This reviewer is prepared by D2013 and is included in the 2010 ADAPT kit.

The D2013 Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer is for the EXCLUSIVE use of UP Law Students.

All rights are reserved.

LSG Online Academic Library - A Project of UP LSG Secretariat http://uplsg.org

D2013 Consti1 Reviewer Prof. Jardeleza SY 2009-2010 SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION A. Fundamental law as overriding standard of validity in case of repugnancy If two laws – one being a law or a statute and the other one a constitutional precept – are irreconcilably in conflict with each other, the court, by means of judicial review, must choose between the two. But since the Constitution is superior to any act of legislature, it being an enactment of the sovereign people, the Constitution must prevail. Marbury vs. Madison Facts: William Marbury, in a petition, challenged James Madison, then Secretary of State of the United States to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding the latter to deliver the commission of the former as justice of the peace in the district of Columbia. Madison contended that Marbury’s designation as justice of the peace was made in a form of a “midnight appointment” and is therefore unconstitutional. Ruling: This case declared, for the first time, an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. The Supreme Court held that a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the court to issue a writ of mandamus, was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice Marshall declared that in any conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, the Constitution must always take precedence. B. Supremacy of the Constitution enforced through judicial review One of the ways of enforcing the supremacy of the Constitution is through judicial review. Judicial review is the power of a court to settle actual

controversies between real conflicting parties thrugh the applications of a law. It involves the duty of the court of pronouncing void any such act which does not square with its own reading of the Constitution. When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it the by the Constitution. Angara vs. Electoral Commission Facts: Angara was elected representative of Tayabas, Quezon and was already proclaimed a member of the National Assembly when Ynsua protested to the ELECOM. Angara filed a motion to dismiss the protest but since his motion was denied by the ELECOM, he filed an original action in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the ELECOM to hear the protest of Ynsua, provided that ELECOM was under the National Assembly which already proclaimed him as its member as the elected representative of Tayabas, Quezon. Ruling: [1] When there’s an actual case or controversy, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral constituent units thereof. [2]The judiciary has judicial power, and included in this power is judicial review. The Court has the discretion whether or not to exercise this power. Hence, it produced standards for justiciability. Tañada vs. Cuenco Facts: There were only two parties in the Senate, namely Nacionalista Party and Citizens Party and the minority party (Citizens Party) has only one seat in it, filled in by Tañada. The Constitution provides that the Senate Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of three members nominated by the party with the largest number of votes in the Senate and another three members nominated by the party with the second largest number. Tañada, after !"

"

nominating himself, refused to nominate two more Senators so the said slots were filled in by two more members of the Nacionalista Party. Ruling: To those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure. C. Acts of government must conform to the norms of the Constitution The concept of the Constitution as the fundamental law, setting forth the criterion for the validity of any public act whether proceeding from the highest official or the lowest functionary, is a postulate of our system of government. The three branches of government, in the discharge of their functions, have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the highest law of the land. Sovereignty belongs to the people and the Constitution is a written instrument through which the people entrust to government a measure of its own sovereignty and no more. What is thus entrusted to the government is limited power. Hence every act of government must conform to the terms of empowerment set by the Constitution. Mutuc vs. COMELEC Facts: Mutuc is a candidate for the Constitutional Convention called during the second Marcos term. COMELEC approved his candidacy but prohibited him from using jingles in his campaign. Mutuc contended that the prohibition was a violation of his right to free speech. Ruling: As a branch of the executive department, although independent of the President, to which the Constitution has given the exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections, the power of decision of the COMELEC is limited to purely administrative questions. The COMELEC cannot exercise any authority in

conflict with or outside the law, and there is no higher law than the Constitution. Osmeña vs. COMELEC Facts: Osmeña assails the constitutionality of RA 7056, “An Act Providing for the National and Local Elections on 1992, Pave Way for Synchronized and Simultaneous Elections Beginning 1995”. Ruling: RA 7056 was declared unconstitutional because it violated several provisions of the Constitution, especially the provision on synchronization of elections. The mere absence of a provision in the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the holding of separate elections does not mean that the Constitution did not intend the holding of simultaneous or synchronized elections. Moreover, the legislature cannot extend the term of officers since it is clearly not mandated by the Constitution. D. Constitutional Construction The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers. Nitafan vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Facts: Judges seek to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries. They submit that any tax withheld from their compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decrease of diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provisions of Art. VIII, Sec.10 of the 1987 Constitution. Ruling: #"

"

The issue of whether or not incumbent President Marcos should be allowed to run has turned into a political question. which paved way for the creation of the 1987 Constitution.The court accorded due respect to the intent of the people. Marcos was sworn in by Chief Justice Ramon Aquino at Malacañang. Ruling: Petition was dismissed since there are less than the required ten (10) votes to declare BP Blg. either to the give the incumbent president a new mandate or elect a new president. B. The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot. Aquino Facts: Petitioners alleged that the Aquino gov’t is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. Corazon Aquino was proclaimed first woman President of the Republic of the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution A. However. Art. which can be truly decided by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election. Lawyers’ League for a Better Philippines vs. Mr. also known as the “Freedom Constitution”. The Aquino government is not merely a de facto but it is in fact and law a de jure government In Re: Saturnino Bermudez Facts: A lawyer questions Article 18 of proposed 1986 Constitution regarding who the provision refers to when it says President and Vice President. 883 which calls for a snap election for the positions of President and Vice President. through the discussions and deliberations of their representatives. 1986. The Provisional Constitution In virtue of Proclamation No. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. in defiance of the 1973 Constitution and without the sanction of the Batasang Pambansa. Laurel. it is outside the ambit of the courts. The court dismisses it outright for lack of jurisdiction and a cause of action. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION II. Since it is a political question. They filed a petition to prohibit the enforcement of the BP on the basis of its unconstitutionality. V: ADOPTION OF A NEW CONSTITUTION $" " . Philippine Bar Association vs. 1 of the Batasang Pambansa issued on February 25. as the alter ego of the people. The framers of the Constitution. Ruling: Petitioner's allegation of ambiguity or vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous. 3. have expressed in unmistakable terms the meaning and import of Art. Adoption and Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution Provisional Constitution. Ruling: The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter since it belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. 883 unconstitutional. VIII. COMELEC Facts: Petitioners assail the validity of BP Blg. in the spirit that all citizens should bear their part of the cost of maintaining the government and should share the burden of general income tax equitably. which says that members of the judiciary are NOT exempt from paying income taxes. Sec. it being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent President Corazon C. 10 of the Constitution. had denied her the presidency and chose instead to govern under a provisional constitution by virtue of Proclamation No. Aquino turned her back from the 1973 Constitution whose officials (members of the Batasan). Pres. and to no other persons. Article 4 of the Freedom Constitution provided for the adoption of a new constitution.

Ruling: Was the designation of respondents validly made (during the oneyear period which ended on February 25. Also. no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. 11. petitioners were elected Brgy Capt and Brgy Councilmen respectively under BP 222 (Brgy Election Act of 1982). 1987 by respondent OIC Gov Esguerra designated other people for said positions. 1988. PROVCON must be deemed overtaken by A18/S27/CON87." or up to June 7. They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors of society. The plenary sessions of the Commission shall be public and fully recorded. Art. 2. and not at the time the people cast their votes… the will of the people as of that time. petitioners contend that with CON87 ratification. Popular Sovereignty and Constituent Power A. A3/S2/PROVCON. The Commission shall conduct public hearings to ensure that the people will have adequate participation in the formulation of the New Constitution. and could not have been.S1. 1987 and not Feb. promulgated Mar 25. (NOTE: this ends Feb. of recognized probity. 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. 8. 1987). 25. Constituent power 2. S27: This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. Memoranda signed Feb 8. Electoral power %" " . 1987. The Commission shall be composed of not less than thirty (30) nor more than fifty (50) natural born citizens of the Philippines. CON87 overtook PROVCON when former was ratified in a plebiscite Feb. 1987 is still within the one-year deadline pursuant to PROVCON. respondent OIC Gov.XXX”. The Commission shall complete its work within as short a period as may be consistent with the need both to hasten the return of normal constitutional government and to draft a document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people. It shall become valid and effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in such plebiscite which shall be held within a period of sixty (60) days following its submission to the President. While Feb. XVIII. III. S2. Proclamation No. Quoting that A18/S27/CON87 says that CON87 “shall take effect immediately upon its ratification xxx” he argues CON87 “takes effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained [as in Proclamation 58]. Popular sovereignty and its collective powers 1. S4. including the Ordinance appended thereto.1986. Within sixty (60) days from date of this Proclamation. S5. Petitioners wanted these Memos nullified as S3/BP222 states that their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7. 1986: All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors. known for their independence. a Commission shall be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution. S3. Sarmiento): For him. The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President who shall fix the date for the holding of a plebiscite. has been duly ratified by the Filipino people and is therefore effective and in full force and effect. Esguerra (1987) Facts: During 1982 Barangay elections.. had not. CON87 is made effective Feb.” De Leon v. 1987 Const. nationalism and patriotism. 1987. vet determined. 58 (Proclaiming the ratification of the 1987 Constitution): “xxx that the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986. if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25. Dissent (J. 1987 pursuant toA3/S2/PROVCON)? NO. 2.

Section 2. 6. and the exceptions therefrom. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. provide for a system of initiative and referendum. and in the place wherein they propose to vote. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters. the proposition. In the CON73. — (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum.6. 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. The obligation has been removed by the CON87. at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of the registered voters. of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof. Sec. Verification of Signatures. it took the form of an obligation. the reason or reasons therefor. or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. some of the details of which are: Sec. Bernas notes on A6 (The Legislative Department)/S32/CON87: Initiative and Referendum • Current implementing law is RA6735. except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same with the Commission. 5. Until then. 7.ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE (A5 has only two sections) Section 1. — The Commission on Election shall set a special registration day at least three (3) weeks before a scheduled initiative or referendum. property. who are at least eighteen years of age. The Congress shall. voters' affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. xxx Sec. — The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters. as early as possible. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted. as the case may be. and c. for at least six months immediately preceding the election.3. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. xxx (c) The petition shall state the following: c. Requirements. Bernas notes on A5/CON87 Suffrage as right and duty • Concept of suffrage (right to vote) started as a statutory right and evolved into a CON right. 3. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein. Legislative power through Initiative and referendum A6 (The Legislative Department)/S1/CON87: Section 1. c.5. II National Initiative and Referendum &" " .2. The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons.1. A6/S32/CON87: Section 32. and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year. Special Registration. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the petition. c. they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot. c. amended or repealed. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. c. No literacy.4. of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof. approved or rejected.

'" " . • Extensive administrative powers must be deemed possessed also by the COMELEC under the CON87 because of the broad language of S2(1) and S2(3). all questions affecting elections.com/doc/4664395/Judicial-ReviewPop-SovereigntyConstituent-Pow) Facts: Simeon G. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum. quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” B. 10. if the majority vote is not obtained. amendment or rejection of a national law shall be submitted to and approved by a majority of the votes cast by all the registered voters of the Philippines. Prohibited Measures. its powers are executive. 9. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. the enactment of which are specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution. Del Rosario assails the constitutionality of RA 6132 (CONCON Act of 1970). appointment of election officials and inspectors. If. Effectivity of Initiative or Referendum Proposition. Power of Recall A9C(Constitutional Commissions. the national law sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in full force and effect. xxx (c) A national or local initiative proposition approved by majority of the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall become effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation by the Commission. COMELEC (1970) (http://www.Sec. — (a) The Proposition of the enactment. the proposition to reject a national law is approved by a majority of the votes cast. In general Del Rosario v. referendum. Sec. and registration of voters. 2. except those involving the right to vote. and (b) Statutes involving emergency measures. approval. He is temporary staff writer of Weekly Nation Magazine. 4. He is on home leave and is waiting to be reinstated to his post in Bangkok by DFA. Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition.scribd. Sec. — The following cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition: (a) No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate. publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition. However. The COMELEC)/S2(1)/CON87: Sec. S2(3) grants power to “decide. — The Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum. COMELEC is an administrative agency. upon determining the sufficiency of the petition. As such. initiative. plebiscite. including determination of the number and location of polling places. cannot be subject to referendum until ninety (90) days after its effectivity. and recall. the said national law shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become effective fifteen (15) days following the completion of publication of the proposition and the certification by the Commission in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Amending of Revisionary Process 1. as certified by the Commission. 8. the Commission shall. Bernas notes on COMELEC: Nature of the powers of the COMELEC • Like the CSC. and a permanent int’l Research Officer of SEA Treaty Organization.

S5: Any elected delegate is disqualified from running for any public office while CONCON is ongoing. S5 does not deprive petitioners of their rights to due process and equal protection as provision merely protects institution by making sure that delegate will not take advantage of his position. One. Imbong v. they were correct in using the preliminary population census taken by the Bureau of Census & Statistics. Del Rosario failed to prove that he has rights which will be impaired if the law is enacted. Ruling: Is RA 6132 constitutional? Yes. by people’s initiative (PI). or other organization xxx shall intervene in the nomination of any such candidate or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or support. COMELEC (1997) Facts: 1. In this case. Congress has right to apportion the number of delegates per district. He assails S21/RA6132 which involves appropriation of P29M for CONCON as such amount is a waste of money because CONCON has no time limit for its duration. They can grant powers and fix the qualifications and other requirements needed such as in the case of the CONCON delegates. Santiago v. S8: Political parties or other organizations prohibited from helping CONCON delegates during campaign period. This provides everyone an equal opportunity to take part in the electoral process. Provided. Ruling: Is RA 6132 valid? Yes. material or otherwise. Created to prevent clear and present danger of debasement of electoral process. 2. RA 6132 was enacted in Congress’ capacity as a legislative body exercising its broad lawmaking authority. Thirdly. CONCON should be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants. They can limit it if there are economic restraints. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said PI the signature-gathering all over the country. directly or indirectly. All people in the same class are subjected to the same law thus there is equal protection of law. professional. We can’t really effect an absolutely proportional representation. law can make it mala prohibita. People will ratify CON and decide if only parts of it will be changed or it will be entirely overhauled. S4 is valid in accordance with CON prohibition on public employees/officials running for election. 2. favorable to or against his campaign for election xxx”. political committee. emotional assistance/support from political parties or civic associations. The proposition is: “Do you approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials. assail the constitutionality of S19/RA 6132 because it prejudices their rights as interested candidates for delegates to CONCON. moral. S8(a): “No candidate for delegate to the Convention shall represent or allow himself to be represented as being a candidate of any political party or any other organization. 3. political group. 4. This is similar to Consti prohibition. Although support of candidate is not a wrong in itself. S2: Apportionment of delegates. religious. and no political party. This method is fair. 1.He assails S5 and 8 of said law because they are oppressive. amending for the purpose Sections 4 (" " . Another. Atty. His petition is recognized by virtue of his claim that he is a taxpayer and as such. S5/RA6132 disqualifies a person elected as CONCON delegate from running for any public office in any election or to assume any appointive office or position in Govt until after final adjournment of CONCON. civic. each district is entitled to at least two delegates. validity of questioned provisions has been upheld in previous Court decisions. 5. In 1996. It does not deny them of due process or equal protection. S4: All public officers and employees are considered resigned upon filing certificates of candidacy. it is still credible. COMELEC (1970) (4664395) Facts: Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales. to lift term limits of elective officials. Whether to amend it or not and the means for amending it are issues beyond Court jurisdiction. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend CON. Congress can sit as a constituent body to propose amendments to the CON. he has an interest in the appropriation. Process has to be cleaned. Though only provisional. S8 prohibits material. both members of the Bar.

This deliberate omission indicates matter of PI was left to some future law. c. in the case of initiative on the Constitution. Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law. The claim that COMELEC Resolution 2300 is ultra vires is contradicted by (a) Section 2. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought. S9(b)/RA 6735 specifically provides that the proposition in an initiative to amend the Constitution approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as of the day of the plebiscite. 4. as worded. 2300 pursuant to RA 6735 was upheld by the SC 3. d. Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC. or a law which only Congress can pass. 2. RA 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution. a. The argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope.and 7 of Article VI. 5. b. the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of PI. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. Ruling: 1. does not provide for its implementation. for whatever reason. RA 6735 is the enabling law implementing PI. 3rd. and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country. )" " . unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative. Sec 5(c) does not include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended. it is only an amendment. 1st. c. is not selfexecutory. The word is not relevant to the section which is silent as to amendments of the Constitution. the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. not to revision thereof. National initiative – what is proposed to be enacted is a national law. Petitioners Sen. CON provision on PI to amend CON can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. ART IX-C of the Constitution and (b) Section 20 of RA 6735 which empowers the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. ordinance or resolution which only legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions. but on its nature and character. COMELEC Resolution No. A17/S2/CON87 providing for amendments to CON. no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. Sec 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. the people cannot exercise it if Congress. and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people. e. RA6735 was intended to include or cover PI on amendments to CON but. it will be formally filed with the COMELEC. PI is limited to amendments to CON. No such law has been passed. Respondents argue that 1. While CON has recognized or granted the right of the people to directly propose amendments to CON via PI. unlike in the other modes of initiative. b. Under Subtitle II and III. Section 4 of Article VII. The lifting of the limitation on the term of office of elective officials provided under the 1987 Constitution is not a “revision” of the Constitution. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision. contrary to the assertion of COMELEC. 2nd. 4. Only Congress is authorized by CON to pass the implementing law. Congress nor any govt agency has not yet appropriated funds for PI. COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. a. 3. it does not adequately cover such intiative.

and barangays can pass. [2] Delegation of emergency powers to the President. to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority. [4] Delegation to local governments. cities. it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC. and (b) fixes a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. as part of A14/S11/CON73. or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file their memoranda or oppositions. energy. It does not have that power under RA6735. or implemented by the delegate. There are four separate questions answerable by YES or NO. the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. an administrative body exercising quasijudicial functions. Q4 proposed by BP 113 provides that a paragraph will be included in A14/S12/CON73 saying the state will undertake an urban land reform and social housing program *" " . 2300. 3. [3] Delegation to the people at large. 3 proposed by BP 105. What has been delegated. 2300 is valid. 104. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that RA 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. sitting en banc. IS VOID. the hearing on 12 December 1996. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. By Congress and Constituent Assembly Almario v. The petition was merely entered as UND. Proposals a. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself. provides that grant shall be an additional mode for the acquisition of lands. and [5] Delegation to administrative bodies. RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Law) as worded did not apply to constitutional amendment. COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition. (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin’s movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations. which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996. 1120. INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. carried out. and resources. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Empowering the COMELEC. a petition solely intended to obtain an order: (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering. Question No. Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. or has jurisdiction over. 4. provinces. 112 and 113. In so dignifying it. 2300. Without the required signatures. It was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper. COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of. 5. and (c) directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution. there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. The recognized exceptions to the rule are: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President. 2. RA 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. 105. cannot be delegated. setting forth therein the policy to be executed. In every case of permissible delegation. municipalities. The COMELEC requires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. Alba (1984) (Source: Diane Sayo digest) Facts: BP 643 provides for a plebiscite on 27 Jan 1984 to either approve or reject CON amendments proposed by BP Res. the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. meaning undocketed.2.

Petitioners: there has been no fair and proper submission to the people prior plebiscite. If ratification of an amendment is a political question. 18 against. Dissents: Teehankee. 1946 proposing CON amendment. though the “grant” as a form of acquiring land may mean either “homestead” or “free patents” or just plain giving away of land. CON35 was ratified only after 36 days upon approval of Act No. this is proven by the fact that even the judiciary is doubting its significance and consider it as unnecessary. Abad Santos. They ask for more time for the people to study meaning and implications of Res. They are unnecessary and redundant to the CON.: Populace is not yet fully prepared to decide on Qs 3 and 4. as Congress did not comply with CON provision requiring affirmative votes of ! members of Senate and of HOR. minus two who resigned (Note: This is the petitioners claim).: The people. Sixteen (16) Sens. COMELEC and civic organizations including the IBP have been doing infodissemination. are not yet fully informed of the implications of Qs 3 and 4. Respondents denied Senate is composed of 24 Senators by excluding Jose Vera. there has been no ample time for the info-dissemination on the implications of Q3. House of Reps.wherein reasonable opportunities to acquire land and decent housing will be made available. Thereafter. 98 members. They argue Congress may not by said act submit to the people proposed CON amendment embodied in the resolution. !+" " . Also. voted in favor of Reso and 5 against it. Petitioners assailed constitutionality of RA 73. intervening procedure or Congressional determination of ratification conforms to the commands of the Constitution. since these are already encompassed in the “social justice and equity” responsibility of the government as provided by the CON. Congress passed RA 73 calling a plebiscite to submit to the people the proposed amendment. Ruling: Petition dismissed for lack of enough grounds to postpone plebiscite. 105) and 42 days (for Res. in his concurring opinion in Coleman v. J. J. J. 68 Reps in favor. 105 and 113. the proposed amendments have been translated only in Tagalog and Cebuano.) Mabanag v. 105 and 113. At the time this resolution was adopted. that the petitioner’s request for 67 days (for Res. voting separately (18 in Senate and 72 in HOR). In fact. In Coleman v. Also given. Relova. Senate was composed of 24 Senators. the Filipino people have long been aware of urban land reform and social housing. desirability or danger of an abuse that may come about with Res. especially those from the provinces. and will depend on the date of publication of the Batas Pambansa on the Official Gazette. Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero since the three suspended on account of alleged irregularities in their election. On the issue of voter’s awareness of the wisdom. Ruling: Question involving a proposal which leads to ratification of a CON amendment shall be a political question.: Number of days to which a proposed CON amendment is to be submitted in a plebiscite is within the power of the Batasan. J. Melencio-Herrera. Miller: the efficacy of ratification by state legislature of a proposed amendment to the Federal CON is a political question and hence not justiciable. 4200. Lopez Vito (1947) -Adapt Facts: A Resolution was passed Sep 18. petitioners failed to show voter’s lack of discretion. The wisdom of the proposed amendment is beyond court jurisdiction. (Note: the decision was given only two days before the plebiscite. Also. Justice Black. anyway. They also alleged HOR is composed of only 90 and not 96. call for decisions by a political department of questions of a type which this Court has frequently designated as political”. Best that plebiscite for these questions be held on a separate date. a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question as well. consistent with A14/S2/CON73. 113) before ratification is too much. There was also a Reso for the suspension of the eight Reps for the same reason. Mr.: Qs 3 and 4 do present a problem. Miller: “Whether submission. The voter needs ample basis for an intelligent appraisal on the matter.

It could and did propose the amendments embodied in the resolutions now being assailed. Ruling: Petitions are dismissed for lack of merit. 2. it acted by virtue of such competence. proposing to amend Art.B. b. 2.. there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. Has the CON73 force and applicability when the Batasang Pambansa resolutions were promulgated? YES. a factor for instability was removed. No. 1983. 2210).” It made manifest that as of January 17. (b) the Director of Printing from printing the ballots pursuant to said Act and Resolutions. With the cardinal postulate that what the SC says is entitled to respect and obedience. VI Sec.B. In the case of Acts of the Phil Commission of the Phil Legislature.A duly authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts (Enrolled Bill Rule). it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Act and of the due enactment thereof (S313/old Code of Civil Procedure. The suit against validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing CON amendments was filed on March 6.and c. 5 of the Constitution of the Philippines. (Resolution of Both Houses) No.H.H. Senate and HOR passed the following resolutions: a. therefore. No. Gonzales v. VI Sec. to declare said the Act as unconstitutional and void. to be elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November. R. Petitions assert that CON73 is not the fundamental law. the Interim Batasang Pambansa. 16 of the same Constitution as to authorize Senators and the members !!" " . dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid CON73 ratification. NATURE: Original Action in the Supreme Court. to restrain (a) the COMELEC from enforcing Republic Act No. and (c) the Auditor General form passing in audit any disbursement from the appropriation of funds made in the said Act. and b. the majority opinion did not state all the facts. lawyers and former delegates to 1971 CONCON sue as taxpayers. to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants. the question of the authority of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose amendments is not new. J. calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. “This being the vote of the majority.H. but each province was to have at least one member.1. Sec. when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies. The CON has withheld from the President the power to propose CON amendments. the convention to be composed of two delegates from each representative district. Such power must come from the Interim National Assembly. as amended by Act No. met as a constituent body. In Javellana v. 1971. the SC concluded. Is the Interim Batasang Pambansa authorized to meet as a constituent body and propose CON amendments? CON73 Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments. CON73 is the time’s fundamental law. 1981. R. Note from Source: facts stated here are from the dissenting opinion. It is to be observed parenthetically that as far as petitioner Occeña is concerned. COMELEC (1967) Facts: 1. the Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. When. Exec. upon the call of the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand Marcos. On 16 March 1967. as provided in the Constitution. Commission (1981) – Source: The other aside from Berne Guerrero digest Facts: Petitioners Samuel Occeña and Ramon Gonzales. proposing to amend Art. R. Prohibition with preliminary injunction: a. 4913.B. 3. so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120. to a maximum of 180. the 1973 Constitution came into force and effect. Occena v. Dissent: Teehankee.

a. a. 2. The failure of Congress to make a valid reapportionment does not render it illegal and its acts unconstitutional. and consequently. without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. WON the Congress of the Philippines was a de facto Congress. On October 31 1967. NO. c. The term “election” in Article XV of the 1935 Constitution refers to a “general” and not a “special” election. PHILCONSA filed a petition for review by certiorari for a resolution by COMELEC in a substantially identical case. Congress may therefore propose amendments merely because the constitution grants it the power to do so. Petition L-28196 was filed. if granted. The fact that Congress failed to enact a valid reapportionment bill. 4913. The court has no jurisdiction over the case. 4. The issue whether or not a resolution of Congress. but as elements of a constituent assembly that derive their authority from the constitution. became Republic Act No. 6. the House of Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that by fixed by law for the National Assembly. Ruling: 1. taxpayer and voter. violates the constitution is essentially a justiciable and not a political question. c. Therefore. taxpayers and voters similarly situated. and 3 and RA 4913. 1. providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions Nos. . when sitting as a constituent assembly. 1 and 3. for and in behalf of all citizens. but is a part of the inherent powers of the people to make and amend their fundamental law. the acts of Congress. b. Congress actually passed a reapportionment bill within three years after the 1960 census but the same was declared unconstitutional because the apportionment taken therein was not made according to the number of inhabitants of the different provinces of the country. the Congress passed a bill. it does not have a final say on whether or not it is acting within or beyond its constitutional limits. which upon approval by the President. would render Congress inoperational. Since the constitution itself provides for the continuance of the existing districts in case Congress fails to make a valid reapportionment. WON amendments to the constitution can be submitted to the people for ratification in a general election instead of a special election. YES. Senator Arturo Tolentino who opposed the earlier petition of PHILCONSA before the COMELEC was allowed to appear before the Court and objected on the following grounds: a. however. When exercising this power. b. b. are subject to judicial review. The petition. !#" " .3. the latter is deemed modified. On 21 October 1967. Since Congress derives its authority from the constitution when sitting as a constituent assembly. be submitted for approval by the people. WON Congress did not have the authority to pass Resolution Nos. The power to amend or propose amendments to the constitution is not included in the general grant of legislative power to Congress. of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention. It is a duly organized corporation and a civic and non-profit organization which aims to uphold the constitution of the Philippines. the status quo is therefore rendered legal and de jure. c. 5. 2. claims to have instituted the aforementioned case as a class unit. 3. d. Petitioner Gonzales. citizen. who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the present assembly districts”. acting as a constituent assembly. The failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment law does not render it illegal and its subsequent acts null and void. In so far as this ruling is inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag vs Lopez Vito. at the General Elections which shall be held on 14 November 1967. On 17 June 1967. does not render it illegal because the constitution provides that “until such apportionment shall have been made. Senators and members of the House do not act as members of Congress.

