such
rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all the contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of the
members of Congress, must also be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged in the Tribunal.
 Garcia v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

The Commission on Appointments


 ART. VI, §18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators,
and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political
parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote,
except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their
submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
 ART. VI, §19. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its
Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
 Daza v. Singson. Petitioner claims that the party must still stand for 1 year to prove its permanence but the Liberal Party has been in the same
situation before and it was only 4 months old then. LDP meanwhile commands the biggest following in the House and has not only survived but
also prevailed.
 Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr. Since the total membership of the House of Representatives was 202, to be entitled to a seat in the Commission, a party
must have 16.8 members in the House or 3.4% of the total membership. KAIBA was obviously short of the required number even if Coseteng had
the support of members not belonging to her party.
 Guingona, Jr. v. Gonzales. For the senate, a political party must have at least 2 members to be entitled to one seat in the Commission of
Appointment. Rounding off is not allowed.

Inquiries in Aid of Legislation


 ART. VI, §21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
 Senate vs. Ermita. When the Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has
issued, its right to information is not as imperative as the of the President to whom department heads must give a report of their performance.
In such instances, Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states the Congress may only request their appearance. Nonetheless,
when the inquiry in which the Congress requires their appearance is in aid of legislation under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory. And the
only way for department heads to exempt themselves from it is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by mere fact that they are
department heads. Only one executive may be exempted – the President.
 Neri vs. Blue Ribbon Committee. Presidential communications are presumptively privileged and that presumption can be overcome only be
mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to conversations. The oversight function of the Congress may be facilitated by
compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
 Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Sen. Enrile suggested the need to determine the existence of violation of law in the alleged
transfer of some properties of Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group of Companies. On this basis, the Committee decided in aid of legislation to
investigate the transaction. The Committee had gone beyond what was allowable. The investigation was not in aid of legislation because the
speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation.
 Arnault v. Nazareno. The SC held that the offender could be imprisoned indefinitely by the Senate, it being a continuing body, provided that the
punishment did not become so long as to violate due process. As for the HOR, the same decision declared that the imprisonment could last not
only during the sesstion when the offense was committed but until the final adjournment of the body.
 Arnault v. Balagtas. Court cannot review Congress’s findings. The judicial department of the government has no right to do, much in the same
manner, that the legislative department cannot invade the judicial realm in the ascertainment of truth and in the application and interpretation
18
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
of law, in what is known as the judicial process, because that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of separation of powers
established by the Constitution.

The Question Hour


ART. VI, §22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as
the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions
shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

Question Hour Legislative investigation


As to persons who may appear Only a department head Any person
As to who conducts investigation Entire body Committees
As to subject matter Matters related to the department only Any matter for the purpose of legislation
As to obligatory force of appearance Discretionary Mandatory

Power to Declare Existence of State of War


ART. VI, §23(1). The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to
declare the existence of a state of war.

Emergency Powers
ART. VI, §23(2). In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

The Origination Clause


 ART. VI, §24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance. The exclusivity of the prerogative of the HOR means simply that the House alone can initiate the passage of a
revenue bill, such that, if the House does not initiate one, no revenue law will be passed. But once the House has approved a revenue bill and
passed it on the Senate, the Senate can completely overhaul it, by amendment of parts or by amendment by substitution, and come out with
one completely different from what the House approved.
 Alvarez v. Guingona, Jr.
The General Appropriations Clause
ART. VI, §25. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified
in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
 Riders ART. VI, §25(2). No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
relates.
o Garcia v. Mata The said paragraph failed to disclose its relevance or relation to any appropriation item or to the Appropriation
Act as a whole.
 Transfer of Funds ART. VI, §25(4). No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
 Demetria v. Alba.
 PHILCONSA v. Enriquez. Refusal of the president to spend funds already allocated by Congress for specific purpose // the failure to
spend or obligate budget authority of any type.
 Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr. A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for a veto even
if it is not an appropriation or revenue “item”.