but does not negate its authority to propose amendments for ratification in a general election. The Court shall exercise its power of judicial review only when the petitioners have requisite standing and the issue is ripe for adjudication. b. may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. the posting of notices in public buildings not later than 14 October 1967. c. As long as fair and reasonable opportunity is given. Ruling: Do the petitioners have the requisite standing to seek declaration of nullity of a resolution of the CONCON (Justiciability of the case)? NO. the printing of the proposed amendments at the back of the ballots. by a vote of threefourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately. 2. WON the submission of the proposed amendments to the people violates the due process clause in the Constitution. MR is denied. and 3 were constitutional and valid while only three (3) members believed that they violate the spirit of the constitution. !$" " . With the number of votes in favor of declaring the assailed resolutions and republic act as unconstitutional being short of the required eight (8) votes.” There is nothing in the said provision to indicate that the election therein referred to is a “special”. It does not guarantee that the opportunity given will in fact be availed of. discuss and adopt proposals which seek to revise CON35 through the adoption of another form of government. The term “due process” in Article I refers only to the provision of fair opportunity but does not guarantee that the opportunity given will in fact be availed of. Article 1 Section 1 (1) of the 1935 Constitution reads: “No person shall be deprived of life. and Rogelio Fernandez (Davao City) as taxpayers submitted petition assailing validity of the Laurel-Leido Resolution (Res. and whenever practicable. the provision by the COMELEC of copies of the same in English. election. for free distribution. b. The circumstance that the previous amendments were ratified in special elections merely indicate that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. the due process clause is not infringed. iii. 1. b. and v. By Constitutional Convention Tan v. SC dismissed petition after which an MR is submitted. DISPOSITION: Six (6) members of the court believed that Resolution Nos. NO. to remain posted until after the elections. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. the due process clause is not infringed. The following provisions of the assailed RA 4913 provide for a reasonable and fair opportunity for voters to cast an intelligent vote on the proposed amendments of Congress: i. the petition is dismissed and the writs therein prayed for are denied. not a “general”. iv. They claim that 1971 CONCON is without power under A15/S1/CON35 and RA 6132 to consider. the publication of the proposed amendments in the Official Gazette at least 20 days before the election. in the native languages. a. Silvestre Acejas (Romblon). Spanish. As long as fair and reasonable opportunity is given. Article XV Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution reads: “The Congress in joint session assembled. Macapagal (1972) Facts: October 6.a.” “Due process” in this provision refers only to providing fair opportunity. 1971: Eugene Tan (Roxas City). 4. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. liberty or property without due process of law. that is the look-out of the voter and the responsibility of the citizen. The above provisions of RA 4913 also satisfy the constitutional requirement in Article XV Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution that the proposed amendments be “submitted to the people for ratification”. ii. 2127 of the Constitutional Convention). the placing of copies of the proposed amendments in the polling places.

laws providing for the disbursement of public funds. Several groups filed with COMELEC respective oppositions to the petition for initiative. 4. COMELEC ruling which permanently enjoined COMELEC from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on CON amendments until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. Petitioners prayed that Comelec issue an order: a) Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to A17/S4/CON87 b) Directing the publication of the petition c) Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than 60 and not later than 90 days after certification of the sufficiency of the petition 6. alleged that COMELEC denied due course to the petition for initiative. Petitioners in the present case do not assert that they qualify under such categories.2. Alleged Sigaw ng Bayan held Barangay assemblies prior to inform people and explain the proposed amendments – then circulated signature sheets. This nullification is based upon the theory that expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes misapplication of such funds which may be enjoined by the taxpayers. Verified signature sheets were then transmitted to the office of Sigaw ng Bayan for counting of signatures. They proposed these changes: a) S1.4. c. Feb 15. The doctrine of separation of powers calls for the other departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit. It is a prerequisite that something had been accomplished or performed by the executive or legislative branch before a court may come into the picture. COMELEC (2006) Facts: 1. where a constitutional question is raised. ONE VOICE. in coordination with Union of Local authorities of the Phils (ULAP) embarked on a nationwide drive to gather the signatures to support the move to adopt the parliamentary form of government in the country through CHACHA. Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets on the upper portions of which were written the abstract of the proposed amendments.5. direct injury as a result of its enforcement.7/A6 b) S 1. COMELEC denied the Lambino petition. 2006: herein petitioners Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado filed with COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Constitution entitled “In the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution through people’s initiative: A shift from bicameral presidential to unicameral parliamentary government…” They filed an amended petition to reflect the text of the proposed amendment that was actually presented to the people. Sig sheets were then submitted to local election officers for verification based on voter’s registration records.3. or will sustain. This rule has been relaxed though where many decisions nullified.presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary form of government there shall be a new article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions” 2. 7.2. !%" " . citing Santiago vs. Signature sheets were distributed nationwide to affiliated NGOs and volunteers and to local officials. As long as any proposed amendment is still unacted on by it. 2006: Sigaw ng Bayan. a Senator has usually been considered to possess of the requisite personality to bring a suit. there is no room for the interposition of judicial oversight. Moreover.6. Drafts of petition for initiative containing the propositions were also circulated to the local officials and multi-sectoral groups.3 and 4/A7 c) For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral. 5. Inc. By People’s Initiative Lambino v.The person who assails validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. 3. The respective local election officers issued certifications to attest the signature sheets have been verified. Only after the 1971 CONCON has made concrete what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be instituted. Aug 25. at the instance of taxpayers.

plebiscite. Makasiar: Amending envisages a change of specific provisions only. 3. the fundamental powers and duties of the branches of government. 10. referendum and recall. 9. deletion or correction. initiative. Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no legal capacity to represent the signatories in the petition for initiative. Revision is the rewriting of the whole CON. According to Vicente Singco: Amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added or to be altered in a CON. The proposed changes will not change the fundamental nature of the state as democratic and republican. 2. Does the Santiago ruling bar the present petitions? NO. specifically a change made by addition. praying inter alia for declaration of adequacy and sufficiency of RA 6735. constitution pleading. The oppositors also argued that: a.8. Other oppositors-intervenors like IBP and the Senate submitted COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino petition for initiative as it merely followed the Santiago ruling by virtue of stare decisis. It was not shown the people have been informed of the proposed amendments as there was disparity between the proposal presented to them and the proposed amendments attached to petition for initiative. COMELEC claims the permanent injunction issued by SC against COMELEC from taking cognizance of petitions for initiative on amendments until a valid law is passed (Santiago ruling) covers not only the Delfin petition but also all other petitions involving constitutional initiatives. order or other instrument. The quantitative test will say that PI will only affect 2 out of the 18 articles of the CON. Stare decisis should not bar the re-examination of Santiago declaring RA 6735 insufficient but without striking it down as unconstitutional. Petitioners filed petitioned that SC set aside the August resolution of the COMELEC. Only simple and not substantial amendments can be done through PI. d. not mere amendments. a. !&" " . If indeed there was. Amendment defined: a formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute. the verification process was done ex parte rendering dubious the signatures attached to the petition. Proposed changes will basically affect only the constitution of government. general and thorough rewriting of a governing document in which the entire document is open to amendment. The sufficiency of the Petition for Initiative and its Compliance with requirements of RA 6735 should be resolved by the COMELEC as it is the body that is mandated by the constitution to administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. Petition for initiative does not meet the required number of signatories under A17/S2/CON87. Garner gave three major parts of CON: 1) constitution of liberty. 1. Petition remanded to COMELEC for further proceedings. Have the petitions for initiative filed before the COMELEC complied with A17/S2/CON87? Oppositors and intervenors claim lack of number of signatures and no proper verification of signatures. Revision defined: re-examination or careful review for correction or improvement. Ruling: Resolution of COMELEC reversed and set aside. b. substantial amendments that cannot be done through PI.3 M people (signatories) who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from whom all government authority emanates. c. b. Do the proposed changes constitute an amendment of revision of the CON? Oppositors-intervenors submit that the proposed changes effect major changes in the political structure and system. Proposed changes are actually revisions. The doctrine of separation of powers forbids this court to invade the exclusive lawmaking domain of Congress for courts can construe laws but not construct them. 2) constitution of government and 3) constitution of sovereignty. The 6 justices who ruled that RA 6735 is insufficient—cannot waylay the will of 6. c. 11. direct COMLEC to comply with A17/S4/CON87 and set the date of the plebiscite. the political tights of people and the modes by which political rights may be exercised. Revision refers to a consideration of the entire CON and the procedure for effecting such change. SOLGEN filed comment affirming position of petitioners.

J: Puno cites Santiago case stated that CON provision granting the people the power to directly amend the CON via PI is not self-executory and that enabling law is necessary to implement this right. By the President during Emergency Sanidad v. 1976. COMELEC (1976) Facts: Sep 2. the length of the period for exercise by the President of his present powers. in the period of transition. there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new CON. amending PD 991. The President possesses the power to propose CON amendments. Petitioners contend that under CON35 and CON73. the people had already rejected the calling of the interim National Assembly. Cardinal rule in interpreting CON: construe them to give effect to the intention of the people who adopted it. 15 of !'" " . qualitatively. Pres. and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled October 16. GUZMAN. will undoubtedly alter not only our basic governmental plan but also redefine our rights as citizens in relation to the government. thus the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no CON basis. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions in so far as initiative on CON amendments is concerned. the powers of such replacement. Twenty days after. However. control. insofar as they propose amendments to the CON. which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16. Unlimited power to make laws (legal sovereignty) is possessor is the legal sovereign. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evince their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment. in the exercise of that judgment. 1976. 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve. As early as the referendums of January 1973 and February 1975. as well as PDs 1031. The power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition period. Santiago v. J: On QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE TEST. Separate Opinion: Ynares-Santiago. Ruling: Petitions dismissed. substantial amendments are still amendments and thus can be proposed by the people via initiative. 991. of Presidential Decree No. Under the foregoing views. to declare without force and effect PDs 991 and 1033. Likewise. insofar as it directs COMELEC to supervise. asserting that the power to propose amendments to or revision of the CON during the transition period is expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly under A17/S16/CON73. the issues of Martial Law. Dissenting Opinion: Puno. 1031 repealed Section 4. hold. 1976. Another action was instituted by VICENTE M. It will strike at the very foundation of our basic constitutional plan and is thus an impermissible CON revision that may not be effected through a PI. RA 6735 was examined (majority of 8 members of court) said law was incomplete. FM issued PD 1033. the power to propose amendments to the CON lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President (See. September 27. the National Assembly. (Presidential Decree No. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16. FM issued PD 1031. the initiative petition if successful. the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter recognition of the people's preference. by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October 16.4.) Same date of September 22. COMELEC (supra) d. 1971 CONCON delegate. Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16. The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976 National Referendum-Plebiscite. among other things. its replacement. PABLO SANIDAD and PABLITO SANIDAD sought to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. the period of its existence. And. providing for a legislative body. 1976. 1976.

for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. 15. With the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation. Tolentino v. 1971. No. harking to the dictates of the sovereign will. the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1. for the time being. On Nov. In view of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementioned plebiscite. a justice is of the opinion that there is a repugnancy between the election contemplated under A15/CON35 and the existence of martial law. 1972 the President issued PD 73 submitting the proposed constitution to the people for ratification or rejection. 30. 1970. On authority of the convention to pass proposed CON or to incorporate therein specific provisions. 1973. Congress is scheduled to meet in the regular session on Jan. 3. Again. After election of delegates held on Nov. Would it then be within the bounds of the CON for the President to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-à-vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? YES. therefore. and assembly. which Congress unquestionably could do. 10. 28. insofar as the essential freedom is concerned. and would. there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose CON amendments which is but an adjunct. five: valid. Congress passed a Resolution calling a convention to propose CON amendments. the election of delegates to the convention was held on Nov. press. although peculiar. 29. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly. On the validity of the decree itself. four: issue moot and academic. 10. 1972 the convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Philippines. There is unanimity on the justiciable nature of the issue on the legality of PD 73. to its gross legislative power. and since the main objection to PD 73 is that the President does not have the authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefore. Jan. 1967. The convention began to perform its functions on June 1. The instant petitions were filed seeking to nullify PD 73 on the grounds that the powers exercised therein are lodged exclusively in Congress and that there was no proper submission of the proposed CON to the people for lack of time and lack of freedom of speech. 1973 pursuant to CON35. 1972 temporarily suspending the effects of Proc. the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly. the !(" " . President Marcos issued Proc. 7. In the morning of Sept. two: valid. Three: issue involves question of fact which cannot be predetermined. COMELEC (1981) Facts: The 1971 CONCON came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a convention to propose amendments to the CON. On the question whether the proclamation of martial law affected the proper submission of the proposed constitution to a plebiscite. grant the petitions were they not moot and academic. On Nov. the court deemed it more imperative to defer its final action on these cases. 1970. While convention was in session. 1970. from deciding the aforementioned cases. Otherwise the objective of a crisis government "to end the crisis and restore normal times" will be impeded. Pursuant thereto. Ruling: Cases dismissed. the Court deemed it fit to refrain. 1971. COMELEC (1973) Facts: Mar 16. six: issue has become moot and academic. 22. Furthermore. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law. No. setting the plebiscite on Jan. 1973 the President issued General Order 20 postponing scheduled plebiscite until further notice and suspending his previous order of Dec.the Transitory Provisions). the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose CON amendments. 17. Submission of Proposed Amendments Planas v. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed constitution. and martial law per se does not necessarily preclude the factual possibility of adequate freedom for the purposes contemplated. Four: convention had authority to continue its function despite proclamation of martial law.

but such authority arises only when there is a showing that any sector or member of the media has denied to any party or person the right to which it or he is entitled. and that. Ruling: Does Organic Act No. UNIDO has failed to persuade that grant of its petition is compelled by the provisions of the CON. 1971. COMELEC said that Marcos conducts his pulong-pulong in light of the official government thrust to amend the constitution and in his capacity as President/Prime Minister and not as head of any political party. UNIDO v. Ratification Javellana v. the proposed amendment in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the CON. 8. V OF THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18. groups. • Res 1469 providing for "equal space on the use of the print media in the 1981 plebiscite of 7 April 1981". It also requested radio and television coverage for its Plaza Miranda meeting. Thus. 1973. COMELEC "resolved" to follow the mandate of the Convention. COMELEC (1981) Source: Berne Guerrero summary Facts: UNIDO is a political organization or aggrupation campaigning for "NO" votes to amendments to CON73 proposed by the Batasang Pambansa. In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of a CON amendment may be validly held. All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite (Cannot submit amendments to the people piecemeal). on the ground that the calling and holding of such a plebiscite is. UNIDO a sort of an MR. under A15/S1/CON35. the Election Code of 1978 and the general resolutions and regulations of COMELEC regarding equal opportunity among contending political parties. if not thousands. that it will hold the said plebiscite together with the senatorial elections on Nov. Exec. 1971 . of proposals to amend the existing CON. Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed CON not found in the present CON35. 1. its main thrust being that Organic Act 1 and the necessary implementing resolutions subsequently approved have no force and effect as laws in so far as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial elections. • Ruling: Is UNIDO entitled to equal time. Sec. just two days before SC decided the sequel of plebiscite cases. (1973) Facts: On January 20. a power lodged exclusively in Congress as a legislative body and may not be exercised by the Convention. 1 of the CONCON constitutional? NO. The COMELEC has indeed the power to supervise and regulate the mass media in such respect. reading thus: "A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ART. 4. In denying this request. by the Constitution. equal space and equal quality of exposure? NO." On Sept. Arturo Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition. where the Convention has hardly started considering the merits. UNIDO has no right to "demand" equal media coverage accorded President Marcos. 30. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino !)" " . In the present context. who was campaigning for “YES”. COMELEC issued 3 resolutions: Res 1467 providing for Rules and Regulations for "equal opportunity" on public discussions and debates on the plebiscite questions to be submitted to the people on 7 April 1981. UNIDO addressed a letter to COMELEC to grant it the same opportunity as given President Marcos. UNIDO or any of its leaders does not have the same constitutional prerogatives as those vested in the President/Prime Minister. • Res 1468 providing "equal time on the use of the broadcast media [radio and television] in the plebiscite campaign". to present to the people any single proposal or a few of them cannot comply with this requirement. aggrupations or individuals. This the COMELEC denied so UNIDO brought case to SC.Convention approved Organic Resolution No. it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se but as well as its relation to the other parts of the CON with which it has to form a harmonious whole.

by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal. Castro. Barredo. Accordingly. After deliberating on these cases. hence null and void. Fernando and Teehankee. DNV – did not cast vote on the premise stated that in their votes on the 3rd question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not the Constitution Similar actions followed. Legend: (1) J – justiciable. respondents including. This being the vote of the majority. Makasiar. proclamation having the same import and objective. there has even been no expression Not prepared to state Lack of knowledge/competence to rule on the question Ruling: 4th Issue G 5th Issue NIF DNV NVR D DNV Castro Barredo Makasiar Antonio Esguerra Zaldivar Fernando DNV Q P P P J J NVR Q VR VR VR NVR NVR D D D D D G G G DNV IF IF IF IF NIF DNV DNV 3) WON proposed CON has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people. 2) WON the CON proposed by the 1971 CONCON has been ratified validly (with substantial.. VR – validly ratified. 1102 and any order. compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. Petitioners prayed for Teehankee J NVR nullification of Proc. NIF – not in force. 4) WON the petitioners are entitled to relief. • Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed CON upon ground that the Pres. as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is : o without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies o without power to approve proposed CON o without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed CON o Lastly. Subsequently. Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar. Court discussed said opinions and votes were cast thereon. all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. Qqualified vote (comment) (4) D – dismiss. if not strict. thru his Cabinet. G – grant (5) IF – in force. Justices Concepcio n Makalintal 1st Issue J 2nd Issue NVR 3rd Issue Can be no free expression. there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. Q – qualified vote (comment) (2) NVR – not validly ratified. the election held to ratify the proposed CON was not a free election. for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Key issues are: 1) Justiciability of issue of validity of Proclamation 1102. there has even been no expression Lack of knowledge/competence to rule on the question Lack of knowledge/competence to rule on the question People have already accepted People have already accepted People have already accepted People have already accepted Can be no free expression. !*" " . Javellana also alleged that: • Pres. 5) WON the aforementioned proposed CON is in force. the members of the Court agreed that each would write his own opinion and serve a copy thereof on his colleagues. P – political. decree. DNV – did not vote.citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit. and this they did. had announced the immediate implementation of the New CON.

on January 17. Proceedings held in such Citizens' Assemblies were fundamentally irregular. for. CJ: • Proclamation 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. WON the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. It is to my mind a matter of judicial knowledge that there have been no such citizen’s assemblies in many parts of Manila and suburbs. Also. question. in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in A5/S1/CON35 were allowed to vote in said Assemblies.1. the proceedings in the Citizens' Assemblies must be considered null and void. WON the petitioners are entitled to relief. namely. CJ: (justiciable) • To determine whether or not the new CON is in force depends upon whether or not the said new CON has been ratified in accordance with the requirements of the CON35. The citizen’s assemblies did not adopt the proposed CON. A10/CON35 places under the "exclusive" charge of the COMELEC "the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. and honest" expression of the people's will. since the early years of the American regime. CJ: #+" " . 4. • The plebiscite on the CON not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void. compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. in other parts of the Philippines. also. 1102 is a justiciable or political. since there is no means by which the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters. A15/CON35 envisages with the term "votes cast" choices made on ballots – not orally or by raising hands – by the persons taking part in plebiscites. insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised CON. CJ: • CON does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the qualifications and having the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage. And. WON the CON proposed by the 1971 CONCON has been ratified validly (with substantial. as amended. This is another patent violation of A10/CON3 which form part of the fundamental scheme set forth in the CON35. such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of the Election Code of 1971 or even of those of PD 73. uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy in the voting. Concepcion. when necessary. 1973 neither the alleged president of the Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Dep of LGs had certified to the President the alleged result of the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines. not to say. 2." independently of the Executive. The point is that. with its major characteristics. It is well settled that the matter of ratification of an amendment to the CON should be settled applying the provisions of the CON in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the old CON. the alleged plebiscite in the Citizens' Assemblies is null and void. 3. This is but natural and logical. But there is not even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the citizens' assemblies relied upon in Proclamation 1102. The procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who conducted said plebiscites. • The issue whether the new CON proposed has been ratified in accordance with the provisions of A15/CON35 is justiciable as jurisprudence here and in the US (from whom we patterned our CON35) shall show. • Viva voce voting for the ratification of the CON is void. Concepcion. we had adopted the Australian Ballot System. For this. WON the aforementioned proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people. orderly. to insure the "free. and therefore non-justiciable. if not strict. into the accuracy of the election returns. • The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizens assemblies void. with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry. Concepcion. Concepcion.

is the Supreme Court’s power to declare a treaty. there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force. without prejudice to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its ratification or rejection in accordance with Articles V. and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of the Land. presidential decree. This is a well-established principle of Administrative Law and of the Law of Public Officers. Angara vs Electoral Commission. there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution. Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not accepted the Constitution. ordinance or regulation unconstitutional. supra #!" " . proclamation. Justices Makalintal. and attested to by the respective Secretaries of both Houses. Proclamation No. Justice Zaldivar and myself voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force. • Four (4) members of the Court. Whereas. law. . • A department of the Government cannot “recognize” its own acts. it is well to remember that the same refers to a document certified to the President for his action under the CON by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Reps. • The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law government does not constitute acquiescence to the proposed CON. concerning legislative measures approved by said Houses.it is the power of the Court to settle controversies between real conflicting parties through the application of law . is not necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence. and inaction or obedience of the people. Neither am I prepared to declare that the people's inaction as regards Proc 1102. 1102 is an act of the President declaring the results of a plebiscite on the proposed CON. an act which Article X of the 1935 Constitution denies the executive department of the Government. connote recognition of or acquiescence to the proposed CON. namely. adoption or approval of said Proc 1102. order. • Individual acts of recognition by members of Congress do not constitute congressional recognition. Justices Barredo. issued subsequently thereto. • In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case (he mentions some more cases)… petitions therein should be given due course. either strictly. instruction. namely. Castro. that said proposed Constitution is not in force and effect. The intimidation is there. and 2 members of the Court. in line with Proc 1102. Antonio and Esguerra hold that it is in force by virtue of the people's acceptance thereof. Nature and Principles Judicial Review .it is the obligation to assigned by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. international executive agreement.this power is not political but judicial . amounts to a ratification. 5. 4 members of the Court. Makasiar. decrees and/or instructions. substantially. Judicial Review A. or has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof. unless the members have performed said acts in session duly assembled. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution by the 1971 CONCON in force? YES.invention of the American system. namely. and their compliance with a number of Presidential orders. Recognition normally connotes the acknowledgment by a party of the acts of another. some or many of which have admittedly had salutary effects. • As regards the applicability to these cases of the "enrolled bill" rule. with the result. IV. . Definition. under these conditions. X and XV of the 1935 Constitution and the provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.• I am not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of the Exec Dept.

No. and included in this power is judicial review. vs Guingona This case is about the “contract of lease” between PCSO and PGMC in connection of their establishment of an on-line lottery system for the purpose of increasing the revenue base of PCSO and diversifying its funds.. Ruling: [1] When there’s an actual case or controversy. 1169. The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition and. Hence. supra . 42.see above Kilosbayan.A. but it is still the executive that implements the project or activity specified to be funded. Standards: [1] actual controversy [2] lis mota of the case [3] legal standing of the parties [4] moot and academic [5] not a political question [6] ripeness: right to adjudication Marbury vs Madison. but veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.. The Court has the discretion whether or not to exercise this power. revenue.” ##" " . Angara filed a motion to dismiss the protest but since his motion was denied by the ELECOM. or tariff bill. [2] The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral constituent units thereof. Codal – Article 6 Sec 27(2) “Pres. is considered “an inappropriate provision” which can be vetoed separately from an item. economic. Issue: WON the petitioners have locus standi. Quezon and was already proclaimed a member of the National Assembly when Ynsua protested to the ELECOM. Quezon. Respondents claim that it is merely an independent contractor and not a co-operator of the franchise of PCSO. Blg. Ratio: The Court found the instant petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. or which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation. it produced standards for justiciability. this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of. Petitioner claims that PCSO cannot enter into a contract of lease with PGMC because it is an arrangement wherein PCSO would conduct an online lottery system in collaboration or in association with PGMC which is prohibited by 1(B) of R. [2]The judiciary has judicial power. Codal – Art 14 Sec 5(5) "The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education . [3] The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory.Background: Angara was elected representative of Tayabas.P. and moral well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. provided that ELECOM was under the National Assembly which already proclaimed him as its member as the elected representative of Tayabas. PHILCONSA vs Enriquez Ruling: [1] A member of Congress has the legal standing to question the validity of a presidential veto or any other act of the Executive which injures the institution of Congress. shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. as amended by B. he filed an original action in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the ELECOM to hear the protest of Ynsua. in the exercise of its sound discretion. Inc. A Malaysian group became interested to offer its services to PCSO and organized PGMC." [4] Any provision which does not relate to any particular item. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social.

The change will affect the powers of the mayor and the voting exercise of residents. Assailed is the constitutionality of RA 8528 –AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF RA 7720(AN ACT CONVERTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTIAGO INTO AN INDEPENDENT COMPONENT CITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SANTIAGO. The remaining group " . leaving behind 12 senators. Avelino brought the case to Court to determine if twelve members constituted a quorum to replace the Senate President. continued to do business as a quorum. which actually was expressly provided in the 1935 Constitution. Miranda vs Aguirre Petitioners are the mayor and the residents of Santiago city. #$" - - Avelino vs Cuenco During a Senate session. deem that this is a mere reclassification. declared the Senate President position vacant and elected Senator Cuenco as Acting Senate President.Notes: [a] This ratio was imported from Gonzales v Macaraig regarding the President’s item veto-power [b] The present Constitution only states itemveto but nothing specifies provision veto. as the calculation of the majority was based on the total membership of 23 and not 24. VIII Sec. However. Issue: WON the issue is justiciable. Decision: Yes. Ruling: The enumeration in Section 10. Respondents are the local government officials of the province of Isabela. the Court derives its power to adjudicate from the constitutional grant of judicial power and from the explicit grant of power of judicial review found in Art. jurisprudence (Gonzales v Macaraig and PHILCONSA v Enriquez) tackles the question on provision veto. Respondents. hence the doctrine of inappropriate probision [c] In this case SC also stated that a provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal or amend other laws. Article X of the 1987 Constitution shall include any material change in the political and economic rights of the local government unit(s) directly affected. the political question doctrine is a limitation on the power of judicial review political questions are those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch [Tanada v Cuenco] various kinds of political questions: o textual – where there is found a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a political department o functional – where there is a lock of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion. o Prudential – where there is an impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government. At first the Court declined to decide on the matter. Petitioners have standing. Justiciable vs Political Question justiciable: question on the legality of the law political: question on the wisdom of the law when the question is the legality of a political act of government. 5 (2) (a). ruling that it was a political question and that the judiciary did not have the authority to take over the Senate’s power to elect its president. Senate President Avelino walked out with his 9 supporters. One senator was not counted in the calculation as he was out of the country and therefore out of the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate. as one senator was abroad and the other was in a local hospital. but after a motion for reconsideration the court assumed jurisdiction and ruled that 12 members constituted a quorum.) which deletes the word “independent” and treats Santiago city just as a component city. B. of which the RA has no provisions provided for. on the other hand. Petitioners believe that this amounts to a conversion of Santiago City and must therefore be decided by the city’s citizens in a plebiscite.

there is a grave violation of the Constitution. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. (b) ban on public assemblies. [4. 1. such as customs laws.a] The authority of the President to exercise his calling out power to suppress lawless violence shall not be deemed to include the power to authorize: (a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants. Note: The arrest of Randy David and other acts done by the authorities pursuant to the parts of the laws herein considered unconstitutional are also deemed unconstitutional without prejudice to the filing of necessary administrative. and the public. if: first. and that (3) the Court has no other alternative remedies available. criminal or civil actions against specific abuses committed by authorities Notes: [a] In this case. Sec. 7. [4.c] In the absence of delegated authority from Congress the authority of the President to declare a state of emergency shall not be deemed to include the power to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Codal – Art 8 Sec. the Courts shall have authority to inquire into the sufficiency factual basis of such exercise to determine whether it was within the constitutionally permissible limits or whether grave abuse of discretion attended its exercise. like Art 6 Sec. Codal – Art. laws on obligations and contracts and the like.for the court to be able to exercise judicial review there must be an actual case #%" " . the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. the extent of judicial review is not concerned with correctness. C. 10. [3] Notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the constitutional exercise of the President of his/her calling out of power. Actual Case or Controversy . which includes the power to enforce obedience of laws shall not be deemed to include calling the military to enforce or implement certain laws.b] The take care power of the President. 6. but with arbitrariness of the invocation of such power. Codal – Art. laws governing family and property relations. third. X of the 1987 Constitution they have a right to approve or disapprove RA 8528 in a plebiscite before it can be enforced. [b] Art 12 Sec 17 should be read in relation to other provisions. otherwise moot and academic. (c) take-over of news media and agencies and press censorship. Arbitrariness would mean WON there is a sufficient factual basis. second. 23 (2) Note: Acts of terrorism no matter how repulsive shall not be deemed to be punishable in the absence of legislation clearly defining said acts and providing specific punishments therefor. Sec. and fourth. [4. [2] The requirement of locus standi which is the right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question shall be set aside by the Court whenever it is shown that the case is of transcendental importance.d] The Court shall not declare laws as invalid solely on the basis of their misapplication or abuse or susceptibility to abuse by the people tasked to implement them. Requisites of Judicial Review David. The Court has the duty to ensure that Congress complies with the Constitution in law-making. 1 on Judicial power [4] Facial invalidation of laws (Overbreadth Doctrine) shall not be resorted to in the absence of clear showing that (1) the law involves the exercise of free speech. 6. et al. vs Gloria Macapagal Arroyo [1] Courts will decide cases. 23. Codal – Art. the bar. 18 [4. (2) that there can be no instance that the assailed law may be valid. Petitioners claim that under Sec. as these powers can be exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief only where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.Not a political question. Sec 17 Note: The ordinance power of the President shall not include the power to make “decrees” with the same force and effect as those issued by President Marcos. and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees. Art.

Prematurity .locus standi . Earliest Opportunity .the Court will not exercise judicial review unless the constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite “standing” to challenge it. vs Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Notes: Q: What’s the President’s power of studying the Constitution. When he President orders to study the Constitution in concern for the development of the country without even changing any provision of the Consti. The question must be “ripe” for adjudication. et al.- the Court has no authority to pass upon issues of constitutionality through advisory opinions and it has no authority to resolve hypothetical or feigned constitutional problems. as to propose amendments? What’s the legal or constitutional basis for this? (This is precisely what Gonzales argues in this case except that the timing is off since it was rendered moot and academic) A: Art 7 Sec. ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial. . or will sustain.This case is about the PCCR created by the Office of the President to conduct study to possible amendments to the Constitution primarily the economic provisions Ratio Decidendi: A case is considered moot and academic when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy (PCCR already adjourned when the petition was filed).” o Elements of standing: ! Petitioner must have suffered injury in fact ! The injury must be traceable to the environmental act challenged ! The injury must be redressable by the remedy sought by the petitioner. (Art 7 Sec. supra . through its departments who engages in the day to day execution of laws and the efficiency of the government. Mootness vs Ripeness the Court will normally not entertain a petition touching on an issue that has already become moot because there would no longer be a “flesh and blood” case for the Court to resolve. it will not be considered on appeal .the court will not rule on a case if the issue raised before it is premature b. This means that the governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. supra . he is doing his duty to “preserve and defend the Constitution.see above 2. et al. 1 and Sec 5. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. vs Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. This is part of his discretion from the power vested upon him by the Constitution. vs Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. - c. Standing of a Party .see above Gonzales vs Narvasa .A person has standing to challenge the governmental act only if he has “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained.see above Pascual vs Secretary Facts: Pascual.this rule admits of exceptions 3. Exceptions to the Mootness rule the Court may tolerate exceptions to the mootness rule such as when a lack of clarity about a law may be creating confusion. David. execute its laws…” (Art 7 Sec 5). et al. a. David. and if not raised in the trial court. 1) " . It is the Pres.the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. so that if not raised by the pleadings. supra . provincial governor of Rizal prays an injunction upon RA 920 AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS which #&" - David.

This case. even in cases involving constitutional questions. Jose Zulueta. Nor as concerned citizens can they bring this suit because no specific injury suffered by them is alleged. Taxpayers can file a suit if a public official uses public funds in an unconstitutional act and it involves misapplication of the funds. VIII. given that the Constitution guarantees to people’s organizations “effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social. may invoke the judicial power.Kilosbayan's status as a people's organization does not give it the requisite personality to question the validity of the contract in this case. US SC in Crampton v. b. cannot raise.00 for the construction.have a clear standing as citizen in petitions on right to information and cases questioning the declaration of martial law Kilosbayan vs Morato Petitioners contend that the decision in the first case has already been settled Issue: WON the petitioners have standing to sue on constitutional grounds. this area along with Antonio Subd. The jurisdiction of this Court. extension & improvement of Pasig feeder road terminal. political and economic decision making (Art XIII Sec 16). As for the petitioners. which petitioners.In not a few cases. . who are members of Congress.the rule of real-party-in-interest is subordinated to the doctrine of locus standi. Yes. reconstruction. Citizen . c. the land was still a private property. According to Pascual. Issue: WON Pascual has standing in this case. Ruling: 1. . belong to Sen. Thus he has every right to assail the validity of the legislation. b. therefore. Ruling: . . Petitioners do not question the validity of the law allowing lotteries.Real-party-in-interest: Whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit 1.000. d. does not raise issues of constitutionality but only of contract law. Types of Standing a.Petitioners' right to sue as taxpayers cannot be sustained because this case does not involve illegal disbursement of public funds. a. They have sufficient interest in preventing such acts. Zabriskie.These provisions have not changed the traditional rule that only real parties in interest or those with standing. . It is the contract entered into by the PCSO and the PGMC which they are assailing. the Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people. as the case may be. §5 . repair. During the time that the law was enacted. their right to sue as legislators cannot be invoked because they do not complain of any infringement of their rights as legislators. recognized right of taxpayers to assail constitutionality of legislation appropriating local or state funds. is limited by the "case and controversy" requirement of Art. RP-citizen relationship similar to a state-taxpayer relationship. Standing vs Real-Party-in-Interest . Governor is not just a taxpayer but a representative of one of the most populated political subdivisions in the country which bears a substantial part of the burden of taxation.appropriated P85. Associational IBP vs Zamora #'" " .NO. not being privies to the agreement.

computer equipment. c. Hence. it is of "paramount public interest" and "transcendental importance. On Judicial Review: When questions of constitutional significance are raised. devices and materials. . in a verbal directive. while undoubtedly true. the Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. or a mere incidental interest + gist: whether a party alleges such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions > The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more. It also mandated the poll body to acquire automated counting machines (ACMs). an interest in issue affected by the decree. It has not shown any specific injury. a. in other words. et. ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. which authorized Comelec to conduct a nationwide demonstration of a computerized election system and allowed the poll body to pilot-test the system in the March 1996 elections (ARMM).. al. the Court has held that taxpayers are allowed to sue when there is a claim of "illegal disbursement of public funds. Held: Yes. Comelec adopted in its Resolution 02-0170 a modernization program for the 2004 elections. et. therefore. > Definition of locus standi + 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 + “interest” means a material interest. is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this case > IBP has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. counting votes and canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local elections. or when petitioner(s) seek to restrain respondent(s) from "wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Moreover. al. Comelec’s flawed bidding and questionable award of the Contract to an unqualified entity would impact directly on the success or the failure of the electoral process. the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the requisites are complied with. Any taint on the sanctity of the ballot as the expression of the will of the people would inevitably affect their faith in the democratic system of government.’s legal standing should therefore be recognized and upheld. As alleged. have the locus standi to file the case questioning the validity of the election computerization bidding. there can be no serious doubt that the subject matter of the case is "a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest". Ruling: 1. On 29 October 2002.When the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public." or if public money is being "deflected to any improper purpose". The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of standing in this case. Congress enacted Republic Act 8436 authorizing Comelec to use an automated election system (AES) for the process of voting." ITF. which it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned government act." This fact alone would justify relaxing the rule on legal standing. and to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials. public interest requires that the laws governing the transaction must be followed strictly. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Further. It resolved to conduct biddings for the three (3) phases of its Automated Election System. Issue: Whether ITF.In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. the award of any contract for automation involves disbursement of public funds are in gargantuan amounts. President Estrada. following the liberal policy of the Court whenever a case involves "an issue of overarching significance to our society." Jumamil vs Café #(" " . Taxpayers ! have standing to sue if he has shown that: • he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation • he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute ITF vs Comelec Facts: Congress passed Republic Act 8046.

represented by the SolicitorGeneral and the Fiscal of the City of Manila. Resolution 7. through the Solicitor General and Fiscal of the City of Manila. The expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. have standing to challenge an unconstitutional act ! even when members of Congress do not act as a body. Vera. who heard the application of Cu Unjieng for probation. Jose O.000 for the construction of stalls around a proposed terminal fronting the Panabo Public Market which was destroyed by fire. He alleges that Resolution Nos. on 26 March 1935. Upon appeal. Hon. Voters . Cu Unjieng filed a motion for reconsideration and four successive motions for new trial which were denied on 17 December 1935. the Court has recognized their standing to challenge a presidential veto or other acts of the Executive which “injures them in their person or the institution of Congress to which they belong.There must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question (David vs. Issue: Whether Jumamil had the legal standing to bring the petition for declaratory relief Ruling: Jumamil brought the petition in his capacity as taxpayer of the Municipality and not in his personal capacity. the court. enjoyment and benefit of private respondents. but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. HSBC. 1936. Macapagal-Arroyo) Philconsa vs Enriquez. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case #)" Governmental d. occupation. People vs Vera People of the Philippines and HSBC are respectively the plaintiff and the offended party. to pay the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended party. and Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants. 7 and 49 were unconstitutional because they were passed for the business. supra . in the criminal case. is a proper party in present case. ! Legislators: There must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. (David vs. provided for an initial appropriation of P765.” " . on 24 November 1936. Macapagal-Arroyo) e. The Supreme Court. some of which were close friends and/or relative of the mayor and the sanggunian. is the Judge ad interim of the seventh branch of the CFI Manila. A taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity. Legislative ! members of Congress. enacting Appropriation Ordinance 111. Cu Unjieng thereupon sought to have the case elevated on certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States but the latter denied the petition for certiorari in November. and final judgment was accordingly entered on 18 December 1935. The People of the Philippines. rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu Unjieng to indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor.Facts: Petition for declaratory relief filed by Jumamil questioning the constitutionality of Municipal Resolution 7. is a proper party in the present proceedings. denied the petition subsequently filed by Cu Unjieng for leave to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of the judgment. as a body. Parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. Held: YES. Issue: Whether the People of the Philippines. modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of from 5 years and 6 months of prision correccional to 7 years. After a protracted trial. HSBC intervened in the case as private prosecutor. He was questioning the official acts of the the mayor and the members of the Sanggunian in passing the ordinances and entering into the lease contracts with private respondents.see above f. 6 months and 27 days of prision mayor. Series of 1989 (Resolution 7). the CFI.

also known as the Bouncing Checks Law in an information that on or about September 16. Constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case . • Due process of law only kicks in when there is a deprivation of life. not individuals.000 (postdated December 21. In the case at bar. A. and property. • Writ of Amparo: remedy available to any person whose right to life. and security is violated with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. statutes. and ordinances.000 dated January 19. speculative or argumentative. The bill of rights says we have rights to those three. Arceta vs Mangrobang . 22 unconstitutional due to (1) the present economic and financial crisis and (2) the undue burden made upon the MeTCs to try bouncing check cases. as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth and of subjects of the same. In the nullification of a certain law. or of a private individual or entity.500. Hence. It rests upon public necessity and the right of the state and public to self protection. At the time of issue. 4. the court agreed that the requisites were adequately met by the petitioners. • Police power regulates the exercise of life. either with penalties or without. liberty. 2000 in favour of Anita Chua but it was denied due to insufficient funds. it is tested against the safeguards of due process of law and equal protection before the law. Ratio: When the issue of constitutionality of a legislative act is raised. or property. 1998) to Oscar R. even though police power is not mentioned. not repugnant to the constitution. it is an established doctrine that the court may exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present [see requisites of judicial review]. 1998. #*" " . liberty. and not one that is doubtful. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. extending as it does to all the great public needs. Its scope then expands and contracts with changing needs. • Power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make. Issue: Whether or not the court should render BP Blg. the constitution says whenever it impinges. in whose name the present action is brought. Arceta issued a Regional Bank check worth P740. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the constitution. and welfare of society. police power limits these. Since our constitution is one of limitations. or will sustained.such that he has sustained. Castro. the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. ordain. the People of the Philippines. Dy issued Prudential Bank Check in the amount of P2. insistent and least limitable of powers. Arceta with violating Batas Pambansa 22. Dy for violation of Bouncing Checks Law in an alleged information that on the month of January 2000. • It is one of the three power of the states. establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws. It applies however to government. It enables the state to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort.consolidated cases Case 1 The City Prosecutor of Navotas charged Ofelia V. The court did not find the constitutional question raised by the petitioners to be the very lis mota of the case. Arceta did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank and her check was subsequently dishonored by drawee bank for reason “drawn against insufficient funds”. but is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. liberty. payable in cash. safety. direct injury as a result of its enforcement.tbe Court will not touch on the issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is unavoidable or is the very lis mota. Police Power Definition • The most essential. Case 2 The City Prosecutor of Caloocan filed a charge sheet against Gloria S. has a substantial interest in having it set aside.

Lawton v Steel – The state may interfere wherever the public interest demands it… it must appear first that the interests of the public and second that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not undult oppressive upon individuals. Fixing rates as a quasi-judicial process requires a hearing. The minimum standards are (1) the student must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of accusation (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. Requirement of Publication For clarity. Ang Tibay v Court of Industrial Relations – cardinal primary requirements in administrative cases include (1) right to a hearing and present one’s case (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence (3) decision must have something to support itself (4) evidence must be substantial (5) decision must be based on the evidence presented at hearing (6) tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of law and facts (7) the board should render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues and reason for the decision rendered. Requisites: Daniel Webster in Dartmouth College – due process of law is law that hears before it condemns. Guzman v National University – proceedings in disciplinary cases involving students are different from those in courts of justice. (3) They shall be informed of the evidence against them (4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf (5) The evidence must be duly considered by those in charge of hearing the case Substantive Due Process: Content. but the officer who reviews a case cannot be the same person whose decision is on appeal. and renders judgment only after trial. The legislative rarely met judicial disapproval. Anything vague is defective because it fails to give notice of its commands.Due Process Procedural Due Process Definitions. Overbreadth generally involves vagueness in reference to freedom of speech. enhancing his dignity as a thinking person. to prevent vagueness and overbreadth. Bernas: Other Notes on Procedural Due Process The hearing officer does not have to be the one who decides the case. proceeds upon enquiry. Determination as to what is proper exercise of police power by the legislature is not final but subject to the supervision of the courts. Equal protection Before the Law $+" " . laws must have a reasonable basis. Purpose (a) Contributes to accuracy of the proceedings (b) it gives the accused/petitioner a sense of rational participation in a decision that can affect his destiny. Banco Espanol Filipino v Palanca – requisites of due process (1) court with judicial power (2) with jurisdiction over the case (3) defendant must be given a chance to be heard and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. although there is a presumption of constitutionality that any potential challenger will have to get past (such as what happened with the Plunder Law that was not successfully challenged by President Estrada). it has a chilling effect. Notice and hearing are not prerequisites in the promulgation of rules though they are in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. with assistance of counsel if desired.

Liberty arguably includes freedom of speech. such as problematic notification. Life and liberty impingement uses strict scrutiny. Lao Ichong challenged the act. Equal protection refers to the same treatment across classes of people. classification is substantially related. Rubi v Provincial Board (Substantive Due Process) A law creating reservations for the Mangyan tribes and penalizing them for noncompliance was challenged as a deprivation of liberty without due process. If it affects discrete and insular minorities and their access to the political system. Roxas & Co. In General 2. Freedom to contract bows to police power. it also requires strict scrutiny. but do not have the loyalty to the country and as such will not invest in industries that need supporting. v Natividad – alienage is a rational classification. legitimacy Rational basis Scrutiny Test – classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest International School Alliance of Educators v Quisimbing – foreign and Filipino teachers deserve the same compensation. Central Bank Employees v Bangko Sentral – relative unconstitutionality as the classification only applied according to the third standard. 1. The acquisition proceedings were deemed invalid and remanded to the DAR. not absolute equality. the political process. if it collides with specific provisions.Tolentino v Board of Accountancy – no person or class shall be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons in similar circumstances People v Cayat – classification must (1) rest on substantial distinction (2) be germane to the purpose of the law (3) not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class Strict Scrutiny Test – prove compelling state interest and necessity of classification. Intermediate Scrutiny Test – important state interest. Public Morals Ermita-Malate Motel and Motel Operators Assn. but there are special specific rights mentioned by the bill of rights. The dominance of the alien retailer poses as a threat to national security. Justice Malcolm responded defending the act as justified according to general welfare and public interest. British American Tobacco . 3. It was reasonable. land reform.. more than many Filipino retailers. etc. 4. v Court of Appeals (Procedural Due Process) Petitioner’s property was undergoing compulsory acquisition according to CARP but there were several procedural problems. race. Police power can be used to enforce taxation. (allowed) White Light $!" " . 5. Freedom of speech and of the press is specific. Sison Jr v Ancheta – Classification is rational in character is allowable. 6. national origin. etc. alienage. Public Health US v Gomez Jesus The court can penalize those who practice medicine without proper licenses in the protection of public health. gender. Hierarchy of Rights Right to life and liberty are of higher than order than property. Caroline Products Footnote: Narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality. Public Order US v Pompeya Mandatory patrol duty is a reasonable exercise of police power as it serves the public interest of preserves public order. as alien retailers hold a great deal of power. women. Smith Bell and Co.New and old brands can be taxed differently to avert prize wars. Public Safety Agustin v Edu An act requiring early warning devices was questioned as not having gone through due process. National Security Lao Ichong v Hernandez The retail industry was nationalized. Equal protection before the law has been taken into account additionally in adjustments resulting from war. V City Mayor Regulation: guests were required to fill out comprehensive information sheets. The classification was only applicable to present conditions. The alien’s interest in the country is transient. denying right to vote. the crinminal process. Police power will usually win over property. The court ruled it had as the president had examined various studies and was a valid way of promoting public safety.

and thus the legislature could not simply remove them. Tax Exemptions Must be for a public purpose. uniform and equitable and in conformity with the equal protection clause. in which the rate increases as the tax base increases. o Examples: Sec 28(3) – Charitable institutions. US v Toribio Regulating the slaughter of carabaos is a valid exercise of police power and reasonably necessary to protect the community from the loss of the services of such animals. charitable or educational purposes. (allowed) Manila v Laguio Ban: All motels. rather it limits this otherwise almost unlimited power. It was considered a legitimate use of police power for public welfare. C. Power to keep alive – the foundation for the imposition of tariffs to protect locally produces goods against competition from imports. Cases: Taxation in General: $#" " . It is the only exception to the rule of non-delegability of legislative power Uniformity – pertains to the uniformity of taxation Equitability – related to the progressive system of taxation. • • • • • • • • • • • • • It is given to the government with the primary purpose of raising revenue. Before money can be paid out from the Treasury. by their owners. Virginia repealed this law in the 1970s). buildings … used exclusively for religious. After congress has made the appropriation. regulating motels which were often cites for prostitution etc. The National Economy Rutter v Esteban RA 342 allowed war veterans a certain amount of time before any debt could be collected. Fiscal Powers of Congress: The power of the purse – Only congress can generate money from the government through taxation and the power to spend it. churches … non-profit cemeteries and all lands. Public Welfare and advancement Buck v Bell The sterilization of the mentally ill was not considered a deprivation of the right to life (although now. although it can be delegated to the president. in order to pay for debts and for the general welfare. Special Funds: Tax levied for a special purpose. sterilization of the mentally ill is no longer enforced. 7. There were many legitimate purposes for motels. Taxation Definition • an inherent power of government • Art. Taxation as: Power to destroy – taxation used as an instrument for the extermination of undesirable activities. it is the executive that actually spends the fund. inns etc had to convert into more reputable establishments. the amount and the purpose must first be specified. they could at least try to solve part of it. 8. It would be unreasonable and oppressive to creditors to make them wait that long when there was no longer any pressing cause. despite damaging the productive power of the community. to be used only for a specific and legitimate object of the government Any balance left after the purpose had been fulfilled or cancelled. (not allowed) The preceding cases all involved the legislature trying to manage public morals. The motels however were not conclusively proved as always used illicitly.Regulation: prohibited short time stays. Limitations Must be used only for a public purpose Taxation is legislative in nature. VI sec 28 of the constitution doesn’t give the government the power of taxation. tempted either by greed of monetary gain or to enjoy the luxury of animal food. The court said although they could not solve the whole problem. will be returned to the general funds of the government. The court struck this down as unconstitutional as creditors would have to wait too long a time before they could collect and further cited that the Philippines was no longer struggling to recover from the war.

VIII. stating that the continued operation of the PSI is inimical to their interest. which falls under the expansive definition of the “general welfare” phrase in the constitution. While the case was pending. challenging the constitutionality of theEO. Grave Abuse of Discretion: When an act is done contrary to the constitution. It is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights. In this case. §1 however is not meant to be an exhaustive list of what judicial power is. VIII. Taxation sometimes comes under the police power of the state. its funds comes from a tax levied from sugar milling companies. ill will or personal bias. which is a special fund tax distinct from an ordinary tax. In addition the constitution also includes the authority to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on any branch or instrumentality of government. it can also be an exercise of police power. Trial court sustained the confiscation of the animals and declined to rule on the validity of the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. The IAC affirmed the trial court’s decision. Issue: Whether or not the current law applies retroactively. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. There is no constitutional prohibition against granting tax exemptions to specific people so long as a denial of equal protection does not arise through unreasonable discrimination. Three Great Departments of Government A. Nature: The exercise of judicial power requires real parties to come to court to settle an actual controversy. VI. a. the tax was levied with the stabilization of the sugar industry in mind.COMISSIONER v. In addition the power to control the execution of the decision of the court is part of its jurisdiction. Araneta. Held: NO. as with Lutz vs. Held: YES. Issue: Whether the milling companies may refuse to pay the tax. capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice. To qualify as grave abuse of discretion the power must be exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. Registration of the vessels to the name of private respondent was stalled because of the non payment of compensation taxes. All Courts can exercise judicial power Ynot vs. • LUTZ v. Held: A tax law is not purely for taxation or revenue generating purposes only. Judicial Department 1. It is alleged that the act only benefits the sugar industry and not the public. the law or jurisprudence or when an act is executed whimsically. After a series of losses by the PSI. Art. The respondents should pay the tax. Judicial Power – Art. He brought an action for replevin. It is not the function of the court to give advisory opinions because it is beyond judicial power. IAC (1987)] Facts Six carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been transported from Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. • Republic v. section 1 Definition: Judicial power is the right to determine actual controversies between adverse litigants duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction. ARANETA (1955) Facts: The constitutionality of a commonwealth act is being questioned. BOTELHO SHIPPING CORP (1967) Facts: two ships were sold by the government to private respondents. the law requiring the payment of compensation taxes was repealed. $$" " . (1966) Facts: Philippine Sugar Institute was established with the purpose of advancing the sugar industry. thus exempting the respondent from paying the required tax. the milling companies refused to pay the tax.

Jurisdiction – Article 8.When the Supreme Court modifies or reverses doctrine or principle of law laid down either en banc or division . The Supreme Court En Banc has no appellate jurisdiction over the divisions. Art. §5(2)(d) Original Jurisdiction (Art. §5(2)) . Instruction. other Public Ministers and Consuls . Ordinance or Regulation is in question. Division – Art. revise. Finally. (1)) . 1. Quorum is 8. b. Law. Orders. VIII §5(1)(2) c. En Banc vs.Administrative cases where vote is for dismissal of a judge of a lower court or otherwise to disciple such $%" " . modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments of lower courts in all cases involving the constitutionality of statues or acts of other branches of government also gives lower courts authority to pass upon the validity of a statue in first instance. Prohibition.Petitions for Certiorari.Criminal Cases where Reclusion perpetua or higher is imposed . §2. penalty is an issue . §5. par. VIII. Order. reverse. Mandamus.Cases involving Constitutionality. on the matter of the confiscation of carabaos. §4 The Supreme Court has the discretion to sit en banc or in divisions of three (3). seven (7). Congressional Power over the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Art. VIII.Cases heard in a division but required majority is not obtained .Legality of any tax. Habeas Corpus Review/Revise/Reverse/Modify/Affirm on Appeal or Certiorari (Art. courts cannot settle controversies. Proclamation. Proclamations. PD. application or operation of PDs.Jurisdiction of any lower court is an issue . VI.Cases affecting Ambassadors. § 30 The exercise of judicial power by lower courts requires prior legislative action (1) defining enforceable and demandable rights and prescribing remedies for violations of such rights (2) Determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide controversies arising from legal rights Without any applicable law. VIII §5 (1)(2) represent the irreducible jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. assessment. toll.All cases involving constitutionality of a treaty. impost. five (5). VIII. international/executive agreement or law . Congress may creat courts of varying jurisdiction provided it does not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Art. the law was found unconstitutional due to the lack of guidelines or limitations it granted authority to the chair of the national meat inspection commission or the director of animal industry to disperse such confiscated carabaos.Cases involving question/error of law The enumeration in Art. En Banc Cases are decided by concurrence of majority of members who took part in the deliberation on the issues and voted thereon. Supreme Court a. VIII. Validity of International Agreements. Thus the trial court and the IAC are wrong in their presumption of constitutionality when the validity of the law itself was put into question. . 2.Ruling The grant to the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction to review. Ordinances and other regulations . Instructions. . Quo Warranto.When Constitutionality.

However temporary the participation of the replacement judges designated by the President under the People’s Court Act. it is matter not a case and thus when it fails to muster the required number of votes the decision is not reconsidered and therefore deemed affirmed. Rilloraza (1948) Facts The People’s Court act provided that in certain cases Supreme Court justices who held any office during the Japanese occupation are to be disqualified to take part in the deliberations and lieu of their presence would be any judge of first instance as may be designated by the President. The present case involves the disqualification of a majority of the court which is also repugnant to the constitution since this is tantamount to depriving the present court with jurisdiction. 5. and is not inferior to decisions rendered en banc. VIII. Cases are decided and Matters are resolved. But when a motion for reconsideration is filed in the division. Composition Regular Members are appointed by the President for a term of 4 years. his/her vote is considered as a justice of the court. Vargas v. Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Secretary Ex-officio of the council. §7(1). The constitution contemplates an uninterrupted continuity in the tenure of SC justices with prejudice to the proper cases of disqualification. Any person to sit as member of the Supreme Court is required by the constitution to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (this is different now of course)the designation by the President of temporary justices also violates such requirement. Composition – Art. The Supreme Court determines the emoluments. VIII § 4 One Chief Justice and Fourteen Assoicate justices and any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the time the vacancy started.- Election contests for President or Vice-President Division Can be in divisions of 3. §8. The decision of a division is a decision of the Supreme Court itself. budget and can also assign other functions and duties to the council. d. Judicial and Bar Council: Appointments and Qualification – Art. The composition of the Supreme Court cannot be changed by ordinary legislation. The division cannot modify or reverse any doctrine laid down in a decision rendered en banc or in division. § The Judicial and Bar Council recommends to the President appointees to the judiciary. Thus when a division fails to muster the required number of votes it is elevated to the court en banc. which violates the contemplation of the constitution which provides for the composition of the Supreme Court and definitely admits of no exceptions such as the so called temporary member in the contested law. 7 and cases shall be decided with concurrence of majority of members who took part. and in no case without concurrence of at least three of such members. Chief Justice (Ex-officio Chairman) Secretary of Justice (Ex-officio Member) $&" " . Ruling The people’s court act is unconstitutional because it prohibits members of the Supreme Court to exercise the power and duty granted to them by the constitution. From a list of at least 3 nominees for every vacancy the President appoints a judge without need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

No question of law is involved. Security of Tenure – Art. therefore. " . of course. integrity. and independence Lower Courts . certainly the Supreme Court could not have its say prior to the action taken by either of the two departments. Removal is. After the abolition. probity. XVIII § 17 Salary of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and of judges of lower courts is fixed by law. 2 and §11 Members of the judiciary shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge their office. to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. integrity. VIII §10. The termination of office of their occupants. Nonetheless. probity. Salary – Art. Realistically. for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished. There shall be no diminution of salary during their stay in office. there is in law no occupant.Proven competence.Must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines . Security of Tenure guarantees against actual removal and interruption of continuity in tenure as ruled in Vargas v. par. CIR taxes are not to be considered a diminution of salary.At least 40 years old . the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. sought to enjoin the implementation of BP 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act which abolished most of the courts under the existing judicial system on the grounds that it contravened the constitution granting security of tenure to members of the judiciary. In case of removal. a power that is now vested in the Supreme Court. Ruling The Batasang Pambansa is expressly vested with the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process to abolish existing ones. Even then. VIII §2. no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office.- Representative of Congress (Ex-officio member/ there is one representative from Senate and another from the House but each only has " vote) A representative of Integrated Bar (Regular member) A Professor of Law (Regular member) A Retired Member of the Supreme Court (Regular member) A Representative of the Private Sector (Regular member) De la Llana v. f.Natural-born Citizen of the Philippines . there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. it would be in accordance with accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent justices and judges are concerned. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law. In the implementation of the assailed legislation. as a necessary consequence of such abolition. the Supreme Court be consulted and that its view be accorded the fullest consideration. Rilloraza. If such were the case. No fear need be entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic principle that the Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions. it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. the effect is one of separation. As to its effect.Citizen of the Philippines (except in Collegiate Courts should be Natural-Born Citizen) . it could $'" Qualifications Supreme Court .Requirements prescribed by congress . is hardly distinguishable from the practical standpoint from removal.Member of Philippine Bar . Alba (1982) Facts De la Llana.Proven competence. and independence e. As per Nitafan v. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. Art.

that the three departments are as one in their determination to pursue the ideals and aspirations and to fulfill the hopes of the sovereign people as expressed in the Constitution. There is no departure therefore from the tried and tested ways of judicial power. whenever appropriate. It is a cardinal article of faith of our constitutional regime that it is the people who are endowed with rights. it is of the essence of constitutionalism to assure that neither agency is precluded from acting within the boundaries of its conceded competence. §11." That is more than a moral adjuration. Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant positions created by the reorganization. the former is to be preferred. such a construction would be in accordance with the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives between one which would save and another which would invalidate a statute. Batas Pambansa Blg. g. It is a legal imperative. It is from that standpoint that the security of tenure provision to assure judicial independence is to be viewed. 129 could stand the most rigorous test of constitutionality. It does so to enable them to perform his functions and fulfill his responsibilities more efficiently. it has to grant them either expressly or impliedly certain powers. and justifiably so. Well and truly has it been said that the fundamental principle of separation of powers assumes. That is why it has long been well-settled under the constitutional system we have adopted that the Supreme Court cannot. Nor should there be any fear that less than good faith will attend the exercise of the appointing power vested in the Executive. to secure which a government is instituted. The law may vest in a public official certain rights. The challenged Act would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint. In cases of impeachment if they are found guilty on the grounds of impeachment it follows that they failed to satisfy the requirement of good behavior. even one not readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with distrust. It does not follow that the abolition in good faith of the existing inferior courts except the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals and the creation of new ones will result in a judiciary unable or unwilling to discharge with independence its solemn duty or one recreant to the trust reposed in it. There is an obvious way to do so. VIII. Further. however it is part of the administrative powers of the Supreme Court and to determine such incapacity the Supreme Court should create a panel of doctors to assist them in making such decision. It cannot be denied that an independent and efficient judiciary is something to the credit of any administration. Acting as it does through public officials. The principle that the Constitution enters into and forms part of every act to avoid any unconstitutional taint must be applied. Moreover. Rather what is sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge that in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing the inferior courts. XI. §2 Members of the Supreme Court can only be removed through impeachment or if found incapacitated to discharge office. There is no reason to assume that the failure of this suit to annul BP 129 would be attended with deleterious consequences to the administration of justice. avoid the task of reconciliation. That remains in the hands of the Executive to whom it properly belongs. Removal – Art. $(" " . Those they exercise not for their own benefit but for the body politic. the power of removal of the present incumbents vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. Art. The Constitution does not speak in the language of ambiguity: "A public office is a public trust. Incapacity to discharge office is not defined in the constitution nor does it specify who determines such incapacity.do so but only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been put in issue.