Title & Subject of Bills


 ART. VI, §26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
 Central Capiz v. Ramirez  Title

19
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board. The title “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” was questioned as to whether or not it is
sufficiently broad to cover a regulatory tax provision included in the act. The tax provision is indeed related to the creation and the functions of
the said Board.
 Lidasan v. COMELEC. RA 4790 “An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Norte” was questioned because the
title did not reflect the fact that 2 barrios from the adjacent province, Cotabato, were included in the new municipality formed. Statute was
declared unconstitutional because the title did not inform the legislature of persons interested as to the full impact of the law.
 Tobias v. Abalos  San Juan, Mandaluyong

Procedure for Passage of Law


ART. VI, §26(2). No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof
in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the
vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

Effectivity of Laws
Tanada v. Tuvera. Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. (CC, 2)
E. O. No. 200 (1987)

Presidential Veto
 ART. VI, §27. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall
sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at
large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds
of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House
where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
 Bengzon v. Drilon. The president vetoed methods placed by Congress to insure the permanent and continuing obligations to certain officials
would be paid when they fell due. Plus, the president may not veto a law enacted 35-years before his term. PD 644 never became valid. Her
finance advisers gave the wrong info that the questioned provisions were an attempt to overcome her earlier 1990 veto.
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals. An “item” in a revenue bill does not refer to an entire section imposing a particular
kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. On the other hand, a section identifies the tax and enumerates the persons
covered by the taxation with the corresponding tax rate.

Aspects of Power to Appropriate


i. Uniform and Equitable System of Taxation ART. VI, §28(1). The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
ii. Progressive System of Taxation
iii. Authority to Delegate Tariff Rates ART. VI, §28(2). The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject
to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.
Garcia v. Executive Secretary.
iv. Exemptions from Taxation
 ART. VI, §28(3). Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxation.
 Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos. The 1987 Constitution and other statutes treat “charitable” and “religious” separately and independently of
each other. The rule is that tax exemptions are generally construed strictly against the taxpayer. However, there are cases wherein claims for
tax exemptions for “religious purposes” have been liberally construed as covered in the law granting tax exemptions for “charitable purposes”.
Thus, the term “charitable purposes” within the meaning of a statute providing that the succession of any property passing to or for the use of
any institution for purposes only of public charity shall not be subject to succession tax, is deemed to include religious purposes.
st
 Abra Valley College, Inc. v. Aquino. Because the 1 floor was used for commercial purposes, it was held that it cannot be exempt, although
because a part of it is used exclusively for educational purposes also, it is not wholly taxed.

Vote Required for Grant of Exemption  No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.

Limitations on Use of Public Funds


20
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
ART. VI, §29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property
shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (3) All
money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for
which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
 Manosca v. Court of Appeals. Guido guidelines are too restrictive and were not meant to be preclusive in nature. The land now in dispute is
said to be for public use thus qualifying it to be eminent domain. The term “public use” must be considered in its general concept of meeting a
public need or a public exigency. The Iglesia ni Cristo founder’s birthplace is recognized because of the founder’s significant contribution to
Philippine culture. Thus, it can be considered public use.

Requirement for Increase in Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court


 ART. VI, §30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice
and concurrence.
 First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. The President resorted to penning the current disputed provision. For this reason, the Court
declared such provision null and void. It would have been wise if the President has followed this amendment, since it was not really imperative
that the Supreme Court obtains the appellate jurisdiction of the Board.
 Fabian v. Desierto. Court says the provision in the Constitution does not refer to quasi-judicial bodies. the very provision cited by petitioner
specifies that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court contemplated therein is to be exercised over "final judgments and orders of lower courts,"
that is, the courts composing the integrated judicial system.