Art. VII.The Chief Justice must certify the ruling that such consultation took place . i. VIII. Sandiganbayan. and state applicable laws and jurisprudence as well as its assessment and conclusion. The constitution requires they Supreme Court to sit En banc in matters regarding discipline of judges. the case/matter is deemed submitted for decision. Requirements as to Decisions – Art. Eventually it reached Indian courts which adopted by reference the ruling of the arbitrator. certification also applies to attest such consultation occurred. Ruling The ruling of the foreign court is considered a memorandum decision which adopt by the findings of facts and conclusions of law of inferior tribunals. Art. §12-14 Upon the filing of the last pleading/brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court. The Philippine Company alleges that such decision is not enforceable in the Philippines because it failed to contain a statement of facts and the law upon which the award in favor of petitioner was based. VIII. XVIII. dissented.Conclusions should be reached through consultation before a member is assigned to write the opinion of the court .Members who took no part. The Indian Company eventually filed a petition to the RTC of Surigao for the enforcement of the ruling by the Indian court. §15. §§13-14 . however due to a dispute with the cargo vessel it did not reach its point of destination. a majority of those who took part is required for imposing sanctions or a dismissal. CA (1999) Facts A Philippine Company agreed to supply an Indian Corporation with oil well cement.Only the Supreme Court can discipline judges of inferior courts and congress cannot pass any law to declare otherwise. to protect the independence of the justice assigned his name is not identified in the certification. Bernas doesn’t specify who from the lower collegiate courts shall certify. Lower Collegiate Courts have 12 months. the procedural requirement in the constitution on a decision of the court should be read with substantial justice such that in certain cases it can be set aside. h. “ Since there’s no IAC anymore this seems to apply to the CA which used to be the IAC. Court of Appeals. After negotiations to settle the matter it was finally referred to an arbitrator as per their contract.No petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied without stating legal basis These requirements also apply to lower collegiate courts such as the Court of Tax Appeals. Mandatory period for deciding cases – Art. Such do not transgress the constitutional requirement of stating the facts and law where the ruling is based although it is more prudent if a memorandum decision does not just provide a dispositive portion but also state the nature of the case. Absence of certification does not make the decision invalid but makes the official responsible for certification liable. Providing for these mentioned parts of the ruling allows the court to make an appropriate consideration and its consistency with the dispositive portion. Once deemed submitted for decision the Supreme Court is given 24 months. summarize the facts. it is reasonable to assume that it is the presiding justice however Bernas also mentions that “ in cases of intermediate appellate courts. and all other lower courts are given three months unless the Supreme Court reduces such $)" " . §18 par. (Not totally sure on this one sorry…) Oil & Gas Nature Corporation v. Nonetheless. or abstained must state their reason for doing so .Express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law which it is based . 3.

§§5 (3)(4)(6) and 11 1. It involves the exclusive power of the Supreme Court sitting en banc to discipline or dismiss judges for cause. He must be free from even a whiff of impropriety not just in the performance of judicial duties but behavior as a private individual. In addition the Supreme Court is empowered to promulgate rules and regulations to serve its purpose as the PET. If upon expiration of the period no decision is rendered a certification by the Chief Justice or the Presiding Judge shall sate why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within that period.periods. The indiscretion of justice Demetria did not meet up to this expectation and undermined the integrity of the entire judiciary. Presidential Electoral Tribunal Art. Ruling The conduct and behavior of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice carries with it the responsibility to keep his actions proper and above suspicion. " . Vasquez (1993) Facts A complaint was filed in the Ombudsman regarding the falsification of Judge Maceda of his certificate of service that he has decided on all cases submitted for decision when he was not able to render such. the ombudsman must defer action and refer it to the Supreme Court. VII §4 provides that the Supreme Court sitting en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. The mandatory periods are prospective in application. Even the Ombudsman cannot conduct an investigation independent of any administrative action taken by the Supreme Court nor can the Ombudsman’s findings be binding to it. The constitutional grant of administrative authority to the SC includes its power to oversee the compliance of judges and court personnel with all laws and take proper action against them. The Supreme Court then assigned a SC justice to investigate the said incident and appointed the Court Administrator as prosecutor. $*" k. It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnel’s compliance with all laws and take proper administrative action against them. Whenever a criminal complaint against a member of the court arises from their administrative duties. the Ombudsman’s investigation on the matter is an encroachment of the power of administrative supervision of the SC. In re Demetria (2001) Facts CA Justice Demetria was rumored/reported intercession in behalf of a known Drug Queen with the prosecutor to withdraw or settle the case. returns. Ruling In the absence of any administrative action taken against Judge Maceda by the court. VIII §6 provides that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision of all courts and its personnel. Supervision of lower courts Art. Maceda v. j. and qualifications of the President or VicePresident. VIII. Administrative powers – Art.

Mondiguing v. They further place that their lives as well as their lawyers and witnesses are in danger due to the rising tensions brought about by the case and their political rivalry with the governor. Abad (1975) Facts Petitioners seeks for a transfer of venue of their case to Baguio City or Quezon City because they could not expect a fair and impartial trial in Lagawe. A change of venue is justified in the interest of justice and truth. In terms of permanent transfer the constitution is silent as to who can effectuate such. Courts can do all things necessary to preserve and maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an effective institution of government. and that the witnesses would be afraid to testify due to harassment. transfer imports removal from one office and because of security of tenure a permanent transfer cannot be affected without consent of the affected judge. Ifugao because Judge Abad is a protégé’ of the governor. the Supreme Court ruled that judicial power connotes certain incidental and inherent attributes reasonable necessary for an effective administration of justice. The power to determine the residence of judges lies with the legislature as part of its power to provide additional qualification of judges of lower courts. Sola (1981) Facts %+" " . It is not only the Supreme Court which has power to effect a change of venue as per the Gutierrez ruling. To order a change of venue to another court of equal rank in a neighboring site is part of these incidental or inherent powers of courts whenever there is an imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial or to prevent a miscarriage of justice. People v. Gutierrez. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice In People v. There is no place for the judiciary for those who cannot meet the standards of judicial conduct and integrity.A position in the judiciary exacts great demand for moral righteousness and uprightness. However. 3. and that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the trial would not result in a fair and impartial trial. Ruling It is in the interest of the public to prosecute and punish the crime in the very place or as near as where it was committed. Temporarily assign judges to other stations in public interest Only the Supreme Court can temporarily transfer judges but such transfer could only last for six months without consent of the judge concerned. The court sustained the findings of the investigating justice and dismissed justice Demetria. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained in order to preserve the faith of the people in the judicial system. 2. However the constitution grants the Supreme Court the prerogative to change the place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice.

the court granted them bail. 10 km.Mayor Sola of Kabankalan was charged with murder. away from Kabankalan. However this authority is subject to the Civil Service Law. practice and procedure is part of the traditional powers of the Supreme Court. increase or modify substantive rights Although the constitution no longer provides for congress to have the power to legislate on matters of procedure it is deemed to have retained such power under the principle of checks and balances. practice and procedure The power to promulgate rules on pleading. The court must always consider the effect such fear has on the witnesses and in case of doubt then it should be construed in favor of a change in venue. a. Secretary of Justice Justice Puno said without discussion that %!" " . The Supreme Court also has the authority to disapprove rules promulgated by quasi-judicial bodies. In addition Congress may give authority to the courts “to appoint officers lower in rank” as per art. Appointment of officials and employees of the entire judiciary The authority of the Supreme Court to appoint its own officials and employees is meant to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. VII §6. Promulgate rules concerning pleading. A plea for change in venue can be done administratively. The power to promulgate rules has the following limitations and guidelines ! Simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases ! Uniform for all courts of the same grade ! Shall not diminish. Ruling Only the Solicitor General can file to the Supreme Court any petition in behalf of the People of the Philippines and not the fiscal or private prosecutors. 4. The trial was set at Himamaylan. The Supreme Court’s constitutional power to order a change of venue is appropriate in this case considering that witnesses are fearful for their lives if the trial was held at Himamaylan. The court evoked the People v. Private Prosecutors then sought to effect a change of venue due to the influence of the accused in the area as well as reports of witness intimidation. 5. Gutierrez ruling that “to compel the prosecution to procced to trial in a locality where witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is a mockery of the purpose of the courts. One recent result of this power is the Writ of Amparo. Promulgate rules concerning the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights The power to promulgate rules on the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights is granted to the Supreme Court as part of its broad judicial power. The summation of all powers granted to the Supreme Court in effect places into the hands of the Supreme Court the totality of the administration of justice making it a more independent judiciary. The power to promulgate rules includes the power to suspend them in particular cases in order to do justice. However in an obiter dictum in Echegaray v.

Admission to the practice of law The power to admit attorneys to the practice of law is not to be exercised at the pleasure of the court but must be done so with sound and judicial discretion. Purposes of an Integrated Bar ! Assist in Administration of Justice ! Foster and maintain high ideals of integrity. 856. which would result in the performance of duties the SC could not lawfully perform. It is logical to note that this is inherent to judicial power especially that if justice is to reign supreme the underprivileged must be offered the protection and assistance they could not normally afford. VIII §12 prohibits their designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. sitting as board of arbitrators. public service and conduct among members ! Safeguard professional interest of members ! Cultivate a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood ! Provide a forum for discussion of law.Congress no longer has the power to amend rules of court (take note Obiter ito). learning. of the public. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as conditions to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court. 6. v. improvement. Manila Electric Co. Legal assistance to the underprivileged The totality of powers granted to the Supreme Court laid on it much of the justice system. courts cannot attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. professional competence. 8. No quasi-judicial and administrative work for judges – Art. §12 All that is given to the judiciary is judicial power. reform. The functions performed are administrative and quasi-judicial in nature. the Integrated Bar is expected to strengthen the justice system by providing effective assistance. pleading. Pasay Trans Co. On the matter of the actual admission to the practice through application of these rules is a judicial function and Congress has no role in it. which is not a court at all. In re Judge Rodolfo Manzano (1988) Facts: Judge Manzano is appointed by provincial governor to sit as a member of the Provincial Committee of Justice pursuant to Presidentail EO no. jurisprudence. and publish information on this ! Encourage and foster legal education ! Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law ! Enable Bar to discharge public responsibility effectively As a body. The authority to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law is quasi-legislative and Congress has a revisory role subordinate to the Supreme Court. (1932) Facts: A statute was enacted. the compensation to be paid to the latter shall be fixed by the members of the SC. VIII. Art. %#" " . Integration of the bar Integration of the Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. The Court is asked to determine if the members of the Court may be constituted as a board of arbitrators. through these powers the Supreme Court is mandated to provide for legal assistance to the underprivileged. l. practice and procedure and the relations of bar to the bench and to the public. its members and the judiciary itself. granting a franchise to an electric company that whenever a right-of-way is granted to any other entity over portions of franchise of the grantee. protection. Ruling/Doctrine: The statute is unconstitutional. 7.

commences at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election o 6 years: for the purpose of synchronizing elections No Senator shall serve for more than 2 consecutive terms o Voluntary renunciation is not considered as an interruption o Can run again 3 years after the expiration of 2nd term o senatorial elections take place every 3 years and all are elected for a 6-year term o b. it shall be automatically and regularly released. unless otherwise fixed by law. • The purpose of this provision is not to subject the SC to the President and the Congress but simply to enable the judiciary to inform the government about its needs • This can also be the basis o appropriate legislation and government policies intended to improve the administration of justice and strengthen the judiciary. p. • This will last only for 3 consecutive terms following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution • Appointment by the President needs confirmation by the Commission on Appointments • Qualifications o District 1. o total membership may be raised from time to time by statute. n. submit to the President and the Congress. not parochial perspective Natural-born citizen of the Philippines At least 35 years old on the day of election. an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary. and Term of Office a. he cannot. Automatic release of an appropriation for the Judiciary • Upon approval of the budget. Ruling/Doctrine: No. Party-list • Chosen indirectly form a party elected by voters 3. o Domicile.Petitioner asks Court if he can accept such designation without prejudice to his position as an RTC judge of Ilocos Norte. except upon approval. Composition. Senate • 24 Senators elected at large (entire national electorate) by qualified voters of the Philippines • • • • • • • The number of Senators and the manner of electing them can only be changed by constitutional amendment o Senate looks on problems from a national. B. natural-born citizen of the Philippines %$" " . physical presence not necessary Term of 6 years. • The basic aim is to assure judicial independence • Judiciary should not be exempt form the budgetary process of submitting and justifying its budget. • Kinds of representatives 1. House of Representatives • Composed of not more than 250 members. Fiscal autonomy • The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. The Committee performs administrative functions and as such membership of the said judge is deemed unconstitutional. • Appropriations may no be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year • Automatically and regularly released. Report on the Judiciary • The SC shall within 30 days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress. Congress 1. it shall be automatically and regularly released. Able to read and write A registered voter Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 year immediately preceding the day of election. Qualifications. District • Directly elected from the various legislative districts 2. Sectoral • Reserved seats intended to give meaningful representation to disadvantaged sectors. o.

• Reapportionment Legislative districts shall be apportioned among the provinces. Dimaporo v. Basic principle behind the rule of apportionment is the concept of equality of representation. o term vs. such as in the charter of a new city. it merely shortened his tenure. which is a basic principle of republicanism. Therefore. Dimaporo. • Party-list 1. COMELEC (1995) Facts: Section 52 of RA 7854. was assailed as unconstitutional for its improper appropriation of legislative districts.at least 25 yrs old on the day of election able to read and write registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected resident of that district for not less than 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election. Executive Secretary. contiguous. and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants. Creation of new districts must be done by Congress within 3 years following the return of every census in order to ensure that proportional representation is preserved. Congress cannot be compelled to make a reapportionment. Voluntary renunciation is not an interruption in the continuity of service. it will be represented as a part of one of the districts within the province. this rule has been repealed by Farinas v. compact and adjacent territory. 4. • • • • • • Mariano v. A province is entitled to 1 representative no matter what its population size. cities. Each district shall comprise.) i. Ruling/Doctrine: Court upheld that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law. able to read and write 4. natural-born citizen of the Philippines 2. Also. was excluded from the Roll of Members of the HR. they cannot go back to their former position. o If one is elected to serve the unexpired term of another. must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors • Term o 3 years. members of the legislature are included in the enumeration of elective public officials who are to be considered resigned from public office from the moment of filing of their certificate of candidacy for another office. o Gerrymandering – creation of representative districts out of separate portions of territory in order to favor a candidate. said law is unconstitutional Aquino v. Mitra (1991) Facts: In section 67 of BP 881. COMELEC (1995) %%" " . and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that all public officials must serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle 2. Ruling/Doctrine: The law is constitutional. with the mandate. 3. as far as practicable. It was stated that a national elective official does not terminate his tenure by the mere fact of having filed for candidacy to a position different from what he is holding. that unexpired term will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms allowed. If less than 250k. which provided for the conversion of the municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized city. (However. Each city with a population of at least 250k will have one district. The President and the VP are exceptions. 5. tenure – term is the period of time allotted to the office by law. at least 25 yrs old on the day of elections 3. He challenged the law as an unconstitutional shortening of his term. The law did not shorten his term. after filing his candidacy for Governor of ARMM. while tenure is the period during which the official actually holds office. The statutory provision seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging them from running for another public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy. beginning at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election (starting date may be changed by law) o 3 years – for the purpose of synchronization of elections o Not more than 3 consecutive terms. the Constitution provides that a city with a population of at least 250k can have at least one representative . which they have received from their constituents.

%&" • • • • • • Requisites laid down by LG code: (a) 20% allocation. of additional seats allocated to first party = Additional seats Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. it is carved out from part of a real and existing geographic are. The issues raised were: 1) whether the 20% constitutional allocation is mandatory. organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituent deserving of representation were actually represented in Congress Panganiban’s Formula: may be replaced by the legislature via a statute a. Respondents assail his eligibility for failure to comply with the residency requirement. (i. the first PL election was held simultaneously with the general elections. Ruling/Doctrine: 20% is a mere ceiling. COMELEC (2000) Facts: In May 1998. It need not be filled. (No. and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least 2 percent of the total votes cast for the PL system in order to be entitled to a PL seat. Petitioner contends inter alia that it is legally impossible to impose the one-year residency requirement in newly created political district. prevent proliferation of small parties). no single-group dominance). No party may have more than 3 seats. of votes of concerned party/No. 250 representatives: 200 district representatives and 50 PL representatives. maximum (to ensure entry of various parties. Ruling/Doctrine: It is not legally impossible. COMELEC (2006) Facts: This case involves the formula for computing the additional seats due. In June the Comelec en banc proclaimed 12 parties. if any. Those garnering more then 2% may have additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. (d) proportional representation (additional seat in proportion to number of votes) Veterans Federation Party v. Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the PL system of representation. Ruling/Doctrine: Seats reserved for party-list groups in Congress are to be reserved for the marginalized sectors.) Maximum number will be prescribed by law and the nominees will be arranged by the party or organization according to an order of priorities. RA 7941 requires parties. COMELEC (2001) Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint calling for the disqualification of several party-list groups from the 2001 party-list election.” Court sees PL system not as a proportional system of representation designed to strengthen democracy but as a “sectoral representation” meant to promote social justice. • • • Party-List Representation Seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members if the sectors Those qualified are registered national. regional. 2% threshold and 3 seat limit set a mandatory number that must be filled or just a ceiling – Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties. PL system limits participation to parties or organizations representing the “marginalized and underprivileged. of Party-list representatives b. PL representatives will constitute 20 per centum of the total number of representatives including the PL. Petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to additional seats in Congress. Candidates cannot be allowed to take advantage of the creation of new political districts by suddenly transplanting themselves to such new districts. of votes for first party) x No. and sectoral parties or organizations. organizations.e. To meet the residence requirement he transferred from Tarlac and leased a condominium in Makati. 2) whtehr the 2% threshold requirement and the 3-seat limit is constitutional. and that party-list nominees must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. (c) 3-seat " . A new political district is not created out of thin air.Facts: : Petitioner Aquino ran – and won – as congressman in the new district of Makati. In July PL PAG-ASA filed a petition to proclaim the full number of PL representatives as provided in the constitution. (b) 2% threshold (meaningful representation. prejudicing the genuine residents in the process. in this case the old Municipality of Makati. of district representatives/0. ii. (No.80) x 0. and 3) how the additional seats of a qualified party should be determined. for winners in party-list elections.20 = No. Partido ng Manggagawa and Butil Farmers Party v.

Ruling/Doctrine: His retirement pay should not be computed based on the new increased salary. The incoming Members of Congress will have a salary increase from P7. There is no legal limit as to how much the Congress can appropriate. • Candidates need not indicate whether they are running under a special or regular election. any salary increase should not take effect until retirement of all legislators who approved it. Mathay (1966) Facts: RA 4134 authorized salary increases of the Speaker and Members of the HR. Ruling/Doctrine: The salary increase should not be allowed. no set prescribed date. i. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Ligot’s term in Congress will expire December 30. 1971: set a limit to allowable travel. To grant the petitioner’s claim is a subtle way of increasing his compensation during his term of office and thus allow what the Constitution prohibits. Mathay (1974) Facts: Rep. Petitioner argues that his retirement pay must be computed based on that salary increase. Special Election • In case of vacancy in the Senate or HR • The Senator or HR Member elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. Sec 12(c) as amended by RA 4968. PHILCONSA v. which he never received as an incumbent. only a moral limit.e.” The intendment of the law also requires expiration of the fill term of all members of the Legislature who approved the salary increase.000 as provided for under RA 4134. and if held. The provision speaks of the “expiration of the full term. (The product derived from the formula is less then 1. and the President of the Senate and the Speaker at Php240k. Respondents maintain that the expiration of term of members of the HR who approved should be enough to allow the remaining members of he HR to merit the increase. 3. Election a. and not on his actual salary as Congressman. Regular Election • Elections shall be held on the 2nd Monday of May.) 2.” the fixed annual amount.Ruling/Doctrine: The prevailing formula for the computation of additional seats for party-list winners is the formula stated in the landmark case of Veterans.200 to P32. He is entitled to retirement gratuity under Commonwealth Act 186. As held in Philconsa. • An election held at the time thus prescribed is not invalidated by the fact that the body charged by the law with the duty of calling the election failed to do so.7 for PM and 0. • Service for the unexpired tem shall be counted as one term for the purpose of counting the successive allowable terms. petitioners are not entitled to additional seats. • • • • 1935 Consti: annual compensation included per diems and other emoluments or allowances. office and personnel expenses but was eventually withdrew for being an internal matter. Auditor General denied his petition. 1969. Singson’s who had a similar case. b. The petition seeks to enjoin the officials from allowing the payment of these increases because the said increase is unconstitutional. Salaries • The annual salary of members of the Congress has been initially fixed by Art XVIII. • Retirement benefits of a legislator must be based in the salary in effect during his term and not on the increased salary of the subsequent term. Using the said formula. Privileges and Disqualifications a. The right and duty to hold special election emanates form the statute and not from a call for the election by some authority like the COMELEC. • No increase shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. • Not mandatory. %'" " . subject to change by the law. as well as Rep. unless otherwise provided by law. 1987 Consti: refers only to “salaries. 0. Salaries. regardless of the term of the members of the Senate who approved. Sec 17 at Php204k. Court did not round up these numbers. since the increase would not affect the Senate.71 for Butil. " Ligot v.

15. that the President was accepting bribery).) • Said expression refers to the utterances made by the Congressmen in the performance of their official function • Essential requirement for its applicability has always been that the action involved must be legislative action.b. because a legislator/delegate can perform his functions effectively well. d. For the purposes of qualifying in his certificate of candidacy for delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Granting immunity when it comes to arrest is tantamount to creating a privileged class. a legislator is not prevented from accepting an appointment. However. However. A few weeks after. Petitioner Bautista was proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. • Privilege did not include immunity from arrest arising from an act or omission punishable by law. the letter is not libelous. but he is still made responsible before the legislative body itself. published in newspapers a letter to the President (while Congress is not in session) regarding a planned coup d’etat. He was later charged with electioneering. is not covered by the privilege under Sec 15 of Art VI. • One who is convicted does not enjoy immunity from arrest. Speech and Debate Clause • Members are guaranteed immunity from answerability before an outside forum but nit from an answerability to the disciplinary authority of the Congress itself. the President’s allies in the lower house suspended Rep. Ruling/Doctrine: Such letter to the President when Congress is not in session. 1945 when in fact he was born on June 20. Sergio Osmeña attacked Pres. Disqualifications and other prohibitions • A member of the Congress may not hold. A breach of peace is any act that is defined by the RPC or any special statute. %(" " . 1946. any other office in the government or in any of its instrumentalities. one should observe the word “other”: shall not be questioned in any other place. Osmena v. Planners were unnamed bit the alleged instruments were identified. Pendatun Facts: Rep. including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. He was sued for libel. the immunity extends only to CIVIL cases not CRIMINAL. before the House finished its session. Jimenez v. Garcia in a speech given in the House. Freedom from arrest • Immunity from all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment • Immunity applies for as long as Congress is in session. • Since the prohibition is only during his tenure. Further. and the Congressman-writer is not performing his official duty. The Constitution guarantees the independence and free of a legislator to express himself w/o fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before any court or forum outside the Congressional Hall. Article 6 of the Consti does not cover prosecution for treason. he said that he was born on June 20. felony and breach of peace. The Martinez and Bautista cases fall under breach of peace. charging – albeit without any evidence – the latter of selling pardons and other Presidential duties to those who can afford it (i. a member of the House of Representatives. whether or not the legislator involved is actually attending it. Morfe (1972) Facts: Petitioner Martinez was charged with falsification of a public document. c. Cabangbang Facts: Cabangbang.e. It only covers immunity from civil arrest. • To come under the guarantee the “speech or debate” must be one made in the Congress or in any committee thereof (not only the locale of the speech but the nature. during his tenure as member. Martinez v. Petitioners. which entitles delegates parliamentary immunities of a senator or representative. Osmeña for fifteen months for seriously imputing the President of bribery without evidence to substantiate it Ruling/Doctrine: It is true that the Constitution provided that for any speech or debate made in Congress a member thereof shall not be questioned in any other place. The issue is WON the publication in question is a privileged communication. as delegates of the Constitutional Convention invoke immunity under the Constitutional Convention Act. without the need for any transgression of the criminal law. Ruling/Doctrine:The privilege of immunity under Sec.

as manifested by Flavier. Senate President 2. However. Majority Leader Drilon informed the HR on 30 July %)" Flores v. • • • • • Members of Congress shall. assailing the constitutionality of the provision. mayor of Olongapo City (Richard Gordon) shall be appointed as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the SBMA. he was assuming the position of minority leader. Records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law. In the election of officers. Petitioners filed a taxpayer’s suit. unless that position is automatically attached to that particular office. Said provision violates the constitutional proscription against appointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts. Fernan and Tatad were nominated for the position of president. Such officers as deemed by each house to be necessary. Election of officers: by a majority vote of all its respective Members Santiago vs. 4. Elected officials cannot hold more than one government position. • During the discussion on who should constitute the ‘minority’. Duty to disclose " . Speaker of the House 3. o Legislator may appear in person if in fact he is a genuine party in the case. and the votes cast for him were the ‘minority’. Members of the Congress are not allowed to personally appear as counsel before any court o may not be circumvented under the guise of appearing “ in intervention” in one’s behalf. LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP chose Guingona as minority leader. and expenses incurred for each member. They are not allowed to have any interest in a contract with. 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. upon assumption of office. Such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit. or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government during his term. they cannot be member of the board of corporations with contracts with the government Neither may a legislator “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. Internal Government of Congress A. o A firm where a Member is a partner is allowed to appear as counsel. e. he automatically forfeits his seat in Congress. or in their business operations. make full disclosure of their financial and business interest. They sought for the declaration of Tatad as the rightful minority leader. No concensus on the question was arrived at for 3 days. The votes cast for Fernan comprised the ‘majority’. o Thus. This merely enables the house to examine the arguments he might present in the context of his personal interest. Fernan won. any govt agency. Election of Officers Officers: 1.• • • • • • If he chooses to accept another office. Drilon Facts: RA 7227 provided that for the first year of operations of SBMA from the effectivity of the said law. Ruling/Doctrine: Provision is unconstitutional. These prohibitions are intended to prevent members from taking advantage of their position in their dealings with courts. • Tatad manifested that being the only other member of the minority who ran for that position. No member shall be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. this does not prevent the legislator from filing the proposed legislation. Guingona (1998) Facts: • Miriam and Tatad (who belong to the People Reform’s Party) instituted a petition for quo warranto against the election of Guingona as minority leader of the Senate. which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to.

The following day. 12 senators constitute a majority of the Senate of 23 senators (10 walked out and 1 is out of the country). and was then recognized as such by Fernan. 1965 (with Senate President and Chairman of Commission on Appointments Ferdinand Marcos even sending him a congratulatory telegram). Fernan did not act with grave abuse of discretion in recognizing Guingona as the minority leader. He assumed office on September 11. As his appointment was made during recess of Congress. "the House: does not mean "all" the members. of Commission on Appointments (1971) Facts: • Felizardo S. the position of Senate President was declared vacant. one was in the United States and another in a local hospital. • As Guingona belonged to Lakas-NUCD-UMDP. only 11 Senators can vote for Avelino. Senate President Avelino walked out of the session hall followed by nine other senators.1998 that Lakas-NUCD-UMDP chose Guingona as the minority leader. Hence. Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the then President of the Philippines on August 31. C.) The Senate President Pro-Tempore then took over and. Issues may either be: Political . on February 7. 1966. the minority is the group who voted for the losing candidate for Senate President and accepted no such chairmanships. which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission on Appointments. This left only twelve senators in the session hall. • • When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorum. Nine months after his confirmation.on matters affecting only internal operation of the legislature. It declared that the controversy was political in nature and that the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president should not be taken over by the judiciary. Appointment was unanimously confirmed on May 20. and Senator Cuenco was designated Acting Senate President. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House. not the Supreme Court. (Of the twenty four senators. it was submitted to the Commission on Appointments at its next session in 1965. Ruling/Doctrine: • The controlling principle is supplied by Altarejos v. Cuenco (1949) Facts: • During the Senate session on February 21. Ruling/Doctrine: • By a vote of 6-4. Senator Rodolfo Ganzon (a member of the Commission on Appointments) wrote to its Chairman stating that he was filing a motion for reconsideration of the appointment in view of derogatory information which he had received. Miriam and Tatad filed this petition before the SC. Justiciable . the then Secretary of Justice advised petitioner to vacate his position as municipal judge. 1965. • The Constitution is silent as regards the manner of electing officers other than the Senate President and the House Speaker. Ruling/Doctrine: • Petitioners held that majority is the group who voted for winning Senate President and accepted committee chairmanships. 1964 and discharged his duties as such. Rules of Proceedings Each house shall determine its own procedural rules. the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its rules. 1949. the Supreme Court held that the majority is the political party to which most number of lawmakers belonged (concept of plurality). Avelino brought the case to court asking whether the twelve senators who had designated Cuenco as Senate President constituted a quorum. one of the minority parties of the Senate. 1964 as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan. Corollary to Congress’ power to make rules is the power to ignore them when circumstances require.when the legislative rule affects private rights. Molo.” The 12 senators ratified their actions placing them beyond a shadow of doubt. Sec. Whereas. by a resolution approved by the twelve remaining senators. the Court refused to assume jurisdiction. Cotabato. Avelino vs. Petitioner was informed that on May 21. it is within the province of the Legislative. Pacete vs. • In addition. especially since at most. as conferred by the Constitution. which reads: “Resolution of the Commission on any %*" " . • However.

Antonio Cuenco objected to the motion and asked for a head count. At 11:48 a. No. after which he was interpellated. The appointment is effective until disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment in Congress. • On the same day. but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress. §16(3) that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings” and that.” o A distinction is made between the exercise of such presidential prerogative requiring confirmation by the CA when Congress is in session and when it is in recess. Ruling/Doctine: &+" " . He was interrupted when Rep. The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded. for which the concurrence of a majority of the members present is necessary. Rep.• appointment may be reconsidered on motion by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval. but his motion was defeated when put to a vote. • The law originated in the House of Representatives as H. • Respondents’ defense is anchored on the principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine.m. Rogelio Sarmiento was first to interpellate. Aldeguer’s (respondent in Altarejos case) theory would give to the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration the effect which it would have if the motion approved. 1996. under Section 22. the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21. This is inconsistent with Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission. “The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress.m.. which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called “sin taxes” on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. De Venecia (1997) Facts: • Petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of Republic Act No. has no effect whatsoever. 1996. violation of the House rules is a violation of the Constitution itself. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House.A. on November 21. Rep. although until the end of his interpellation he never did. VI. that these rules embody the “constitutional mandate” in Art. o What is decisive is that a confirmation duly made is not nullified simply by a motion of reconsideration being filed. the appointment takes effect at once. then the motion for reconsideration not having been acted upon is not approved and therefore. without its being voted upon and approved. o In case of an adjournment sine die the period for filing the motion for reconsideration having expired. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum. and only upon the consent of the CA may the person assume office. after a recess. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. 8240. proceeded to deliver his sponsorship speech. Rep. • Petitioners’ principal argument is that R. In the former. Rep. In the case. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair. the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) declared the presence of a quorum. Exequiel Javier. In the course of his interpellation. 7198. As with ad interim appointments. No. consequently. Rep. There must either be a rejection by the CA or nonaction on its part. Joker Arroyo registered to interpellate. and hence. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. would dispense with the necessity of such approval. 1996. Ramos on November 22. Arroyo vs. • Petitioner Rep. the President nominates. • The bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the House at 8 a. If a majority of the members present concur to grant a reconsideration. After a roll call. this shall be a final disposition of such a motion.” Holding of the Court was that the mere filing of a reconsideration did not have the effect of setting aside a confirmation. This bill was approved on third reading and transmitted to the Senate which approved it with certain amendments on third reading on. They contend that the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is false and spurious. the appointment may be laid on the table.

. but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to. which the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the Government. Avelino (1946) Facts: • Petitioners (Jose Vera. For one thing. E. and by legislature practice. they would not get enough votes to claim their seats in Senate. Osmeña vs Pendatun. It was alleged that the voting in the mentioned provinces did not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will. Under the enrolled bill doctrine. So that any power deemed to be legislative by usage or tradition. supra Ruling/Doctrine: • The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior. Avelino. it cannot be subject to judicial review. 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. demands in such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. 77 Phil. it can create orders in preserving its prestige and dignity. However. Discipline of Members &!" " . and adjudication by the Courts. Power over members and right to sit Vera vs. Each department. Ruling/Doctrine: • The Senate has not exceeded its powers. due to the rampant terrorism and violence in the provinces of Pampanga. The constitution provides limits upon the plenary rights of the legislative. The senate did not usurp the powers of the Electoral Tribunal. • The Senate as a branch of the legislative department had the constitutional power to adopt rules for its proceedings.) D. If the votes cast for the petitioners in the said regions were to be nullified. No. if the Court assumed the power to determine whether Osmeña's conduct constituted disorderly behavior.• • • • What is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of R. it has been said. unless the Constitution provides otherwise. The Senate made no error in putting into probability the Electoral Tribunal annulling the election returns in the provinces mentioned earlier where there was widespread violence. Petitioners were not prevented from seeking reconsideration. the senate approved the Pendatun resolution ordering petitioners not be sworn. The case does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has “gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction” so as to call for the exercise of the Court’s power. It was an exercise of the authority. Pendatun Resolution entry: In order to maintain alive the respect for democratic institutions among our people. No. • The Senate was avoiding undesirable results from the participation of disqualified members in its deliberations. is necessarily possessed by the Philippine Congress. has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. The theory of separation of powers fastidiously observed by this Court. 212. The Electoral Tribunal on the other hand.A. in violation of law and contrary to the principle of freedom of choice which should underline all elections under the Constitution. it would thereby have assumed appellate jurisdiction. the signing of H. nor seated as members of the Senate pending the investigation. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on November 21. 192. the Senate has. Ramon Diokno and Jose Romera – Nacionalista party) were elected among the top 16 senators in the April 1946 elections. not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it.. Nueva Ecija. no man or group of men should be permitted to profit from the results of an election held under coercion. under parliamentary practice. 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law." (Vera vs."The Legislative power of the Philippine Congress is plenary. Therefore. Bulacan and Tarlac. discretion. subject only to such limitations as are found in the Republic's Constitution. Independent of a constitutional or statutory grant. the power to inquire into the credentials of any member and the latter’s rights to participate in its deliberations. is given jurisdiction over all contests relating to elections. and inherent power of selfpreservation (initiated by dictates of precaution or public policy).

o It is a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon the determination of the validity of the information filed before it. Section 13 does not state that the public officer must be suspended only in &#" " . Fine 3. has pressed the same point. supra Ruling/Doctrine: • Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. 1924 for disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera.Each House may punish its Members for disorderly behavior. and emoluments of his office for the period of one year from the first of January. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or wrong. o Preventive suspension is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members: • Suspension (not exceeding sixty days). A penalty of suspension. to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement. Sandiganbayan (2001) Facts: • Petition for Review on Certiorari of a Decision of the Sandiganbayan to preventively suspend petitioner in connection with pending criminal cases filed against her for alleged violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). suspended. or its officers. Ruling/Doctrine: • Because of the separation of powers. suspension or expulsion have been recognized in the United States. Censure Alejandrino vs. or could be censured. a suit instituted by one member of the Philippine Senate against the Philippine Senate and certain of its official employees. • This is. disciplinary action against its members. Santiago vs. privileges. and. the Attorney-General. 1924. in effect. depriving Senator Alejandrino of all the prerogatives. shall not exceed sixty days. the general rule of mandamus is that the writ will not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch. in representation of the respondents. Imprisonment 4. Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance. has objected to the jurisdiction of the court. and later. Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body. including imprisonment. Deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the record. to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their character which therefore pertain to their legislative functions and over which they have exclusive control. even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. The Rules of Philippine House of Representatives provide that the parliamentary practices of the Congress of the United States shall apply in a supplementary manner to its proceedings. Senator for the Sixth District. the courts have no power. for five reasons. Quezon (1924) Facts: • A resolution was adopted by the Philippine Senate composed of the respondent Senators. and. • By special appearance. • Petitioner contends that the resolution above quoted is unconstitutional and entirely of no effect. members of Parliament or of Congress have been. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation of power. on February 5. its members. with the concurrence of twothirds of all its Members. suspend or expel a Member. for the very obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. Ruling/Doctrine: • Sandiganbayan had authority to order the petitioner’s preventive suspension. 2. Other disciplinary measures: 1. when imposed. committed to prison. the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a matter of course. Osmeña vs Pendatun. • Precedents have held that where a member has been expelled by the legislative body. • For unparliamentary conduct. by demurrer. The practice and the traditional power of legislative assemblies to take. • Expulsion.

Jr. an Information (docketed as Criminal Case 18857) was filed with the Sandiganbayan (First Division) against then Congressman Ceferino S. House of Representatives.. The maxim simply recognizes that each of the three co-equal and independent. it was held that the doctrine of separation of powers does not exclude the members of Congress from the mandate of RA 3019. Jr. vs. as the case may be. Gimenez (1963) Facts: &$" " . The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution.000.m. on 12 August 1997. et al. The suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon a determination by the Senate or the House of Representatives. the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered the Speaker to suspend the accused. branches of the government – the Legislative. as amended). House of Representatives. Roberto P. After the accused pleaded not guilty. On 29 August 1997. The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from Republic Act No. a motion for reconsideration. Mabanag vs. Cashier. Jose de Venecia. the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution declaring Speaker Jose C. Lopez Vito. the gravity of the offense charged. invoking the rule on separation of powers and claiming that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as a body pursuant to House Resolution 116 adopted on 13 August 1997. Tuaño. But the Speaker did not comply. Antonio M. or whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence before the court have a valid basis in decreeing preventive suspension pending the trial of the case. • Respect due to a co-equal department requires the courts to accept the certification of the presiding officer of the legislative body. De Venecia va. 3019 nor from its sanctions.. Chan. Ruling/Doctrine: • As held in Miriam Defensor Santiago v. on 18 August 1997 at 8:00 a. All it secures to the accused is the adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings against him. the contents of the enrolled bill are conclusive upon the courts.• the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged. supra Ruling/Doctrine: • A duly authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts (Enrolled Bill Rule). the Speaker filed. Unrelenting.. of Agusan del Sur for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Property Division. Casco (Phil. Sandiganbayan (2002) Facts: On 12 March 1993. Chief. o It does not contemplate a proceeding to determine the strength of the evidence of culpability against him.” In its Resolution dated 6 June 1997. the Executive and the Judiciary – has exclusive prerogatives and cognizance within its own sphere of influence and effectively prevents one branch from unduly intruding into the internal affairs of either branch. o The requirement of valid information does not require that the guilt of the accused must be established in a presuspension proceeding before a trial on the merits proceeds. Paredes. through counsel. in his capacity as SecretaryGeneral of the House of Representatives. Jose Ma. in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nazareno.00 within 10 days from notice. Journal and Congressional Records • An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the certifications of the presiding officers of each House. Sandiganbayan. in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a fine of P10. upon an erring member. • Where the certifications are valid and not withdrawn. de Venecia.) Chemical Co. the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution requiring him to appear before it. RA 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that. Antonio B. filed the petition for certiorari. Thus. therefore. albeit coordinate. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. F. Jr.. the prosecution filed a “Motion To Suspend The Accused Pendente Lite. the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order.

CASCO cited the statements made on the Senate’s floor by its members during the consideration of the bill.” This led to the adoption of the rule giving verity and unimpeachability to legislative records. But when the contents of the journal conflicts with that of an enrolled bill. the enrolled bill prevails over the contents of the journal. “the resultant evil might be slight as compared with that of altering the probative force and character of legislative records. Ruling/Doctrine: • The court held that if the clock was stopped. They paid the margin fee of PHP 33 765. To supplement Circular No. 2381. 1959. 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law).72 they paid. CASCO sought the refund of their earlier payment. Ruling/Doctrine: • The urea formaldehyde referred to is the finished product.Pursuant to Republic Act No. &%" " . Probative value of the Journal • • • The Journal is conclusive upon the courts. • CASCO says that the bill approved in Congress contained the conjunction and—thus. under which Pons must be punished if found guilty. But on March 1. 95. • 2. and a correspondent responsibility of the members to their respective constituents. and so imperfect on account of the treachery and memory. but the Auditor of the bank refused to pass and approve said vouchers. liable to loss by death or absence. as provided in RA No. 2609. that act no. Pons (1916) Facts: • Juan Pons et al. the appeal of Juan Pons. In May 1960. Congress intended to exempt urea and formaldehyde separately. After the last importation. however. the Central Bank of the Philippines issued on July 1.72. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the members of the Congress and approved by the Executive—the remedy is by amendment—not by judicial decree.42. and making the proof of legislative action depend upon uncertain oral evidence. was not passed nor approved on or before the said date. The Central Bank issued the vouchers for refund. (the journal stated that the session ended 12:00 midnight sine die. different from urea and formaldehyde. Several times in November and December 1959. the Auditor General affirmed the action of Central Bank’s Auditor. on appeal. and the evidence of the laws of the state must rest upon a foundation less certain and durable than that afforded by the law to many contracts between private individuals concerning comparatively trifling matters. • Previously. and o To provide proof of what actually transpired in the legislature. 1529 (which declares that the importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said fee) of the bank’s Monetary Board. The duty to keep a journal has a dual purpose: o To insure publicity of the proceedings of the legislature. it is maintained with corroboration by witnesses that the clock was stopped and the session actually ended on the early hours of the day after) thus null and void. CASCO bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde. because the exemption granted by the Monetary Board for CASCO’s separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is not in accordance with the provisions of section 2. CASCO purchased foreign exchange again and paid the margin fee of PHP 6 345. Each were found guilty of the crime and were charged – thus. fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. Circular No. To back its claim. CASCO again sought a refund for the PHP 6 345. To take this rule away for one purpose is to take it away for all. 95. the bank disseminated a memorandum on the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment of said fee. United States vs. counsel of Pons alleged and offered to prove that the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was the 28th day of February. the enrolled bill—which states urea formaldehyde—is conclusive upon the courts. relying on the Resolution No. not as a finished product. • In the motion. • Further. But said individual statements do not reflect the view of the Senate. charged with illegal importation of opium. 2609. paragraph XVIII of RA No.

Roxas. 1964 the Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of Representatives that House Bill No. the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate President. Antonio Villegas. Herminio A. The amendment recommended by Senator Roxas does not appear in the journal of the Senate proceedings as having been acted upon. issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of House Bill No. • The House of Representatives thereafter signified its approval of House Bill No. the then ViceMayor. addressed a letter to the President of the Philippines. 9266 signed by the secretaries of both Houses as well as by the presiding officers thereof was not the bill duly approved by Congress and that he considered his signature on the enrolled bill as invalid and of no effect. A subsequent letter made the further clarification that the invalidation by the Senate President of his signature meant that the bill on which his signature appeared had never been approved by the Senate and therefore the fact that he and the Senate Secretary had signed it did not make the bill a valid enactment. 9266 had been passed by the Senate "with amendments. 4065. As a consequence the Senate President. The committee favorably recommended approval with a minor amendment. or at some remote period of time by facts resting only in the memory of the individuals. issued circulars to disregard the provisions of Republic Act 4065. On June 16. 1964 House Bill No. Astorga. The bill was sent to the Senate for its concurrence. the Manila City Treasurer and the members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of Republic Act 4065. because all are required to conform to them." • Upon the foregoing facts the Mayor of Manila." Attached to the letter was a certification of the amendment. was filed in the House of Representatives. they should be permanent. Enrolled Bill Theory Astorga vs Villegas (1974) Facts: • March 30. 3. It was held that it was the approval by congress which was essential &&" " . filed a petition with this Court on September 7. The president also officially withdrew his signature on House Bill No. 1964 the Secretary of the House transmitted four printed copies of the bill to the President of the Philippines. The Senate approved those amendments. It was there passed on third reading without amendments on April 21. the Manila Chief of Police. 1964 for "Mandamus. who affixed his signatures thereto by way of approval. Ruling/Doctrine: • RA4095 is not valid. the Executive Secretary. the Commissioner of Civil Service. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas and not the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. They should be public. 1964. The printed copies were then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House of Representatives. Journal Entry Rule vs. explaining that the enrolled copy of House Bill No. The bill thereupon became Republic Act No. Senator Tolentino. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under authority of Republic Act 4065.• Imperative reasons of public policy require that the authenticity of laws should rest upon public memorials of the most permanent character. When the bill was discussed on the floor of the Senate on second reading on May 20. and copies thereof were caused to be printed. 9266 adding that "it would be untenable and against public policy to convert into law what was not actually approved by the two Houses of Congress. It was NOT duly enacted and thus it never became law to begin with. 9266. that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow. 9266 as sent back to it. 1964. suggested by Senator Roxas. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Senator Gerardo M. Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction" to compel respondents Mayor of Manila. Senator Arturo Tolentino introduced substantial amendments. • On May 21. Journal entry doctrine was followed here. • Reacting to these steps taken by Mayor Villegas. 9266 signed into law by the President of the Philippines was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him and approved on the Senate floor. • Upon knowing about this.

Subido (1969) Facts: • HB was amended with Sen. Cuenco (1957) Facts: • The majority party filled the two seats intended for the minority party in the Senate Electoral Tribunal when there are not enough &'" " .) Morales vs. Rodrigo’s suggestion. Sec. From the evidence presented.1(1)] ii. exclusive of Saturdays. Sec. Regular Sessions • Convenes once every year on the 4th Monday of July. it was seen how Tolentino’s amendments were approved but were not incorporated in the law. and that what purportedly was a rewriting to suit some stylistic preferences was in truth an alteration of meaning.4) Determining President’s temporary disability (Art VII.) 2 Six members of the Senate or House. Three Supreme Court justices to be designated by the Chief Justice (the senior justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. Sessions A. 4. as the case may be. 1965 is hereby made permanent. 4) -Declaring a State of War [Art. Sec. Continues to be in session until 30 days before the start of its next regular session. the petition is denied and the so-called Republic Act No. Ruling/Doctrine: • The Court cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations. without the consent of the other. Sec. 23(1)] -Amending the Constitution [Art. Electoral Tribunals A. 4065… is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. that the change was made not by Congress but only by an employee thereof. 18) 5. Par. and legal holidays. Tañada vs. but somewhere in the legislative process caused part of the bill to be dropped. Sundays. Adjournments Neither House can adjourn for more than three days during the time Congress is in session without the consent of the other House. • US v Pons does not apply because it did not involve a discrepancy between an enrolled bill and the Journal. C. The phrase ‘who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher’ was changed to ‘has served the police department of a city or has served as officer in the Armed Forces…’. Sec.to the validity of the law and not the signatures of the presiding officers. (In view of the foregoing considerations. The temporary restraining order dated April 28. Congressional Record Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. Neither House can they adjourn to any other place that that where the two houses are sitting. Voting Jointly . • D. more specifically in the proofreading thereof. changing the whole spirit.Choosing the President (Art VII. XVII. Joint Sessions i. Voting Separately .11. VI. -Members chosen enjoy security of tenure and cannot be removed by mere change of party affiliation. Composition 1.To revoke or extend martial law or suspension of privilege of habeas corpus (Art VII. In examining the journals (a requirement found in the constitution) of the legislative chambers. the omission of the phrase was made not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only in the course of the engrossment of the bill. Special Sessions • Called by the President at any time when Congress is not is session. B. -The Electoral Tribunal shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and House shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. 5.

minority members in the Senate. §11) of the 1935 charter which provided that the Electoral Tribunals of each house should be composed of "nine Members. Gonzales. limiting the time for presentation &(" " . 1987 petitioners filed with the SET a motion for disqualification or inhibation of the Senator-members thereof from the hearing and resolution of the election contest on the ground that they are all interested parties to the case. On October 7. Abbas vs. the insertion of such provision was equal representation between the majority and minority in the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Ruling/Doctrine: • By providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members of the Senate. Election contest – one where a defeated candidate challenges the qualification and claims for himself the seat of a proclaimed winner. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court . • And that the SET’s rules of procedure should be amended in order to permit the contest to be decided only by the 3 Justice-members. Angara vs. 1935 against Ynsua (one of the respondents) and others. fair play and due process require the mass disqualification of the SET’s Senatormembers. the present case. 1987 the petitioiners filed before the SET an election contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in May 11. As such. Only Senator Tañada was a member of the minority in the Senate. Senator Estrada. VI. and was replaced by Senator Enrile. . Hence. Hence. • Petitioners contend that consideration of public policy. ran for the position of representative of the First District of the Province of Tayabas to the NA September 17. • SET was composed of 3 Justices of the SC and 6 Senators. the substitute appointment of the two majority Senators is null and void. Also on this day. I and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justice-Members alone the power of valid jurisdiction of a senatorial election contest. Ruling/Doctrine: • The question was governed by a specific provision (Art. three upon the nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest number of votes therein. returns and qualifications of Senators. • The Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such. He took his oath of office on November 15 (the start of the Commonwealth) and was confirmed by the NA on December 3 as an uncontested member of the NA. returns. Guingona. Tamano and Ziga). he was proclaimed by the provincial board of canvassers as the candidate who won the most votes and thus the winner. Angara. • Some members of the SET voluntarily inhibited themselves from participating in the hearing and deliberations of the tribunal in the cases against them. . The petitioner. scrutinizing the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention. the motion for disqualification or inhibition and motion for consideration of the petitioners were denied. The Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction only when there is an election contest. Nature and Function Jurisdiction: be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. confirming the membership of non-protested elections of members of the NA and. After the filing of respective memorandas and oral arguments. who shall be chosen by each House. • On November 17. Lina Jr. Senate Electoral Tribunal (1988) Facts: • On October 9. Electoral Commission (1936) • The new constitution for the Independent Philippine Commonwealth was just promulgated. Narvasa and Gutierrez. the Constitution intended that both those “judicial” and “legislative” components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating ti the election.. as the case may be.” • The framers of the Constitution did not contemplate a situation in which they were only one Senator from the minority. (Justices Yap. 1987 congressional elections by COMELEC. Res#8 was passed by the NA. and qualifications of their respective members. in effect. • Senator Joseph Estrada resigned from the SET. • B.

Angara v Electoral Commission FACTS: . and this includes the regulation of the rules and procedures of election protests. However. board. and qualifications of the members of the NA”. or else this would undermine the power and functions of the ELECOM. On the eve of the promulgation of a decision against a member of LDP. the prescribed period for filing of protests had already ended on December 3. Angara filed a “Motion to Dismiss the Protest” to the ELECOM on the grounds that he was already confirmed a member of the NA through the Res#8 and through that resolution. C.of protests. returns. The present constitution granted the ELECOM with all the powers exercised by the legislature relating to the said function of ELECOM. . . • Ynsua filed an “Answer to the Motion of Dismissal” arguing that there was no constitutional or legal provision which stated that members of the NA cannot be contested after confirmation of the NA. was just being formed on December 4 and 6 and just met for the first time on December 9. Bondoc v Pineda (1991) Facts: • This case involved a blatant attempt of a political party to manipulate the decision of the Tribunal by manipulating its membership. Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against herein petitioner Jose Angara seeking the latter’s proclamation be rescinded or that the results of the elections in the first district of the Province of Tayabas be nullified. . • After that. 1935 setting such a date (December 9) as the last day for filing election protests. and is granted the powers to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. &)" " . Ruling/Doctrine: • The HRET. the Electoral commission adopted a resolution on December 9. on the ground of disloyalty. Angara replied to this “Answer” but the ELECOM promulgated a resolution denying the petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss the Protest”. the protest by private respondent Ynsua was filed out of time.The 1935 National Assembly passed on December 3. a day before the said body ended the period for filing of election protest. 8 had validly prescribed the period during which protests against the election of its member should be presented. returns and qualifications of members of the House. returns and qualifications of members of the NA.Subsequently. shall be independent and shall not be interfered with by the House of Representatives • Expulsion from a party. Therefore. there was the ELECOM. 8 confirming the election of those representatives whose respective wins have not been challenged. said party expelled Camasura from the party. and the respondent was late in filing his protest because he filed the protest after December 3. and thus as LDP representative in the HRET.Petitioner filed before the Electoral Commission a “Motion to Dismiss the Protest” on the grounds that Resolution No. fixing that day as the last day for the filing of election protests. the sole judge of all contests. Ynsua filed his “Motion of Protest” to the ELECOM on December 8. or corporation. 1935 a Resolution No. and hence from HRET is void if there is a clear showing of impairment of the Tribunals prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests. Ruling/Doctrine: • ELECOM acted within its jurisdiction since ELECOM is recognized as an independent quasi-judicial body which is not an inferior tribunal. Independence of Electoral Tribunals The tribunal was created to function as a non-partisan court although twothirds of its members are politicians Valid grounds / just cause for termination of membership to the tribunal: • Expiration of Congressional term of office • • • Death or permanent disability Resignation from political party which represents the tribunal Removal from office for other valid reasons. or person. which was a constitutional body invested with the jurisdiction to decide “all cases relating to the election. The confirmation of NA of its members is not required and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to fix dates for election protest.Conformably.

the courts can (and they do) settle constitutional questions. . twelve Senators. The Judiciary by virtue of section 2. at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session. HELD: . Jr. Article VIII of the Constitution is the only organ which can be called upon to determine the proper definition of such limits and allocation of such powers so it is clear that the SC has jurisdiction over the EC.But Co filed an election protests saying Jose Ong. and twelve Members of the House of Representatives. Constitution) . . (See Article VI.The Electoral Commission denied herein petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss the Protest” . The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. Judicial review of decisions of Electoral Tribunals Co v Electoral Tribunal FACTS: .The HRET in its decision dated November 6. HELD: . The chairman of the Commission shall not vote. As such the EC acted completely within its jurisdiction in entertaining the election protest filed by private respondent Ynsua. BERNAS NOTES: COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS &*" e. as ex officio Chairman. and qualifications of their respective members. clear and complete. to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.Among the candidates who vied for the position was Antonio Co and Jose Ong. returns.The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election. except in case of a tie. Jr.. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate.” found that Resolution No 8 of the National Assembly had no binding power on the EC. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.SC said that the fundamental principle of separation of powers did not intend for the different branches of government to be absolutely unrestrained and completely independent of each other and the Constitution had provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances. 1987. not be reviewed by this Court # In relation to Judicial Review of ET: Courts as much as possible don’t interfere since the sole jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals are constitutionally mandated BUT by virtue of the check and balance system. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines " . found Ong as a Filipino. Commission on Appointments (Art 6. # In relation to POWER of the Electoral Commission: Supreme Court >Electoral Commission > National Assembly .SC recognizing that the Electoral Commission is the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election.Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition be issued against the Electoral Commission to restrain and prohibit it from taking further cognizance of the protest filed by Ynsua. SO they COULD interfere IF there is clear abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal. 18-19) Section 18. .On May 11. . the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full.Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. as a rule. 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. 6. 1989. 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. Section 17. Section 19. So any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall.