Prohibition Against Grant of Title of Royalty or Nobility


ART. VI, §31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

Initiative and Referendum


ART. VI, §32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after
the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
Garcia v. COMELEC. The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but also resolutions as appropriate subjects of local initiative. A
resolution is used whenever the legislature wished to express an opinion which is to have only a temporary effect. An ordinance is intended to
permanently direct and control matters applying to person or thing in general

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judicial Power
 ART VIII, §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.
 includes the duty of the courts 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.
 Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co  arbitrators

Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack of or in Excess of Jurisdiction


 Capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
 Garcia v. Board of Investments. The Court must uphold the duty of the State to “regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within
the national jurisdiction and in accordance with national goals.” BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer when no
cogent advantage to the government has been shown.

Jurisdiction
 ART. VIII, §2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive
the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
21
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
 ART. VIII, §4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. (2) All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation
of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (3) Cases or matters heard by a
division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues
in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not
obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc
or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
 ART. VIII, §5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, reverse,
modify, 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. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower
courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and
legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall
be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
 Mantruste Systems Inc. v. Court of Appeals. SC upholds CA ruling that Proclamation 50-A is constitutional, Proclamation 50-A provides that no
court can issue restraining orders and writs of injunction against Asset Privatization Trust and to those who purchase assets of said trust.
Proclamation does not impinge upon the judicial power as defined by Sec. 1 Article 8 of the Constitution. There can be no justification for judicial
interference in the business of an administrative agency except when it violates a citizen’s constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of
discretion or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.
 Firestone Ceramics v. Court of Appeals
 Fortich v. Corona
 Fabian v. Desierto
 In Re Cunanan
 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice
 In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines
 In re Atty. Edillon

Qualifications
ART. VIII, §7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower
court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. (2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar. (3) A Member of the Judiciary
must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

The Judicial and Bar Council


ART. VIII, §8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor
of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. (2) The regular members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the
representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the
representative of the private sector for one year. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings. (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. (5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Appointments to the Judiciary

22
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
ART. VIII, §9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. For the lower courts, the
President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

Term of Office
ART. VIII, §11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of
seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges
of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon.

Salary
 ART. VIII, §10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by
law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
 Nitafan v. Commission on Internal Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the salaries of judges, like those of other government functionaries,
should also be subject to income tax.

Administrative Supervision
 ART. VIII, §6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
 Maceda v. Vasquez. Power of supervision is exclusive so that the Ombudsman may not investigate a judge independently of any administrative
action of SC.
 Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Ombudsman. Under Sec. 6, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by
itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee involves an administrative matter.

Power to Discipline
People v. Gacott, Jr. Administrative cases which are to be heard by SC en banc includes only: (1) administrative judges; (2) disbarment of lawyers;
(3) suspension of more than 1 year; or (3) fine exceeding PhP10,000.

Fiscal Autonomy
ART. VIII, §3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.

Prohibition against Administrative Functions


 ART. VIII, §12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
 In re Judge Manzano. Judge Manzano is appointed by provincial governor to sit as member of the Provincial Committee of Justice pursuant to
Presidential EO no. 856. Petitioner asks Court if he can accept such designation without prejudice to his position as an RTC judge of Ilocos Norte.
Court rules that committee performs administrative functions and as such membership of said judge in committee is deemed unconstitutional.

Certification Requirement
 ART. VIII, §13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in
consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Members who took no part, or
dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower
collegiate courts.
 Consing v. Court of Appeals. The lack of certification at the end of the decision is only evidence of failure to observe certification requirement
and may be a basis for holding the official responsible for the omission to account therefore. Such absence of certification would not have the
effect of invalidating the decision.

Substance of Decisions
 ART. VIII, §14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the
legal basis therefor.
 Yao v. Court of Appeals.
 Francisco v. Permskul
 Valdez v. Court of Appeals
 Komatsu Industries Phils, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
23
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013
Constitutional Law 1
Prof. H.L. Roque
AY 2009-2010
Period to Decide
ART. VIII, §15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to
this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

Annual Report
ART. VIII, §16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and
the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary.

24
Janz Hanna Ria
A2013

You might also like