COA may only meet when Congress is in session. once formed.Daza was chosen as 1 of the representatives of the LP in the Commission on Appointments.SC has jurisdiction since the issue at hand does not involve a discretionary act of the HR but the legality of removing Daza from COA.COA is intended as an administrative check to the appointing powers of the president. doesn’t qualify a reorganization since it is not a permanent change).The commission itself. Daza contended that he cannot be removed from COA because his election to COA was permanent.If petitioner’s claim that even if registered. LP was created in 1945. .1987 ET: proportional representation of all parties and party lists. LDP must still pass the test of time to prove its permanence were followed. . resulting in a political realignment in the HR. . The frequency and duration of the meetings shall be up to the Commission. . LDP membership increased to 159. . The transfer to LDP was a permanent change. .On the other hand. with LP to 17.Daza v Singson: the composition of COA must be proportional to the size of the political parties so periodic reorganization may be necessary to reflect the changes. Coseteng v Mitra FACTS: . Sectors will be represented only if they have a party list. Daza v Singson FACTS: . . .Coseteng v Mitra Jr. the LDP was reorganized.After the congressional elections of May 1987.Though the 2 commissions are not coetaneous with Congress. .Cunanan ruling: HR can reorganize membership of the Commission at any time to reflect changes in the political alignments in Congress. The reorganization of the HR is not based on permanent political realignment because LDP was not a duly registered political party. .COA tenure has a certain measure of stability so they can properly discharge their duties.1935 ET: preferential representation only to the two largest political parties in each house . provided that such changes are permanent. is independent of Congress even if their members are from the houses. then even LP would be at a loss. . Singson contended that the issue was political in nature. to check COA.It is not an agent since the COA’s power is not from Congress but from the Constitution. . elected 11 out of 12 Congressmen into the Commission on Appointments.Footnote: In the case where Tanada was given a seat in COA even if he was only one member. it shall act on appointments within 30 session days from submission AND they rule by majority vote. resulting to the withdrawing of Daza’s seat in favor of Singson from LDP. yet it was allowed to represent in the COA and the ET in 1946.Guingona v Gonzales: didn’t count the fractional seats because to round them off would go against the idea of proportional representation so even if the total was only 11 members it was allowed since SC said the 12 person membership was not mandatory. . 24 LP members resigned and joined LDP.ET and COA have to be constituted within 30 days after the Senate and the HoR have elected a president and a speaker. Upon nomination '+" " . COMELEC granted LDP’s petition for registration as a political party. at the call of its Chairman and majority of all its members. Hence.8 members to be represented but she was the only member so no seat even if she had the support of other members not part of her party. it can promulgate its own rules and the SC can not pass upon the correctness of the interpretation placed by the Commission of its own rules.. HELD: . Almost a year after his election.Total composition including chairman is 25 . and the Constitution did not provide for political parties to be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the COA. even if the shift was arranged.: Coseteng didn’t deserve a seat in COA because the number of party membership didn’t qualify since the party must have at least 16. These changes have to be permanent and not temporary in character (so shifting votes of members. .By virtue of its independence. the representation in the COA had to be revised. was not considered precedent by the SC for reconsidering the ruling on Guingona v Gonzales because the Tanada action was not questioned in court. The independents would then be not represented because they do not belong to any political party.It is because of this that art 7 sec 16 makes provisions for appointments made when the congress is not in session (since COA can not meet) . the HOR.

LDP(7.A year later. it certainly isn’t the PRINCIPAL as it only represents . .Additionally: all the Commission members were properly nominated and elected under Article 6. The LP need not worry since LP is still represented in the COA because Enrile. Romulo and Tañada are unconstitutional. Romulo as the 8th senator of LDP and Sen. 18 of the Constitution. Tañada as the sole senator of LP.The Senate promulgated this formula to distribute the seats amongst themselves: # of senators of a political party x 12 seats total # of senators elected . the LDP was organized as the new majority party (w/158 out 202 members from the House). .5) LAKAS-NUCD(1. on the grounds that the compromise was in violation of the rule of proportional representation accorded by the Constitution (not mentioned how COA resolved this). Such apportionment was done on the basis of political representation.Following this formula. 18 of the Constitution . . Her action is based on the theory that their election violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because of the ff.The ruling LDP comprises 80% of the House. Even if it were considered as an opposition party. Art VI of the Constitution. This has been established in Coseteng v. The problem though is what can be done of the fractional seat. Mitra. A party gains a seat while another loses one. . Sec. . . As a result. . the next highest party in the Coalesced Minority. This thereby automatically disqualifies Tañada.4% of the House membership. and LP coalition have 1. . Said request was endorsed by 9 other Congressmen.4% of House membership (Coseteng is the sole member of KAIBA). an LP member of the House has been appointed to the Commission.6 members (rounded off to 10). Guingona v Gonzales FACTS: .The seat held by Sen.Pertinent in this case is Article 6. the House reorganized the Commission on Appointments in order to ensure party representation. the distribution resulted to fractional seats. . HELD: .The other political parties like KAIBA are bound by the majority’s choices.5) LP-PDP-LABAN (.Petitioner Coseteng requested Speaker Mitra to appoint her as a member of the Commission of Appointments and HRET.It should be noted that to be able to claim proportional membership in the Commission. The '!" " . Thus. and 2) KBL.5) .The reorganization of the Commission took place as scheduled (the only change being the replacement of Daza w/ Singson).The compromise gave an additional fraction of seat (and thus vote) to both LDP and LP and took away a fraction of seat/vote from both NPC and LAKAS.The formula provided by the Senate is the best manner of application in implementing sec 18. reasons: 1) The LDP is only entitled to 9 seats out of 12 (they were given 10) 2) The members representing the political parties had to be nominated by their respective parties 3) Nomination and election of Verano-Yap and Ablan as representatives of the minority are invalid because they were neither nominated nor elected by such party.Sen.of the Minority Floor Leader. . To resolve this a compromise was agreed LDP was given 8 seats. The remaining 2 seats are apportioned to 1) LP.The Senate’s composition after the 1992 Elections were as such: LDP(15) NPC(5) LAKAS-NUCD (3) LP-PDP-LABAN(1) .LDP submitted 8 names and this was protested. both NPC and LAKAS each have 2. Guingona filed a petition to the COA for prohibiting the membership of Sen. HELD: . Coseteng and her party KAIBA filed this petition for extraordinary legal writs (w/c is considered a petition for quo warranto and injunction) praying this Court declare null and void the election of several Congressmen into the Commission. 80% of 12 members of the Commission would equal to 9.In Philippine jurisprudence. a party/coalition must have two or more Senators to automatically have at least one seat in the representatives of the Senate in the Commission of Appointments. The compromise seems to violate the Constitution since it therefore doesn’t make the representation of the Senate in COA proportional.5) NPC(2. as the principal opposition party. the political party should represent at least 8. the House added Roque Ablan as the 12th member of the Commission (representing coalesced minority in the House). Sec.

(ex. to do so.Ours is a limited legislative power. BERNAS NOTES: . 1) Section 1. it may come that all the congress is doing is to enact the laws passed by their predecessors since there is no more room for new legislation having all avenues been barred by the irrepealable laws.Exercise of legislative power of president (Marcos and Aquino) page 681 685 . Art VI of the Constitution states that the COA may be called into session by 13 of its members. 7. . the Rules of the COA states that there must be at least 4 members from each House for the Commission to work. insofar as the parties are proportionally represented.The ‘87 grant of legislative power is not exclusive since some are reserved for the people exercised through initiative and referendum since past experience tell us that the legislative assemblies cannot always be trusted to do what is best for the people (bitter much? :p ) . or that the Senate only appoints 6 members so long as the House can appoint 6 also. What is required is that the COA has at least 13 members (including the ex officio chairperson.Procedural limitations: prescribe the manner of passing bills and the form they should take. .Vote on 1986 Unicam v Bicam Debate: 23-22 . it doesn’t matter if the Senate only appoints 8 members as long as the House can appoint (following the same proportional rule) 4 members. any power that is deemed to be legislative is necessarily possessed by the Congress UNLESS the constitution has vested it elsewhere. .The Senate need not appoint exactly 12 Senators to the COA. .Can’t pass irrepealable laws since to allow it would in effect bind a subsequent one and therefore reduce the legislative power that that Congress can wield.Justification of the delegated legislative power of administrative agencies: o They merely fill up the details of the statute o Congress may pass a contingent legislation – legislation which leaves to another body the duty of ascertaining facts that are necessary to bring the law into actual operation. 19.The 10% requirement (of registered voters) for national and 3% for every legislative district SHOULD BOTH be satisfied . Imagine if this process is repeated. so minus the chairperson.Guidelines to ensure that the power delegated to administrative agencies is not law . only 12 is needed) for it to function. . . Now. . except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Powers of Congress a. General Plenary Powers (Art 6.3 distinct ideas that lead to non delegation of power of legislative o Separation of power – why bother separating if you can merge anyway o Due process of law – precludes transfer of regulatory functions to private persons o Delegata potestas non potest delegari – it’s a breach of law if legislature gives legislative powers to the executive or the judiciary and vice versa . .making but merely law – execution: o Must be complete in itself: must give the policy to be carried our o Must fix a standard: the limits must be determinable '#" " . Limited by the constitution and each department can only exercise a power that is expressly given and the ones necessarily implied to give effect to that power.LP also has the option to form a coalition w/ other Senate parties to gain a seat in the COA.Thus. Legislative power was also given to the people through exercise of initiative and referendum) .Philippines has a plenary grant of legislative power meaning. .It is subject to substantive limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power and the allowable subjects of legislation which are chiefly found in art 3 (Bill of Rights).The president can veto the outcome of “initiative and referendum” only if he was allowed by law (explicitly allowed by Congress in the law that would make operational how the initiative system will work).Whereas the legislative powers of congress is plenary the scope of the power of the people is subject to exceptions congress may impose. This is because sec. .PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE POWER: Congress alone can make laws and it may not delegate its law making power to anyone else. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

The form. . . including petitioner. since P5M in Govt funds is involved. there has to be a way to determine with reasonable certainty if the delegate has acted within or beyond his scope . 25 and 28. the Court maintained that if they were to hold that it may punish the witness for contempt only during the session in which investigation was begun. and he was merely verbally instructed by Burt to deliver the said amount.On the local level.Violating rules by admin agencies that have the force of the law may be punished as a penal offense .In subsequent sessions. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. . 29-31) Article 3 Bill of Rights. And it would be an absurd.The one recognized exception to the non-delegability is the legislative powers exercised by the LGUs on purely local matters. unnecessary.The committee called and examined various witnesses.The senate then deliberated and adopted a resolution holding Arnault in contempt. The name of the person Arnault is refusing to give is very pertinent and is in fact the very thing sought to be determined. This implied that if he named the recipient of the P440. he would possibly be charged and that his answer might be incriminating. it is not disputed that this issue is well within the jurisdiction of the Senate as a legislative body. art 14.BUT for admin regulation to have force of penal law it is necessary o That the delegating statute itself considers the violation a crime o That the orig statute provides the penalty o That the regulation should be published . 000. . creating a special committee to investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates Deal. would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function but at the same time deny to it an essential and appropriate means for its performance. 1.The Court held that it is difficult to decide if the Senate can commit the petitioner for contempt beyond the duration of the session. the rules binding administrative agencies also apply to the local law-making body. It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of the sum of P440. . In this case. claiming that he does not remember the name of the person. where he was put in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms (respondent) and imprisoned until he shall have purged the contempt by revealing to the senate or to the committee the name of the person. content. the principle of separation of powers don’t strictly apply between the exec and law-making body. Arnault claims that he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Arnault v Nazareno FACTS . involving transactions of the Government with a certain Ernest Burt with funds amounting to 5M pesos. who was a representative of Burt. .! In short.Ex. Hence. '$" " .Petitioner has continually refused to name the recipient in different Q&A sessions in the Senate. Article 6 Section 25. 4(3). . art 6.On 1950. the Senate adopted Resolution No. 000 in a transaction involving Arnault. art 6. 8. . a local law-making body may be given executive functions. b. and vexatious procedure. However.The Court said that the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry. The matter at hand is of public concern. o Art 6 sec 23(2) where the congress can give the president powers necessary to carry out national policies during times of war and other national emergencies o Art 6 sec 28(2) authorizes congress to delegate power to fix tariff rates etc. Limitations on the Legislative Power (1) substantive limitations (a) express substantive limitations (Art 3. HELD: . .Yes the Senate has the power to punish Arnault for contempt. Arnault begged the Senate not to make him answer the questions.The constitution itself may create other exceptions to the non-delegability rule.

or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. Proprietary educational institutions. by the end of any fiscal year. and " . tariff rates. actually.Provisions unrelated to the appropriation bill are considered prohibited “riders” and is unconstitutional. mosques. or employed. The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. and all lands. or system of religion. church. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. minister. s/he can veto anything in the Appropriations Bill. charitable. 1. directly. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. sectarian institution.The provision that no money shall be paid out except those according to the appropriations bill is a limit not on the congress but on the executive. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. 6. paid. Charitable institutions. directly. including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto. denomination. buildings. improvements. the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. 1. by law. this doesn’t mean congress is completely free to appropriate money. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. for the use. . All revenues and assets of non-stock. the President of the Senate. 2. 3. or to any penal institution. however.2. applied. The Congress may. '%" Section 28. 2. or government orphanage or leprosarium. . No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. . may likewise be entitled to such exemptions. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. 5. the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. non-profit educational institutions used actually. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. preacher. benefit. and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.However. 7. subject to the limitations provided by law. including those cooperatively owned. by law. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. directly or indirectly. import and export quotas.President has an all powerful “item-veto”. 4. preacher. tonnage and wharfage dues. or of any priest. If. Art 6 sec 24. or support of any sect. or dignitary as such. and exclusively used for religious. 3. the President. other religious teacher. A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended. except when such priest. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Article 14. . minister. 25 and 29 and art 7 sec 22 contains the explicit restrictions on the power of congress not to mention the blanket prohibition that public funds may only be used for public purpose. non-profit cemeteries. No public money or property shall be appropriated. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Article 6 sec 29-31 Section 29. 4. sec 4 (3) 3.

which can never be delegated.Before R. the balance. violates the due process clause embodied in Article III. prohibition against delegation of legislative powers i..Power to appropriate carries the power of not only to specify the amount but also the purpose for which it may be spent. to raise the VAT rate to 12%. and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise.A. or inherently and exclusively. No. of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). o Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution. has been described as the authority to make a complete law— complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable—and to determine the expediency of its enactment. o Delegation to the people at large. criterion of valid deligation ABAKADA Guro Party list FACTS: . 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. 9337. which determines the validity of its delegation. and '&" " . It is the nature of the power. HELD: RA 9337 is constitutional.Art 30 doesn’t prohibit the congress from increasing the jurisdiction of the SC but simply prescribes that any increase should be with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court . filed a petition for prohibition on May 27. They question the constitutionality of Sections 4. . .3. effective January 1. 2006—under certain conditions. 9337 took effect. 2. respectively. Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. Section 31. it must appear that the power involved is purely legislative in nature that is. VAT collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent. 5 and 6 of R.Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that “the Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. 2005. o Petitioners’ argument is premised on the constitutional right of nondeprivation of life.The rule is that in order that a court may be justified in holding a statute unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power. upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.Art 8 sec 2 gives the congress power to apportion the jurisdiction of courts except those fixed by the consti. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted. it is actually the executive who will spend .Special funds: if the purpose the fund was created is fulfilled or abandoned then it will be transferred to the general funds. amending Sections 106.A. Section 30.” The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly. as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI. Section 1 of the Constitution. Section 1 of the Constitution.RA 9337 imposes 10% VAT and has provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President. No. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. one appertaining exclusively to the legislative department.The general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following recognized limitations or exceptions: o Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution. o that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% that is contingent on any of two conditions being satisfied (1. . as it imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people. Purely legislative power. . . petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List. National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent).After Congress appropriates. et al. . . No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. CONTENTIONS: o Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional. if any. This is to prevent abuse in its disposition. 107 and 108. . legislative. liberty or property without due process of law under Article III.Sec 31 was traditionally part of BoR but the ‘86 Con Com decided to transfer it to Art 6 (b) implied substantive limitations 1. o Delegation to local governments.

When the Gov Gen feels like the situation is an emergency he (with Council of State approval) can regulate distribution.While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies.The Gov Gen’s proclamation fixes the price of rice differently in different provinces and also instructs provincial treasurers to follow instructions from the Director of Commerce and Industry. regulated the distribution. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself. there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid.Gen. . .o Delegation to administrative bodies.Dir.Gonong decision prohibited only the removal of license plates and not the confiscation of driver’s license. rice and corn. HELD . carried out. he can’t be imprisoned.In MMA. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. . 1919 Ang Tang Ho was charged with excessive pricing. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate. setting forth therein the policy to be executed. the power to legislate and enact laws is vested exclusively in the Legislative. and (b) fixes a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. the Court held that the confiscation of driver’s license is prohibited under PD 1605 except under LOI 43 when there are stalled vehicles causing obstruction to traffic. In the present case: . Ho was found guilty.Act No. West Traffic District vs. On the other hand. and authorized Gov Gen (with consent of Council of State) to issue rules and regulations for the distribution. Committing a non-crime can’t be punished. By the terms of the Organic Act. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy. if the Act isn’t a law or a crime and it needs the Governor General to do a legislative act to make it a crime or a law—that is delegation of legislative power and is unconstitutional.BUT the law should be complete.Ang Tang Ho was released since all he basically did was violate the proclamation of the Governor General but since it doesn’t have the power of a law. 2868 is unconstitutional and void.If Act is a law unto itself then it simply authorizes the Gov Gen to carry that law into effect. No specific cause that would signify justification for act b. . who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. . Judgment became final and executory. . or implemented by the delegate. No specific definition on what to do (how much to raise prices etc) Decision . No conditions of fixing the price (regarding quality and grade) c.In 1919 the Philippine Legislature passed Act 2826 which penalized holding a monopoly on palay. There is no delegation. The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy. in all its term and provisions. -The case is not a delegation of legislative power. Gonong. and appealed. Nazareno of PNP assured the court that is had never authorized the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles and directed full compliance with the decision in a memorandum called “Removal of Motor Vehicle License Plates” . ''" " . sale of palay. rice and corn. US v Ang Tang Ho FACTS: . He shall declare laws which are inconsistent to this unlawful. details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to them.Aug 1. Solicitor General v MMA FACTS . marks its limits. which is elected by a direct vote of the people of the Philippine Islands. 1919 Gov Gen fixed price of rice but on Aug 8. nothing substantial must be left to the judgment of appointees. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. including the power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends.Legislature can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things which decide whether a law should be enacted or not . . That Congress chose to do so in such a manner is not within the province of the Court to inquire into. People who don’t follow will be penalized.In every case of permissible delegation. a.Legislature left an undefined law to the discretion of the Gov Gen which therefore makes the delegation not valid.Several complaints were presented and submitted to the Court when their license got confiscated. (the power delegated to the Gov Gen was delegated again) . Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. .

95/liter of crude oil and P1/liter of other oil products . . The president cannot assume such power by issuing the Executive Orders. The ordinances disregard and violate and in effect partially repeal the law. Vice President questioned the power of the President. proper delegation a.There was a valid delegation of legislative power to MMA to promulgate measures.SolGen contends that the ordinance was null and void because it represented an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power. It also violated PD 1605. . there is a valid delegation of legislative power.The enactments in question cannot prevail against the decree which has the force and effect of a statute. . . 11 and 7 do not conform to PD 1605 and as such are null and void.BUT there was no valid exercise of the power delegated to MMA and Municipality of Mandaluyong in promulgating Ordinance No.There was undue delegation of legislative power in this case because the law wherein the President based his action was not complete.EO 475 – reduces rate of additional duty on all imported articles from 9% to 5% except in crude oil and other oil products . and seeks to restrain their implementation. namely the completeness of the statute making the delegation and presence of a sufficient standard. 475 and 478.Creation of municipalities is a purely a legislative act. 11 and Ordinance No.When the requisites of delegation are present.Yes the president increase tariff rates and other duties.The President can only execute an existing law. according to Art 6 Sec 24. subject to limitations Congress may impose. b. What only can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced and NOT to determine what law shall be enforced.Congressman Garcia assails the constitutionality and legality of Executive Orders No. It was authorized to promulgate rules and other issuances. . O Completeness of the statue: when the statute reaches the delegate. .Petitioner’s main contention: Only Congress can enact revenue bills. HELD: .Ordinance No. . Series of 1991: authorized MMA to detach the license plate/tow and impound attended/unattended/abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila . By express authority of the constitution Garcia v Executive Secretary FACTS: . iii.MMA contends that Ordinance No. by virtue of Art 6 Sec 28. 23(2) ) '(" " . the validity of the Ordinance cannot be assailed collaterally. The confiscation and removal were valid because of the presence of Ordinance No. LGU cannot contravene but must obey the will of their principal. it will only implement it. . undue delegation of legislative power Pelaez v Auditor general FACTS: The then Pres. 7 since the acts of the local government must reflect and conform to the will of the national legislature. Diosdado Macapagal created 33 new municipalities.Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislature (except for revenues and taxes). It didn’t provide for standard and policy. 11. . . Also. HELD: . . O Presence of sufficient standard: determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority.EO 478 – levied a special duty of P0..E lliot’s test of validity of municipal ordinance: O Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute O Must not be unfair or oppressive O Must not be partial or discriminatory O Must not prohibit but may regulate trade O Must not be unreasonable O Must be general and consistent with public policy ii. Only the Legislature can create concepts. 11. contending that creation of municipality is within the power of the Legislature. He purportedly acted in accordance to Section 8 of Revised Administrative Code. an explicit constitutional permission to Congress to authorize the President. Delegation to the president (Art 6. 11 was adopted pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by EO 392. HELD: .Congress can authorize the president to increase tariff rates.Ordinances No.

powers and functions and duties of local officials. o Subject to restrictions that congress may provide -.2 LIMITS TO EMERGENCY POWERS: o Given only in a limited period ! Power may be withdrawn by congress through a resolution not a statute because a statue needs presidential approval to be effective while a resolution is based solely on the congress ! Automatic cessation takes place upon next ADJOURNMENT meaning ironically that in the event that the congress can’t convene in session like during emergency situations. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress.meaning it can be as broad or as narrow as the congress may make it. Judge Ericta thus restrained enforcement of the Administrative Order.Teddy Galo had assailed the constitutionality of the Reflector Law before Judge Ericta of the CFI. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. by law. accountable to the electorate and freed from central government interference. the Congress may.LGUs must be responsive to the needs of the locality. . There is decentralization of administration (administrative powers) and decentralization of power (abdication of political power in favor of the LGU) . .’86 Power: follows phraseology of ’73 consti.Local autonomy means more than decentralization.INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM on the local level .Because the nature of the power wasn’t specified in ’73 and ’86 we are led to believe the grant of “real” legislative power was intended. and provide for the qualifications. . HELD . d. the statute will ALWAYS prevail.Edu now wants the SC to rule on the constitutionality of the Reflector Law and for the SC to set aside the preliminary injunction directed against his Administrative Order. the president himself is stripped of emergency powers –no one has the power. . the congress may still impose limits on this autonomy. c. . authorize the President. was an undue exercise of legislative power. election. and referendum.legal process where registered voters may directly propose.The Reflector Law and the Administrative Order issued pursuant to it is constitutional ')" " . for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe.‘35 Power: merely to execute laws but not to legislate . allocate among the different local government units their powers. Romeo Edu.PRINCIPAL GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURING LGU o Structure must be responsive and accountable o Instituted through a system of decentralization . enact or amend any ordinance AND resolutions (any act passed by the local legislative body) . a more expansive grant of power since there is a looser separation of executive and legislative power . term. Section 3. and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. . salaries.And though the expanded autonomy is given by the consti. responsibilities. 2 of the Land Transportation Commissioner.Art 6 Sec 23 (2) In times of war or other national emergency.RECALL – instrument of immediate accountability where the public official’s tenure may be terminated by popular vote and may be applied to both elected and appointed officials. initiative. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.BUT keep in mind that the delegate can not be superior to the principal so in a conflict between a local ordinance and a statute that can’t be harmonized. . appointment and removal. and resources. Delegation to the local governments (Art 10. He contended that the Reflector Law was an invalid exercise of police power as it violates the due process clause. Delegation of power to carry out defined policy according to prescribed standards Edu v Ericta FACTS: . and that Administrative Order No.Precondition for the grant of emergency powers has been preserved from the ’35 consti but the nature of the power has been altered . The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. 2-3) Article 10 Section 2.

To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted.“What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them. the administrative regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. subject to recall by their respective chiefs. non compliance would forfeit the owner’s claim to the land and would in effect declare it to be abandoned. and what is the scope of his authority. with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. It is established in jurisprudence that Congress may validly delegate to administrative agencies the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies but in order to be valid. The director has jurisdiction to check the validity of mining claims even if that question wasn’t an issue in the original case by virtue of sec 128 of PD 463. Petitioner is in the export business and operates a manufacturing bonded warehouse. 2. He is affiliated with Philippine Chamber of Embroidery and Apparel Producers. Inc. the Land Transportation Commissioner. creating an Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board. RA 3137 sets a reasonable basis under which special assessment may be imposed so the law sets sufficient standards under which the special assessment maybe imposed. With these guidelines. Petitioners filed a case to regain their mining claim from a certain company but in the subsequent proceedings to determine the overlapping mining claims. Petitioners are questioning if the Director has the jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the land since it wasn’t a disputed issue on the original case they filed anyway and if the Director can declare their land abandoned. HELD: . may. There is undue delegation of legislative power because RA 3137 does not provide sufficient standards under which the Board may base its assessment. Section 128 of the implementing rules invoked by public respondents as basis for their jurisdiction cannot be tainted with invalidity. . .The Reflector Law was enacted under the police power to promote public safety. But he committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he affirmed the decision of the Director of Mines '*" " . . RA 3137 was enacted. . It is neither arbitrary nor oppressive. de pineda v Pena FACTS: . . only the President can.Under Republic Act No. HELD: . 4136. of which the Reflector Law is an amendment.” Rafael v Embroidery Board FACTS: . He invokes Art 7 Sec 10 of the Constitution re President’s appointive power. RA 3137 did not deprive the President of appointing power because it merely designated representatives.. the Director of Mines found that the petitioners haven’t been following procedures that PD 463 laid down. The case is about a mining claim. The Board was later constituted with representatives from different departments and bureaus. RA 3137 is null and void because Congress cannot specify who shall be appointed. Supreme Court held that Minister of Natural Resources had the authority to ascertain the validity of the "Ped" claim even if it was just incidental to the original case. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done. • Par 1: “Special assessment shall be levied upon… engaged in the embroidery and apparel manufacturing industry…” • Par 2: “Every manufacturer… request to the Board for the exportation of the articles intended for removal…” e. issue rules and regulations for its implementation as long as they do not conflict with its provisions. Petitioner’s contentions: 1. . . Under the said law. . conform to the standards that the law prescribes and must relate solely to carrying into effect the general provisions of the law. who will perform duties in addition to their duties in the departments they represent They are merely on detail. and is a legitimate response to a felt public need. . who is to do it. . Promulgation of rules and regulations Vda. the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. . The director declared their land abandoned just because they didn’t comply with certain procedures.

o Before the 1935 Constitution.enables Congress to determine how passed laws are implemented Exemption from summons applies only to Department Heads and not to everyone in Cabinet o D. the real executive and Cabinet Members could be required to appear and answer questions ! Instead of an aid to legislation. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected” Legislative investigations (+" " . Imagine if this process is repeated. 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. or upon the request of either House. prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws Legislature can’t pass irrepealable laws since to allow so would in effect bind a subsequent legislative body to the wishes of a defunct Congress. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions. Legislative Investigations Article VI Sec. the parliamentary devise of question hour o Question hour. this rule was found in the Administrative Code o Its purpose was to enable department heads to be heard by the legislature and achieve cooperation o In drafting the 1935 Constitution. having all avenues been barred by the irrepealable laws. o o C. 2. it became a way of keeping administration in line The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission called for the adoption of the question hour o Unanimously approved. Question Hour Article VI. It would reduce the legislative power that that current Congress can wield. appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. but may cover matters related thereto. Since there is no more room for new legislation. Sec.Prime Minister.” Congress and Heads of Departments o Section 22 deals with the delicate relationship of Congress with the Office of the President. 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. as the rules of each House shall provide. ! President may or may not consent to appearance. the laws will become stagnant and will not cater to the needs of that generation thereby defeating the purpose of the legislature.- declaring petitioners to have "abandoned and lost their rights" over the "Ped" claim because he refused to recognize the rebuttal evidence that was presented. Reverted back to the permissive tone of its 1935 counterpart. there may come a time that all the congress is doing is to enact the laws passed by their predecessors. 21 “The heads of departments may upon their own initiative with the consent of the President. this statute was elevated to a constitutional provision o Opposed on the ground that it could be used by the Cabinet to lobby for pet items o o o Adopted nonetheless to obviate any constitutional challenge concerning the communing of Congress and department heads o It was also thought that info by Secretaries would improve the quality of legislation The provision is permissive o Legislature is not obliged to entertain department heads who appear o President could object to appearance The 1973 Constitution adopted a parliamentary form of government and with it. 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. may require that appearance be in executive session ! Congress may refuse initiative by department secretary Section 22 establishes the rule for exercise of oversight function o Oversight Function.

114 (p. o The said committee then questioned the petitioner Jean Arnault. vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee: Court ruled that investigation did not “aid legislation” and merely tried to determine whether the relatives of Pres. Nazareno o The Philippine government bought two estates. ! Senate adopted Resolution No. Burt failed to complete his payment of the estates.e. • On December 1951. the committee attempted to determine who the P440. • The Senate Special Committee adopted Resolution No. The committee’s interrogation mainly revolved around finding out who was involved in the payment to Burt. 362) (!" Case: ARNAULT V. but Arnault never said who it was for. He just denied and said that he did not remember anyone. Section 21 places the limits on the power of legislative investigation: o Must be “in aid of legislation” ! Bengzon. Thus. Jean Arnault. Case was dismissed. the petitioner executed an affidavit where he gave the history and events surrounding the acquisition of the estates in question. Payments were made through his attorney.000 was for. Buenavista and Tambobong. the power to investigate is incidental to legislative function as to be implied This implicit power under the 1935 Constitution became explicit under the 1973 and 1987 Constitution For the protection of rights. Jr.00. With one check being payable to cash worth P440. Aquino violated the law. the senate sent him to the sergeant-at-arms in the bilibid prison.) The power of investigation extends not just to Congress but also to any of its committees (subject to the limits provided by Section 21) The power to commit a witness for contempt terminates when the legislative body ceases to exist upon final adjournment • If the Senate did not believe that statement. So the Philippine Trust Company. He also mentioned that if he would speak he would incriminate himself. through the Rural Progress Administration from Ernest Burt.• • • • • • Legislative investigation is the power to make investigations and exact testimony to exercise legislative functions advisedly and effectively The foundation of the power of Legislative investigation can be found in Arnault vs Nazareno o Although not provided for in the 1935 Constitution. BALAGTAS Ponente: Labrador Issue: • Did the Senate Special Committee believe the statement of the petitioner-appellee that the person to whom he gave the P440. 8: Creation of a special committee to determine whether the purchase of the Tambobong estate was honest. o Must be “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure” ! There must be published rules and they must be followed o Rights of persons affected by inquiry shall be respected ! Inquiry is subject to the Bill of Rights (i.CFI of Rizal ordered cancellation of Burt’s certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in the name of the RPA. etc. Throughout the proceedings. unreasonable searches. valid and proper and whether the deal was fair and just.000. sold the Tambobong estate to the Rural Progress Administration worth 5 million pesos. he appealed to the SC. to whom he gave the Php440. o Due to Arnault’s refusal to mention a name. is the continued confinement and detention of the petitioner valid? Facts: • Antecedent facts same as in Arnault v. right against self-incrimination.000 was for. o Arnault testified that he was ordered to withdraw two checks from Burt’s account. The committee wanted to know who the P440.00 was Jess Dantos? " . He also mentioned that he met with Jess Santos.

o The courts must avoid encroachment on the exercise of powers of the legislative branch. he is still held for contempt. With the help of lawyers from the Bengzon Law offices. o Ruling: Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. 368) o the legistlature’s authority to deal with defiant witnesses reign supreme unless there is an exercise of arbitrary power o The Senate committee believe that he did not disclose of the real person. specifically defendants Jose Bengzon. Bail given by petitioner is null and void. o The only instances where the judicial department can be lawfully invoked is when there is a violation of a constitutional inhibition. Benjamin and Juliette Romualdez were accused of using their connection with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos to gain control of some of the biggest companies in the Philippines.unless as a means for legislative body to remove an existing obstruction to its performance of duty. Custody back to Bilibid Prison. and called the Senate to look into the possible violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. without PCGG approval. invoking the constitutional right to due process and that the publicity generated by the SBRC inquiry would affect his and fellow petitioners rights in Civil Case 35. Petitioners plea to be excused was rejected. Petitioners thus filed in the SC that the SBRC was in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. by reason of its coercive power. they tried to conceal and place the Romualdez’s funds. Yes. hiding behind the veil of a corporate entity. Issues: 1. The legislature is final except when power is arbitrarily executed. Newsreports were conflicting in information. therefore. the President’s brother-in-law. (p. Jose Jimenez. Ratio: o The lower court erred in assuming that the courts had power to review the findings of the legislative body while exercising their legislative functions. (#" " . had taken over the firms. such as MERALCO and Benguet Consolidated Mining Corporation. and directed petitioners to file their memorandum on the constitutional issues raised. The Senate subpoenaed the petitioners and Lopa to testify on what they knew in regards to the sale of the 36 corporations belonging to Benjamin Romualdez. WON the court had jurisdiction. Shell. Another said that they were sold.Still puts the petitioner under contempt. who started an investigation. Civil Case 35 filed in the Sandiganbayan. due process was allotted (hearing and counsel was provided) o The Senate has the power to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry.. Case: Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Facts: Background. and PCI Bank. It was passed to the Blue Ribbon committee. properties and assets to put it beyond the reach of inquiry of the Philippine Commission on Good Government. Thus this petition for writ of habeas corpus. One paper stated that the Romualdez firms were not sequestered because of the opposition of PCGG officials who had previously worked as lawyers of Marcos crony firms. o All the courts can do is check the due process: for the case at bar. according to the power of judicial review. Lopa and Bengzon refused to testify. and that Ricardo Lopa. • The lower ruled on the case at bar and granted the petitioner bail. Macracken ! Power to punish for contempt may never be exerted on a private citizen. and Edilberto Narciso. The court contends that the Senate abused its power and that the petitioner has purged himself of contempt. The Court could determine the extent of power of the SBRC to conduct inquiries. Amando Faustino. thus he shall be continued to be held in the New Bilibid Prison despite giving the name Jess Santos to the Committee. to a holding company controlled by Romualdez. SBRC suspended inquiry. o Jurney v. Case at Bar Enrile delivered a speech on a matter of personal privilege on the alleged take-over of SOLOIL Inc. in clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights.

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. Besides. directed to the President of the Senate. canvass the votes. 3. Congress was no encroaching on judicial territory. SBRC cannot sentence a prisoner. 4 “The returns of every election for President and Vice-President duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city. No special election ($" " . YES. Further. 3. Held: Petition granted. and the Congress upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law. Invoking the right against self-incrimination should not mean a blanket refusal to testify.” The Congress as national board of canvassers • Congress is the national board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections • 1935 Constitution gave Congress merely ministerial and executive duty to make declaration based on returns from provincial and city board of canvassers • 1987 Constitution gave more powers to Congress as a canvassing body o They now have the authority to determine authenticity and due execution of returns from provincial and city boards of canvassers ! Must only be “in the manner provided by law” • Responsibility of canvassing votes in presidential and vicepresidential elections and proclaiming winners is given by the Constitution to both houses of Congress in joint session and not to the COMELEC F. Article VI of this Constitution. The Convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. The congressional committee’s right to inquire is subject to the bill of rights and the right against self-incrimination. Additionally the petitioners are not private citizens. such as using the results to determine how to stop get-rich-quick schemes through government connections. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of Paragraph 4. The denial of this petition though is because the court has determined it was not in aid of legislation and if pursued would be violative of the separation of powers. The SBRC could have a valid legislative purpose. and the issues had already been joined. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass. Gutierrez’ dissent: 1. open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in join public session. The SBRC has no jurisdiction to try the case. The Court ruled that the SBRC had no jurisdiction to inquire in a case that had no valid legislative purpose. at ten o’ clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs. WON the SBRC had no valid legislative purpose. Section 10 “The Congress shall. Section 4 par. Enrile didn’t indicate a legislative purpose nor did he indict PCGG. Call Special election for President and Vice President Article VII. the Sandiganbayan was already trying the case. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under Paragraph 2.2. They had no valid purpose in the investigation because it had no legislative purpose. shall be transmitted to the Congress. E. not later than thirty days after the day of the election. Witnesses and accused may refuse some questions if necessary. Cruz’ dissent: It would be an overstep of the Court to presume that a Congressional action was not legitimate. 2. WON the inquiry violated due process. the President of the Senate shall. ther is a presumption of validity of the acts of a coequal branch of government. Section 26 Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Super Digest: SBRC wanted to try and subpoena petitioners to testify in a case against Romualdez. Act as board of canvassers for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Article VII. but it can submit recommendations to Congress to curb the practice in the future. Section 25.

shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.” Vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency • Section 10 is a new rule that deals with the rather rare probability of having a vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency G. Revoke or extend suspension of privilege of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law Article VII, Section 18 “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the 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 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. The suspension of the privilege of the writ 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, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.” The new martial law doctrine: role of Congress and Court • The 1987 Constitution has placed the power to determine the duration of the suspension of the privilege and of the effectivity of martial law in the hands of Congress o The original draft committee was very much influenced by the martial law experience under Marcos and proposed that these powers may not be exercised without the concurrence of Congress o After intense debate, the concurrence was voted on and dispensed with o But, President must, within 48 hours submit a report to Congress either in person or in writing. Congress, voting jointly, by a majority vote, can revoke such proclamation or suspension o Such revocation cannot be set aside by the President o Congress, if not in session is duty bound to convene within 24 hours without the need for a call for special session by the President • Martial law and suspension of the privilege may not only be cut short, but also extended by Congress, for a period to be determined by Congress, by a joint vote of both Houses. o The initiative for extension may only come from the President H. Approve presidential amnesties Article VII Section 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 of the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress” Amnesty • Amnesty may only be given with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. o It is a public executive proclamation which must be concurred in by the legislature o It is also a grant of general pardon to a class of political offenders either after conviction or even before the charges are filed • Since amnesty is vested by the legislature, it is considered a public law. As such, it is as if the general law punishing the offense has been repealed. The person released by amnesty stands before the law as though he had committed no offense • Amnesty can be availed by one who confesses guilt to a crime I. Confirm certain appointments The Commission of Appointments • The Commission on Appointments consists of the Senate President, the ex-officio Chairman, 12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives • The function of the Commission of Appointments is to consent to or confirm nominations or appointments submitted to it by the President pursuant to Article VII, Section 16 which enumerates the appointments which need action by the Commission of Appointments o They act as an administrative check on the appointing power of the President • To control abuse of powers, the Commission must act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of Congress and must rule by majority vote J. Concur in treaties

Article VII Section 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” Senate Concurrence in international agreements • 1987 Constitution requires Senate concurrence in both treaties and “international agreements” o Executive agreements however do not require Senate concurrence • Treaty making has two distinct phases: negotiation and actual making of treaty o Senate and Acts of Congress cannot intrude upon the negotiation phase of a treaty o The resulting treaty as negotiated cannot bind as law unless the Senate concurs ! However, if the President does not submit a treaty to the Senate, there will be nothing for the Senate to concur in K. Declaration of war and delegation of emergency powers Article VI Section 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. (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.” Declaration of the existence of a state of war • War is defined as “armed hostilities between two states” • The Constitution gives to the legislature the power to declare the existence if a state of war and to enact all measures to support the war o However, the actual power to make war is lodged in the executive (&"

"

!

The executive power can make war in the absence of a declaration of war

Declaration of emergency powers • Emergency powers may be given by the legislative to the executive only under the conditions of war or other national emergency o Under the present provision, the emergency powers delegated is real legislative power ! But, since the President cannot supplant the legislature under any circumstance, the authority given is limited and cannot amount to the legislature’s abdication of power • There are two limits to emergency powers: o Only for a “limited period” ! If Congress fails to provide a limit, powers will cease upon the next adjournment o Subject to such restrictions as Congress may provide ! Powers are as narrow or as broad as Congress makes them L. Be judge of the President’s physical fitness Article VII, Section 11, paragraph. 4 “If the Congress, within ten days after the 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.” Incapacity of the President • Article VII Section 11 deals with deciding whether the President is still able to perform his functions or not o However, if the President is able to make the decision and declare himself disabled, he has the power to declare so M. Power of impeachment Nature and Initiation of impeachment

The House of Representatives have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment o Complaint may be filed by any member of the House or by any citizen supported by a resolution of endorsement by any Member o Complaint is hereafter referred to the proper Committee which prepares a report for the House • Report can either be favorable or unfavorable to the complaint o Whether report is favorable or unfavorable, the House, by a vote of one-third will decide whether complaint will be given due course o Report by the Committee and decision by the House can be dispensed with if complaint is filed by at least one-third of all members of the House o No impeachment complaint may be initiated against the same individual more than once within a period of one year

Trial and Penalties • Favorable recommendation or filing by one-third of the House sends the complaint to the Senate for trial o Senate tries impeachment case and can convict only by a vote of two-thirds of all its members o The penalty which the Senate may impose shall be limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines • Beyond the reach of executive clemency • Does not place officer beyond criminal persecution for same offense (i.e. when criminally persecuted for the same grounds which warranted impeachment, can’t invoke double jeopardy) Case: Romulo v. Yniguez Petitioners: Alberto G. Romulo, Ramon Mitra et. al. (more than one-fifth of all members of the Batasan) Respondents: Hon. Nicanor E. Yniguez, Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Environment, and 15 others Date: February 4, 1986 ('"

"

Ponente: J. Patajo Nature: Petition for Prohibition to review the judgment of the Batasan Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government Facts: • Petitioners, representing more than 1/5 of all the members of the Batasan, filed Resolution no. 644, which calls for the impeachment of President Marcos. • The Speaker referred the resolution and complaint to the Committee on Justice, Human Rights, and Good Government. • Committee found the complaint not sufficient in form and substance. It disapproved of the resolution and dismissed all charges contained in the complaint. It then submitted its report, which was duly noted by the Batasan and sent to the archives. • Ramon Mitra filed a motion praying that Resolution no. 644 be recalled from the archives. Batasan disapproved the motion. • PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION o Constitution only requires cuncurrence from 1/5 of total membership. Petitioners represent more than a fifth of the membership of the Batasan. o Sections 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings are unconstitutional because they amend Sec. 3, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution. ! Said provisions provide that a majority vote is necessary for an impeachment trial to commence. This is not required by the Constitution o Said provisions derail the impeachment proceedings at various stages by vesting the Committee on Justice, etc. the power to impeach or not to impeach, when such prerogative belongs to the Batasan Pambansa as a collegiate body. • RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTION o Speaker Yniguez and the Committee (see p. 272, paragraph 1) o Renato L. Cayetano and Salacnib P. Baterina (see p. 272, paragraph 2) *Essentially, they contend that the question is political, over which the court has no jurisdiction Issues:

1. Does the court have jurisdiction to order the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government to recall from the Archives and report out the resolution and complaint for impeachment? 2. Are sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings unconstitutional? Held: 1. Does the court have jurisdiction to order the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government to recall from the Archives and report out the resolution and complaint for impeachment? NO • When the Batasan denied the motion of Mitra, it had the effect of confirming the action of the Committee of dismissing the resolution and complaint. The dismissal by the majority of the Batasan members is an act of the Batasan as a body in the exercise of powers that have been vested upon it by the Constitution. Therefore, it is beyond the power of this court to review. • The fact that the petitioners are asking that it is the Committee, not the Batasan itself, which shall be commanded by the court is irrelevant because such an order to the Committee would actually be a direct order to the Batasan itself. o The objective is to have the Batasan as a body proceed with the impeachment trial. Recall of the resolution and complaint would be meaningless unless the Batasan can also be compelled to conduct the impeachment trial. 2. Are sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings unconstitutional? NO • Batasan has the power to adopt rules of its proceedings. • The provisions in the Constitution requiring concurrence of at least 2/3 votes from all its members is not violated by the provision in the Rules which authorizes dismissal of a petition by a majority vote of the Batasan, since 2/3 votes to convict cannot be obtained if majority vote for dismissal. • The constitutional provision that requires 1/5 vote to initiate impeachment is not violated. Initiation of impeachment merely belongs to the “trial phase.” Such actions is taken by this court in determining whether a petition should be given due course of dismissed outright.

((" "

• Pursuant to the said provisions, Committee is required to submit a report to the Batasan. The latter has the ultimate decision whether to approve or disapprove said report. ** Acts of the Committee sought to be restrained have already been consummated. Disposition: Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Teehankee, J., reserved vote The issue is moot and academic. Term of the incumbent President has expired upon holding of the Presidential elections scheduled on February 7, 1986. Case: Lecaroz v. SANDIGANBAYAN Petitioner: Mayor Francisco Lecaroz Respondent: SANDIGANBAYAN Ponente: Relova, J. 22 Mar 1984 Issue: Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the case Facts: On Oct. 21, 1980, the petitioner was charged with the crime of grave coercion Using his authority and his position as mayor, he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took over the control of a gas station belonging to Pedro Par, ordering the policemen who were with him to sell gasoline, issuing invoices and some pieces of yellow pad paper, and to padlock a dispensing pump effectively depriving Pedro Par of the exercise of his occupation. Used threat force and/or violence to prevent him from doing something that was not against the law. Petitioner’s contentions: 1) respondent court lacks jurisdiction. Should be filed with the ordinary court in Marinduque where the alleged crime took place. 2) the offense he was charged with is not related to his office as mayor 3) assuming the respondent has jurisdiction, it committed

grave abuse of discretion by denying the transfer to the Court of First Instance in Marinduque ( all witnesses are from that island) Court’s response : 1) JET ANG CUTE MO. The respondent has concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts. The rule is that once a court acquires jurisdiction, it must continue exercising it. (mar 23 1983, PD 1861 transfers juridisdiction of cases of the same penalty grade to the regular courts, however, sec 2 of the same PD states that pending cases will remain under the jurisdiction of the courts they are already in) 2) if petitioner was not the mayor he would not have been able to compel the policemen to do the said acts because they would not obey him in the first place. 3) same response as number 1 ***IN RELATION TO THE SYLLABUS- POWER OF IMPEACHMENT*** Some officials can only be removed by impeachment ( President, VP, members of the consti commission under sec 2, art XIII 1973 Consti ). It would follow that charging such people with crimes that carry the penalty of removal from office would be going against the clear mandate of the fundamental law. Judgement in cases of impeachment will only entail removal from office of the accused, he/she will still be liable for any other criminal charges. ( the party convicted in the impeachment proceeding shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law; and that if the same does not result in a conviction and the official is not thereby removed, the filing of criminal action “in accordance with the law” will not prosper. ) PETITION DISMISSED N. Power with regard to utilization of natural resources Article XII Section 2 “All lands of the public domain, waters minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. ()"

"

With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress may, by law allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.” • A special provision is made in favor of subsistence fishermen and fish workers o The Congress may, by law allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence

fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. ! Harmonizes this provision with the article on Social Justice ! “small-scale” should refer to single proprietorships A limitation on service contracts is imposed o Any agreement must be “according to the general terms and conditions prescribed by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country” o The President must report to Congress every contract he enters into ! Allows Congress to keep the law abreast of the need of the country o Agreements can only be in relation to “technical and financial assistance” and only in relation to “large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils”

O. Amendment of the Constitution Article XVII Section 1-2 “Section 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 Section 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.” Proposal of amendments • Proposal of amendments can be done either by Congress acting as a constituent assembly, or by a constitutional convention called by Congress, or directly by the electorate. (*"

"

Comelec that the law did not apply to constitutional amendment o Subject and title of bills: general prohibition of “riders. (c) 'Professional hostesses' or 'hospitality girls' shall include any woman employed by any of the establishments herein defined to entertain guests and customers at their table or to dance with them.— Title of Ordinance.1983 FERNANDO FACTS: . Congress enacted RA 6735. ! Each House may separately formulate amendments by a vote of three-fourths of all its members and then pass it on to the other house for a similar process. (b) 'Cabaret' or 'Dance Hall' shall include any place or establishment where dancing is permitted to the public and where professional hostesses or hospitality girls and professional dancers are employed. Legislative process A.Ordinance No. it is still dependent on congressional action • Congress may not alter a proposed amendment through initiative As of this writing. it should not be so construed as to cripple or impede proper legislation o Ever since Sumulong vs.— This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the [Prohibition and Closure Ordinance] of Bocaue. Requirement as to bills (1) As to title of bills Article VI. that both Houses vote separately because the power to propose amendments is given to a bicameral and not unicameral body Another way of proposing amendments to the Constitution is through “initiative” o The Constitutional Commission chose to pass off the problem of carrying out the amendment by initiative to Congress ! “The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right” • Without implementing legislation. Section 2.” • One-subject one-title is mandatory and not directory o To prevent surprise and fraud on the legislature o To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation o To fairly appraise the people • Although the requirement is mandatory. the Initiative and Referendum Law but the Supreme Court ruled in Defensor-Santiago vs. Congress may come together in joint session ! It is essential however. trend has been towards a liberal interpretation of the rule ! Ruling in Sumulong: • “should be given a practical rather than technical construction” • “sufficient compliance with such requirement if title expresses general subject and provisions are germane to the general subject” o Such liberality however. Section 2 cannot operate • Even though it by-passes congressional action. has not prevented the Court from invalidating obvious violations CASE: CRUZ V. ! Disagreements can be settled through a conference committee ! Alternatively. PARAS || 07. (e) 'Operator' shall include the )+" 8.• • Nothing is mentioned about a joint session. — Definitions of Terms — (a) 'Night Club' shall include any place or establishment selling to the public food or drinks where customers are allowed to dance. 84 Section 1. Paragraph 1 “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Bulacan. Section 26.25. Comelec. (d) 'Professional dancer' shall include any woman who dances at any of the establishments herein defined for a fee or remuneration paid directly or indirectly by the operator or by the persons she dances with.” " .

the operation of these establishments within the jurisdiction of the municipality shall be illegal. manager. beer-houses. the closure of night clubs and/or cabarets o in the name of police power. the court upheld the constitutionality and validity of said ordinance ISSUE: WON ordinance issued that prohibit the exercise of a lawful trade (operation of night clubs) and the pursuit of a lawful occupation (employing club hostesses) is invalid RULING: . Certiorari and Prohibition Facts: )!" " . cabarets or dance halls shall henceforth be issued permits/licenses to operate within the jurisdiction of the municipality and no license/permit shall be issued to any professional hostess. .police power: reliance on police power is insufficient to justify enactment o if night clubs were merely regulated and not prohibited then assailed ordinance would pass test of validity o ordinance no 84 is characterized by overbreadth o purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than absolute prohibition title of republic act no. maintenance and operation of night clubs. maintenance and operation of certain places of amusement within their respective territorial jurisdictions o first section: municipal or city board or council of each chartered city shall have the power to regulate by ordinance the establishment. 938 (main issue) o decision under review refers to said republic act o title: an act granting municipal or city boards and councils the power to regulate the establishment. Section 3.— The licenses and permits issued to operators of night clubs. — Being the principal cause in the decadence of morality and because of their other adverse effects on this community as explained above. restaurants. hospitality girls and professional dancers are hereby revoked upon the expiration of the thirty-day period given them as provided in Section 8 hereof and thenceforth. xxx o first section was amended to included not merely the power to regulate but likewise prohibit o title remained the same o power granted by the title of the act is merely to regulate and not prohibit o according to the constitution: every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof o RA 938: limits the power to regulating and not prohibiting – statute becomes invalid . etc o clear that municipal corporations cannot prohibit operation of night clubs o may only be regulated but not prevented from carrying on with their business HELD: writ of certiorary granted and the decision of the lower court reversed. cabarets. cabaret or dance hall. J. 1967 Ponente: Sanchez. administrator or any person who operates and is responsible for the operation of any night club. — Prohibition in the Issuance and Renewal of Licenses. The prohibition in the issuance of licenses/permits to said persons and operators of said establishments shall include prohibition in the renewal thereof. hospitality girls and professional dancer for employment in any of the aforementioned establishments. Bulacan: known for sexual immorality o there is no alternative except to order legislative machinery. ordinance 84 of municipality of Bocaue is declared void and unconstitutional Case: Lidasan vs.recently enacted government code o powers and duties of the sangguniang bayan: regulate cafes. Section 4. cabarets or dance halls which are now in operation including permits issued to professional hostesses.the ordinance must be held null and void . Permits. Nature: Original action. COMELEC Date: October 25.owner.— Revocation of Permits and Licenses. no operator of night clubs.lower courts dismissed the petition o Municipality of Bocaue.

the President recommended the suspension of the operation of the statute until clarified by correcting legislation but COMELEC stood by its own interpretation and said that the statute should be implemented until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (2) It turned out later than 12 of these barrios are within two municipalities in another province which is Cotabato. as the basis of the general appropriations bills. It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of informing the legislators. Second. the title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof. This is mandatory.(1) In 1966. (3) Despite such. Its operation will alter the boundaries of both provinces. it kept the public in the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually affected. that Congress shouldn’t conglomerate heterogeneous subjects in one statute. due to the upcoming election. the persons interested in the subject of the bill. He relies on the requirement as to title. The title is therefore misleading and deceptive. and two. Decision: Petition granted. scope. The municipality is to include 21 barrios. It did not inform the members of Congress as to the full impact of the law. and consequences of the proposed law and its operation. or catalogue all the contents and the minute details of the body. Issue: Is RA 4790 unconstitutional as it embraces more than one subject and that it is not expressed in its title? Ruling and Ratio: Yes. The Constitution does not require that the language mirror. of the nature. RA 4790 is declared null and void and COMELEC’s implementation of the same is prohibited. a budget of receipts and expenditures and sources )#" " .” This contains two limitations on legislative power. Section 22 “The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session. Statutes should not be narrowly construed as to cripple or impede proper legislation. and the public. (5) Triggered by such. The said constitutional provisions which says “no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill. The court ruled that RA 4790 is null and void. (2) Requirements as to certain laws (i) Appropriation laws Article VII. First. COMELEC issued a resolution to set-up election-related mechanisms in the municipality of Dianaton which will be comprised of the said 21 barrios. it creates the municipality of Dianaton. it dismembers two municipalities of Cotabato. The guidelines used in the determination of conformity of the title: a. Bara Lidasan who is a resident and taxpayer of a one of the 12 barrios in Cotabato to be incorporated in Dianaton filed this original action to declare RA 4790 as unconstitutional and that the COMELEC resolutions be nullified. Whether or not the title is misleading b. the Chief Executive signed into law HB 1247 known as RA 4790 or An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur. J. fully index. For what will really happen is that one. Consideration of the substance more than the form The title of herein disputed act projects the impression that only Lanao del Sur is affected. Fernando. The subject of the statute must be expressed in the title. (4) However. it did not apprise the people in the municipalities of Cotabato that part of their territory is taken away. (Dissenting): RA 4790 just deals with one subject and that is the creation of the municipality of Dianaton. It should also be noted that it’s void in its totality because the intent of the lawmakers was to create the new municipality with the 21 barrios and so the nine remaining will not suffice.

content.” Origin of money bills. the President. including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures” The Budget • The budget. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. is prepared by the President and submitted to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session o Congress may not increase appropriation recommended by the President as specified in the budget (Art.of financing. )$" " . private bills and bills of local application • An appropriation bill is one whose purpose is to set aside a sum for public use • Revenue or tariff bills are those which are strictly for the raising of revenues • • • Bills of local application are those whose reach is limited to specific localities Private bills are those which affect private persons All of the mentioned bills must originate from the House of Representatives o District Representatives are closer to the pulse of the people o Although the bill must be initiated by the House. the Senate can completely overhaul it. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer. by law. bills of local application. determination of budgetary priorities and activities within constraints imposed by available revenues and borrowing limits o Legislative authorization ! Congress deliberates or acts on the budget proposal ! Formulates an appropriation act o Budget execution ! Tasked on the Executive Branch ! Covers the operational aspects of budgeting o Budget accountability ! Evaluation of actual performance Article VI. VI. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. by amendment of parts or by amendment by substitution such that the one that comes out is different from what the House approved (Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance: it doesn’t matter if Senate formulated a bill in anticipation of the one the House might send) Article VI Section 25 “(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. However. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. the President of the Senate.” (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it was intended. The form. and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. Section 24 “All appropriation. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Sec 25(1)) • Budgetary process has been described as consisting of four major phases o Budget preparation ! Tasked upon Executive Branch ! Covers estimation of government revenues. the basis of the general appropriations bill. revenue or tariff bills.

(7)If. Senate President. it must provide a corresponding revenue proposal o Congress has limited discretion to authorize transfer of funds o Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to law o Congress cannot cripple the operation of government by its failure or refusal to pass a general appropriations bill o o o Public money or property cannot be used for religious purposes General appropriations law must be based on the budget prepared by the President Public money can be appropriated only for a public purpose Prohibition of increase • Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. but Senate may propose or concur with amendments o Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President o Congress may not clutter the general appropriation law with provisions not specifically related to some item of appropriation. the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force an defect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the congress. the appropriation is legitimate • The test to determine whether it is for a public purpose is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest as opposed to the )%" " .25 and 29 and Article VII Section 22 contains a list of explicit restrictions on the power of Congress: o Appropriation.(6)Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. Sections 24. o Congress may not adopt a procedure for approving appropriations for itself different from the procedure for other appropriations o Special appropriations bill must specify the purpose which they are intended and must be supported by available funds. Chief Justice and heads of Constitutional Commissions may augment items in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations o List is exclusive ! Individual members of Congress must seek approval from Speaker or Senate President o Provision is intended to afford the heads of different branches considerable flexibility in the use of funds and resources o Limited because augmentation may only be taken from savings Appropriations must be for a public purpose • Power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax o If purpose of appropriation is one for which a tax may be collected.” Limits on power to appropriate • Congress is not completely free to appropriate money in any manner and for whatever purpose it may choose. If not. revenue or tariff bills. Article VI. Speaker of the House. bills of local application and private bills must originate exclusively in the House. by the end of any fiscal year. the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year. o Does not prohibit Congress from increasing the budget for Congress and the Judicial Department Prohibition of “riders” in appropriation bills • Provisions unrelated to the appropriation bill are considered prohibited “riders” Transfer of funds • The President. Such provisions shall be limited in operation to the appropriation item to which it relates.

If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. the budget for education has tripled and the compensation for teachers has doubled. No. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. Held/Ratio 1. Sec. They are vested with power to reasonably service our debt to protect the credit standing of our country and protect our economy. minister. Section 29 “(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. preacher. Although the said appropriation laws were legislated by Marcos.furtherance of advantage of individuals (although such advantage might incidentally serve the public) Article VI.813.6 B for debt) o P155.” Fiscal powers of Congress • Congress is the guardian of the public treasury and wields power of the purse o Power of the purse comprehends both the power to tax and the power to spend it o Congress alone can authorize the expenditure of public funds through its power to appropriate ! Power to appropriate carries with it the power to specify the amount to be spent and the purpose for which it may be spent Special funds • Paragraph 3 of Section 29 was intended to prevent the abuse in the disposition of special funds Case: Guingona Jr.6 B for debt service is violative of Sec.017. the law did not mean to deprive Congress of the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest. denomination.000 of the budget went to Department of Education Petitioner seeks the declaration of PD 81. The framers. if any. 2. WON they are violative of Sec. or government orphanage or leprosarium. J.3 B appropriated under RA 6831/General Appropriations Act o P27. or other religious teacher or dignitary as such. or system of religion. Yes. or to any penal institution. Furthermore.31 of PD 1177 and PD 1967 as unconstitutional and seeks to restrain the disbursement of budget under those decrees Respondents content that petition involves a political question " . sectarian institution. vs Carague Ponente: Gancayco. preacher. for the use. minister.4 B in automatic appropriation (P86. Article VI of the Constitution (No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law). (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. directly or indirectly. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated. Facts • • • Issues 1. except when such pries. WON the appropriation of P86. the balance. 5 Article XIV of the Constitution (State shall assign highest budgetary priority to education). 2. Although the Congress is mandated to assign the highest priority to education. benefit. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. 29(1). or support of any sect. 3. since 1985. applied. church. paid. the transitory provision of the Constitution provides for their recognition therefore they were not repealed by his ouster. when they created the 1987 Constitution. or of any pries. did not intend to )&" The 1990 budget was appropriated and authorized by PD 81 “Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered 4860 as Amended by PD 1177 entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society” and PD 1967 entitled “An Act Strenghtening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the Philippines on Its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose” <shit ang haba ng titles!> o P98. WON PD 81 and PD 1967 are still operative under the Constitution. The P29 B allotted for education is the highest among all department budgets thus complying with the Constitution. or employed.

expression o Sec 5. . Art VI Sec 28(1) and Art VI 28(3) of the Constitution? o Art.The bill was considered on second reading and was approved by the HR on the third reading. The senate can also propose an appropriation bill provided that the initial action came from the HR.The bill was sent to the senate. The Constitutional provision that says “bills authorizing public debt should originate from Congress” refers to bills yet to be passed and not existing PDs. and the senate approved a different senate bill on the same subject. 5 and 10 of the constitution o Sec 1 – equal protection of the law o Sec 4 – freedom of speech.H. No.added tax (VAT).The senate bill and the house bill were then sent to a conference committee. Case: Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance Date: August 25. Issues: . The senate bill was approved on the third reading. 11197 was the result of the HR’s efforts to amend certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code relative to the restructuring of the value. and were consolidated by the committee and subsequently became RA 7716. . The questioned laws are complete in all essential terms and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therefore there was no undue delegation of legislative power. No. It is entirely within the power of the conference committee to propose amendments or even an entirely new bill as long as the bill is germane to the subject of the house and senate bills. Action: Certiorari and Prohibition Facts: . SB 1630. VI Sec 24 – all appropriation bills etc. 4.reduce all existing PDs into bills that should be passed again in Congress. . Ruling: Petition dismissed. and the senate has the power to amend the house bill since it would violate the coequality of the two houses if the senate can’t propose amendments to the bill from the HR. The Executive is not given unlimited discretion to amounts for debt servicing as they are already provided. Discussions on whether the RA violated sections of Art III are considered as academic. 1994 Ponente: Mendoza J. VI Sec 24. – Separation of powers )'" " .Did the RA violate Art. and the court didn’t pass judgment on the issue. Held: - - - Petition Dismissed Dissents: Vitug J. must originate exclusively in the HR o - Art VI Sec 26(2) – The separate readings on three separate days rule WON the bicameral conference committee had the power to consolidate the two bills WON the bill violated Art III sec 1. and the rule only applies to the newly introduced bills in the senate or in the HR and not to the conference committee.religious rights o Sec 10 – impairing the obligation of contracts It is not the law but the revenue bill that must come from the HR.Petitioners filed the consolidated cases alleging that the RA was unconstitutional. Art VI Sec 26(2). 3. which was submitted “…taking into consideration HB 11197”. Art VI Sec 26(2) can be dispensed with if the president certifies that the bill is urgently needs to be passed. .

churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto. – The senate violated the constitution with regards to the origination of the bill and the enactment of RA 7716 because it substituted the HB with the SB Davide J. tariff rates.Regalado J.the bicameral committee exceed its jurisdiction since its powers are limited only to settling disputes between the two houses regarding bills. import and export quotas.. and all lands. and exclusively used for religious.” Power if taxation: scope and purpose The power to tax. courts will not hesitate to strike it down Tax has the power to “keep alive” o Example: imposition of tariffs to protect local goods from imports Limitations on the power to tax • Power to tax can only be exercised for a public purpose Specific limits on the taxing power: “uniform and equitable” • Uniformity rule requires merely geographical and not intrinsic uniformity o Uniformity rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation ! Classification must not violate equal protection clause. mosques. (2) The Congress may. and the senate can’t amend the HB with substitution of the SB. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Governmen. by law. Puno J. Romero J. (4) No law granting an tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. Bellosillo J. charitable. • • • • • (ii) Tax Laws Article VI. directly. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. – the BICAM can’t add amendments or remove provisions in bills that have already been approved by both houses. Requirements for equal protection are discussed in the Bill of Rights • Classification must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences • Must be germane to the purpose of the law • Must apply to present and future conditions • Must apply equally to members of the same class )(" " . non-profit cemeteries. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. like police power and power of eminent domain. – the constitutional provision regarding the origination of the revenue bills is mandatory. tonnage and wharfage dues. buildings. (3) Charitable institutions. and improvements actually. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. is an inherent power of government o Does not need to be stated by the Constitution ! Section 28 is not a grant of power but an enumeration of limits on taxing power The power of tax is given in order for government to be able to pay the debts and provide for common defense and general welfare Power to tax is an instrument of national economic and social policy An instrument for exterminating undesirable activities and enterprises o Justice Marshall: “power to destroy” o Philippine jurisprudence frowns on this as taxation must not be oppressive ! Tan vs del Rosario: when tax measure is unjust. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. – RA 7716 didn’t originate exclusively in the house. Section 28 “(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.

o One exception is the authority delegated to the President under Article VI. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. directly. DEL ROSARIO Ponente: Vitug Issue: G. 109446: WON section 6. all grants. G. or contributions used actually.R. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions. directly. Paragraphs 3-4 “(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock.• Bernas: this writer must confess his inability to find any meaning which “equitable” can add to the uniformity and equal protection clause Proprietary educational institutions. including those cooperatively owned.R.it is very appropriate and necessary that we donate and we do not burden the schools any further because there is no profit in them. (4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law. the educational institution must be “non-stock non-profit” o Safeguard against abuse o Non-stock is not separated from non-profit with a comma ! A stock corporation is assumed to be for profit Exemption is given by the Constitution itself. 2-93 is valid ))" " . Paragraph 2 ! The phrase “within the framework of the national development program of the Philippines” was a limit not on the President but on the delegated authority of the legislature Tax exemptions • Corollary to the power to tax is the power to exempt from tax o General and specific limitations on the power to tax apply also to power to create exemptions ! Exemptions must therefore be for a public purpose. donations. 109289: WON RA NO.” • It is a fundamental constitutional policy on education that it is the duty of the State to make quality education available while at the same time affordable to as large a segment of the population as possible o Commisioner Nolledo: In order to provide an incentive to private institutions to share with the State the responsibility of educating the youth. Sec. may likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions or dividends and provisions for reinvestment. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. To come under the exemption. o Commisioner Bacani: . 28. this is not absolute.. uniform and equitable and in conformity with equal protection clause Article XIV Section 4. • • Case: TAN V. endowments. Revenue Regulations No. non-profit educational institutions used actually. 7496 is constitutional. I think we should grant tax exemption. It may not be diminished by legislation or administrative regulation Progressive system of taxation • Congress is commanded to evolve a progressive system of taxation o A tax is progressive when the rate increases as the tax base increases o Progressive taxation reflects the wish of the Convention to use the power of taxation as an instrument for a more equitable distribution of wealth (following social justice) Delegated tax legislation • Although Congress may not delegate its law-making authority.

109289 Petitioners assert that the enactment of RA 7496 violates the following provisions of the constitution: o Article VI. categorization is germane. Title is enough. 2. • 4. Revenue Regulations No. object. law applies to future and present conditions and the classification applies equally to all those belonging in the same class. G.R. 2-93 did not alter anything. o The intent is to maintain the global practice of taxing taxable corporations and to shift the income tax system of individual persons to the scheduler approach 3. The title meets the objectives of the one subject. • G. Uniformity of taxation " . 109446: Valid provision Ratio: G. Due process contention not applicable because there is no inherent contravention on a constitutional right. one title bill ! Title is a misnomer and deficient o Article VI. progressive system of taxation o Article III. 109289: Constitutional • G. A general professional partnership is not an income taxpayer.R. it only confirmed the standing rule that the extent of the allowable deductions are applicable to ALL individual income taxpayers.R.95 per liter of imported )*" • Ruling: PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED. 109289 1. Sec.Facts: Law: R. Legislature: • They primarily decide and determine the kind. 28(1): taxation should be uniform and equitable. Case: Garcia v Executive Secretary Facts: EO 475 EO 443 EO 475 EO 478 Imposed an additional duty of 5% ad valorem on imports Imposed an additional duty of 9% ad valorem on imports Reducing rate of additional duty on imports to 5% ad valorem EXCEPT in cases of crude oil and oil products Continued 9% additional duty and added a special duty of P 0. • section 6.R. 109289 1. Sections 21 and 29 • Petitioners think that there is unequal treatment of professionals who practice alone and those who do it in a general partnership. rate. 26(1): one subject. have exceeded their rule-making authority in applying SNIT (Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme) to general profession partnerships o The petitioners object the administrative interpretation of the CIR that SNIT should be applied to partners in general partnerships. The income tax is on the partners themselves in their individual capacity. 109446 CIR. Classification can still exist as long as standards are substantial. csubject and place of taxation. as public respondents. • Court holds that classification is not arbitrary.A 7496 • Regarding adopting a simplified net income taxation scheme for the self-employed and professionals • Amended the National Internal Revenue Code. The court cannot delve into such matters unless there is a violation of a constitutional right. • Means that all subjects or objects of taxation similarly situated should be treated alike. 1: equal protection of laws.R. Sec. due process G. Sec. one title bill. G.R.

Held: Petition denied. The Court ruled that they were valid pursuant to Sec 28(8). Section 401 (Flexible Clause) states that the president can reduce or remove existing protective rates of import duty.00 per liter of imported oil products Lifted additional duty in EO 443. The EOs were a valid delegation of power. within specified limits and subject to limitations and restrictions. 1. The Bureau of Customs was one of the two principal traditionally revenue-generating bodies in government. Sec. The language of 401 was not sharp and absolute. Issues: WON EOs were unconstitutional and an undue delegation of legislative power. He also stated it was against the Tariff and Trade Code. but also regulatory. and the Tariff and Trade Code sec 104 and 401. 26(2)) Introduction: must be by any member of the House or Senate except for some measures that must originate only from the House *+" " . Additional Reasons 5. Art VI. provided upon periodic Procedure for the passage of bills (Art VI. The Tariff and Trade Code. as in terms of goals. Petitioners main argument is based on the word protective – tariffs could only apply to protect local industries not generate revenue. but EO 475 and 478 continues. constitutionally granted. The Constitution grants it explicitly in Sec 28 (8). Section 104 states that rates of duty may be revised by the President upon recommendation of NEDA. but can’t decrease lower than 10% ad valorem or higher than increase 100%. also grants it in TCC section 104 and 401. investigation of Tariff Commission and recommendation of NEDA he may gradually reduce the protective levels. to impose tariff rates and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the government. There is a presumption of constitutionality that petitioner has to disprove.EO 517 crude oil and P 1. 2. and they were said to be revenue generators. and a far too narrow interpretation of the rule. NO. protection of consumers is as important as protecting industries. HE can impose an additional duty not exceeding 10% whenever necessary. as they were revenue-generating measures issued by the President and therefore not in accordance with the origination clause of the Constititution. The interpretation was too narrow. 6. 4. Super Digest: Some EOs were attacked as unconstitutional because the President enacted them. Petitioner Congressman Garcia of Bataan protested the constitutionality of EO 475 and 478. which states that the Congress can authorize the President. The bills were not just revenue-generating. Art VI of the constitution. the domain of Congress. The court ruled it was not enough. section 401 which stated that the President had the power to impose tariff rates only to protect local industries and not to raise revenue. The Court disagreed with petitioner on four levels. 3. which is the petitioners main argument. Customs are levied even if there isn’t a local market to protect.

so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House Bill. consolidate bills on the same subject matter. or tax bills. VI. The Secretary General reads the number. Third reading: Only the title is read. no further amendment allowed. To insist that a revenue statute must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only to concur with amendments but also to propose amendments. Anyhow Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House. Sec. etc. such as three readings rule. who are elected at large. authenticated with the signatures of the Senate Pres or the Speaker and the Secretary. the committee may introduce amendments. title and text of the bill and the following takes place: a) Period of Sponsorship and Debate b) Period of Amendments c) Voting which may be by: viva voce. Sent to the other chamber for concurrence: In the other chamber.Revenue bills (A bill designed to raise money or revenue through imposition or levy) .Tariff bills . stating it was based on Senate version. Conference Committee Report is submitted for consideration and approval of both Houses. Bicam passed a version different from both original House and Senate bills. and approved by the President Difference between degree of freedom of American and Phil Legislators: US Federal Congress is a master of its own procedures. count by tellers. the bill is passed by the Senate President or Speaker to the proper committee Committee Consideration and Action – committee evaluates to determine the necessity of conducting public hearings.Private bills First reading: Reading of the title and number. Conference committee/final legislative action Conference or bicameral committee – settles. Afterwards prepares the corresponding committee report. tariff.A law regulating an industry. Phil Congress is subject to limitations. Enrolled Bill: The bill is printed as finally approved by the Congress. or propose a substitute bill.Appropriation bills (A bill appropriating a sum of money from the public treasury) . the bill will also go under three readings. division of the House. Not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may introduce new provisions germane to the subject matter or may report out an entirely new bill on the subject. It would be to violate the co-equality of legislative power of the *!" " .Bills of local application . bills authorizing an increase of the public debt.Bills that MUST originate exclusively from the House of Representatives (Art. the senators. Second reading: committee report is registered and numbered by the Bills and Index Service. Tolentino v Secretary of Finance: May Senate initiate a revenue bill? EVAT Law as a revenue bill is constitutionally required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. No amendments are allowed. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. Doctrine: What the Constitution means is that the initiative for filing revenue. included in the Order of Business and referred to the Committee on Rules. does not make the law a revenue bill . On the other hand. are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. reconciles or threshes out differences or disagreements on any provision of the bill. Votes shall be taken immediately thereafter and yeas and nays are entered in the journal. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that. 24) .Bills authorizing increase of public debt . no amendments may be introduced during 3rd reading. though incidentally imposing a tax. The bill as approved in the second reading is printed in its final form and copies are distributed 3 days before the third reading. or nominal voting Entire text is read and debates are held. elected as they are from the districts. Amendments are introduced. Based on the result of the public hearings or committee discussions.

two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. Arroyo v de Venecia: Court ruled that it has no power to review the internal proceedings of Congress, unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. Pivotal issue was not lack of quorum, but lack of opportunity to raise lack of quorum, a procedural not constitutional requirement. Also, the enrolled bill theory holds in upholding the principle of separation of powers. Evidence of due enactment Enrolled bill theory – the duly authenticated copy of the bill, signed by the proper officers of each house, and approved by the President, is conclusive upon the courts not only of its provisions but also of its due enactment. Submission to the President President’s Veto Power (Art VI, Sec 27) Every bill, in order to become a law, must be presented to and signed by the President. If the Pres does not approve, he shall veto the same and return it with his objections to the House from which it originated. (Messaged veto) The House shall enter the objections in the journal and proceed to reconsider it. The Pres must communicate his decision to veto within 30 days from date of receipt. If he fails to do so, the bill shall become a law as if he signed it. Pocket veto – in other countries like the US, if Congress adjourns before the required period has passed, and the Pres has not signed it, the bill does not become a law. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” is known as the pocket veto. There is NO pocket veto in the Philippines because the Pres is required to communicate his veto the House within 30 days. If he does not, the bill becomes a law. To override the veto, at least 2/3 of ALL the members of each House must agree to pass the bill. In such case, the veto is overridden and becomes a law without need of Presidential approval. General rule: a bill must be vetoed in its entirety (absolute veto) Exception: Item veto

President may veto particular items in an Appropriation, Revenue, or Tariff bill (ART) This veto will not affect items to which he does not object. Veto of a rider A rider is a provision which does not relate to a particular appropriation stated in the bill. Since it is an invalid provision under Sec 25(2), the President may veto it as an item. (Inappropriate provisions) Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an item. Compare 1987 Consti with 1935 Consti 1935 Consti, Art 6 Sec 11 (2): “When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the President cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates. 1987 Consti, Art 6 Sec 27: “The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation…”

-

Even if 1987 eliminated “provisions,” the extent of the President’s veto power is unchanged. Only emphasized that item which can be subject of a separate veto must be a distinct and severable part of a bill. Gonzales vs. Macaraig (1990) FACTS: Petitioners are assailing Pres. Aquino’s veto of Section 55 and 16 of the General Appropriations Bill of 1989 and 1990, respectively. Both provisions prohibit the restoration of appropriations that are disapproved by Congress. Pres. Aquino vetoed said provisions because it will prevent her from augmenting appropriations in cases of calamity, urgency and dire need. Petitioner contends that Sec 55 and 16 are provisions, not items, and thus outside the veto power of the Pres. RULING: Veto is constitutional. Although the 1987 Consti eliminated “provisions”, the extent of Pres’ veto power is unchanged. Provisions are distinct and severable, and may be separately vetoed. A provision relates to some particular appropriation in the bill, and not to the entire bill. Sec 55 and *#"

"

16 are inappropriate provisions because they apply generally to all items. They are more of an expression of congressional policy, hence, they are to be treated as “items” and may be vetoed. The Pres is granted statutory authority to augment appropriations within the Exec branch (PD 1177 and GAA 1989) Bolinao Electronics Corp vs Valencia PBS claimed right to damages from the fact that CBN continued to operate on Channel 9 even though PBS was supposed to take over and had a permit to do so. Supreme Court ruled that PBS had no right to any damages since (a) CBN did not abandon its right to operate on Channel 9, and (b) the part of the Appropriations Bill pertaining to the creation of PBS had a condition that no money would be spent on the operation of TV stations in Luzon. The President has the power to veto any item or items of an appropriation bill, but when a provision affects one or more items of it, the Pres could not veto that condition without vetoing the item which it was attached to. PBS therefore had no right to operate on Channel 9. Bengzon vs. Drilon Retired justices of the SC are assailing the constitutionality of the veto by Pres Aquino of certain provisions of General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1992. The House of Representatives submitted a bill which provided for automatic readjustment of retirement pensions for Justices of the SC, as well as members of the Constitutional Commission. Pres Aquino vetoed the bill because it would erode government’s efforts to strictly enforce the policy on standardization of compensation. RULING: Veto is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The President’s veto power is constitutionally vested, but it has limitations to its exercise. It is not absolute. Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. When it comes to appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills, the Constitution has provided an “item veto power” which gives the President the power to veto only a particular item. This however does not mean that he or she could veto a part of an item and approve the remaining portion of the same item. Items are different from provisions. Item – particulars, details, distinct parts; in an appropriation bill it is a specific appropriation of money. In the case at bar, the Pres did not veto items but provisions, which is not allowed. Also, said veto entrenched upon fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary, as

well as deprived the Justices of their vested right to retirement benefits/pension. PHILCONSA vs Enriquez Petitioners pray for declaration of certain articles of GAA (General Appropriations Act) as unconstitutional and void. The President signed the Bill into law but vetoed certain provisions. RULING: On veto of provision of debt ceiling: court held that vetoed provision was inappropriate – should be in separate law as it refers to funds other than those in GAA. Hence, veto is valid. Pres can veto inappropriate provisions separately from other provisions. (Note that court in Bolinao held that provisions cannot be vetoed without vetoing item which it was attached to. Here, court now expands veto power of Pres by saying inappropriate provisions may be vetoed separately without the need to veto appropriation to which they are attached.) On veto of provision on 70% (admin) / 30% (contract): pres vetoed this because contracting at 70% is more efficient. Court held that veto is invalid because provision is not inappropriate. On veto of provision on purchase of meds by AFP: provision cannot be vetoed since it is directly related and inseparable from the appropriation item. Can’t veto a provision without vetoing whole item. Legislative Veto - Veto by the legislature, either through a positive act or by inaction Miller vs. Mardo Petitioners question the validity of Reorganization Plan (RP) No. 20-A which gave Department of Labor power to settle cases affecting money claims arising from violations of labor standards as well as cases for unpaid wages, overtime, etc. Court ruled that RP is invalid as it confers judicial power to regional offices, which is a power that rests solely in the judiciary. Also, RA 997 requires that provisions of the RP submitted by the Pres during the 2nd session of Congress shall be deemed approved after the adjournment of that session. If either House disapproves, the disapproval has to be made known during the given period. The RP was submitted to the Pres, who submitted it to Congress. It adjourned sessions without passing a resolution that disapproved or approved said RP. The plan became a law simply by the *$"

"

Congress’ non-action. (Legislative veto) Such a procedure of enactment of law by legislative inaction is not countenanced in this jurisdiction. RA 997 is in contrast to Art VI Sec 20 and 21 of the Constitution which provides for the process of how a bill becomes a statute. The Consti requires a separate and positive action by each House so that the bill can be passed into law, and also requires the presentation to the President, which was dispensed with by RA 997. Macalintal vs COMELEC The Overseas Absentee Voting Act provides for the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC), which shall have the power to monitor and evaluate the implementation, as well as the power to review, revise, amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs). Petitioners contend that these powers belong solely to the COMELEC, being the independent body mandated by the constitution to be in charge of all election-related matters. The Court ruled that creation of the JCOC is unconstitutional. Justice Puno concurs that Congress had gone beyond its powers in this case. He enumerated three forms of oversight powers of congress: scrutiny, investigation, and supervision. Supervision encompasses legislative veto, in that it utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. In requiring the Pres or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a “right” to approve or disapprove regulation before it takes effect, Congress is actually exercising legislative veto. Effectivity of Laws Art II, Civil Code: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This code shall take effect one year after such publication. Tanada vs. Tuvera: Senator Tanada, Justice Sarmiento and MABINI dared Executive Assistant Tuvera to publish all presidential decrees, letters of instruction, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation and administrative orders. 1985 decision: Without notice or publication, no basis for application of “ignorantia legis no excusat”. Publication is an imperative duty, a requirement of due process (constitutional limitation). But implementation of

the unpublished acts are operative fact, so consequences may no be justly ignored. 1986 decision based on new solgen position: The clause “unless otherwise provided” in Art. 2 of the Civil Code refers to the effectivity of the law and not to the requirement of publication (statutory limitation). Requirement of publication is indispensable; law cannot be effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, without its previous publication. $ Is publication only in Official Gazette? EO 200 passed June 18, 1987 amended Art. 2 and allowed publication in a newspaper of general circulation. It is recognition that the publication must be familiar and accessible to all. What kinds of laws must be published? - All laws that affect the public interest even if it might be directly applicable to only some individuals. - All statutes, including those of local application, city charters, private laws, presidential decrees and executive orders. - Administrative rules and regulations if their purpose is to enforce or implement an existing law. - Internal regulations need NOT be published. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Article VII, 1987 Constitution 1. THE PRESIDENT a. SINGULAR EXECUTIVE Executive power vested in the President (Sec. 1) DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRESIDENCY a. The 1935 Constitution -Vested executive power to the President b. The 1973 Constitution - Prime minister had executive power while President was reduced to a mere “symbolic head of state”. But: when original 1973 Constitution took effect, Marcos was allowed to retain his 1935 powers and at the same time became *%"

"

There are certain constitutional powers of the Pres that must be exercised by him in person (e. not plural. by authority of the President. The power of control of the Pres extends to officers who belong to the executive department. if they are presidential appointees. But NOT to those who belong to the classified service. 2): natural-born citizen of the Philippines. and this was granted by the President. who was Collector of Customs.Specific powers ( i. . QUALIFICATIONS (1) President (Sec. there are certain acts that. able to read and write.Intention in investing executive power in one person rather than in a plural executive: invest the power holder with energy. He asserts that it is the President who has power to exercise control over local governments. to be Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. and under our form of government. RULING: The investigation ordered by the President is constitutional. The 1987 Constitution . extortion. Castillo Angangco. to prove that her statements were in good faith or sustain her charges. and that the whole government machinery acted to prevent other candidates from being elected into the National Assembly. it is the Commissioner of the Civil Service that must decide. Sec of Interior recommended his suspension.e. was suspended for alleged neglect of duty. He can also act through heads of exec departments. charge and decide on his case because these powers are lodged in other agencies of government.ceremonial President and Prime Minister and was never merely a ceremonial head. After 3 years. 1973 Constitution was revised: President again became the head of state and the Chief Executive while the Prime Minister was reduced to being a ceremonial figure c. Villena vs Secretary of the Interior The Sec of Interior asked DOJ to investigate then-Makati mayor Villena. It must be in accordance with law. . to appoint. The President ordered Planas to appear before the Commission of Civil Service. which implies an authority to inquire into facts. Jose Gil. Planas contends Gil had no jurisdiction and that the investigation was an arbitrary exercise of power.In 1981. Petitioner contends that the President could not take direct action over his case because pursuant to the Civil Service Act. Villena contends that Secretary has no authority to suspend. All executive powers are vested in the President and he has a duty to faithfully execute all laws. or alter egos. Planas vs Gil FACTS: Planas is accusing the President of violating the Constitution by stating preferences of candidates. who was found to have committed bribery. The power of investigation falls under supervision. Control and Supervision are constitutional grants. Otherwise.President almost became the de facto legislature (Marcos v. However. cannot be validated by subsequent approval or ratification by the Pres.Constitutional systems returned to the Presidential mode of 1935 Constitution: Executive power is vested in the President. Manglapus) . at least 40 years old on the day of the election. . by their very nature. RULING: The Sec of Interior has legal authority to order an investigation. abuse of authority and unauthorized practice of law. Heads of various departments are mere projections. of the Pres who assumes responsibility for the acts of his subordinates. and to contract foreign loans) given to the Pres have been attached with more specific structural limitations than previous documents. a registered voter. and founded on knowledge of facts. performed and promulgated in the regular course of business. are the acts of the Chief Executive. and a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election *&" " . to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. Executive Secretary Castillo. The Consti point to a clear purpose: the establishment of a single. the acts of the secretaries of departments. to grant clemency. she will be suspended or removed from office. RULING: The Commissioner of Civil Service has exclusive and original jurisdiction over administrative cases of personnel in the classified service. power to suspend writ of habeas corpus and proclaim martial law). The Secretary was acting as an agent of the President.g. as well as suspend officials pending investigation of charges. rendered a decision that found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Executive. He has control over all exec departments and shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Ang-Angco vs.

term of office. residence=domicile. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3). .Must be possessed on the day of the election i. not otherwise disqualified by law. who are at least eighteen years of age. Concurring elements: a.Bodily presence in the locality . par.Literacy requirement has been specified because under the qualifications of a voter. He may be appointed as department head in the Cabinet without consent from the Commission on Appointments. ELECTION (Sec. on the day that the law set on which votes are cast. No other function than assume presidency when vacancy arises. 3): elected by direct vote of people. Section 2. and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens. election happens on second Monday of May 1935 : directly elected president Original 1973: wanted to experiment with a President and a Prime Minister elected by the Legislature 1981: revision restored President elected by the people 1987: President and Vice President elected by direct vote of the people TERM Term begins noon June 30 next following election (Sec. for at least six months immediately preceding the election. 1): same qualifications. oath or affirmation (Sec. 4. if he had one (animus non revertendi) THE VICE PRESIDENT Vice-President (Sec. Section 1.1973 Charter: increased to 50 years old.An intention to abandon the old domicile. (2) Registered Voter . (5) A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election Residence has same meaning in election law i. 5) President and Vice-President has a fixed term of 6 years Period: begins at noon on June 30th following the day of election and ends at noon on June 30th. property. or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.An intention to remain there (animus manendi) . No literacy. 1) (2) Length: 6 years (3) To enter execution of office.e.President must have then the qualifications of a voter prescribed in Article V. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines. 3.1935 Constitution : 40 years old also .BUT: requirement allows for temporary physical absences as long as animus revertendi to the domicile is never abandoned . (3) Able to read and write . six years thereafter Limit on the number of terms *'" " .e.% Residency and domicile mean the same thing under election law % The ff must be considered: -bodily presence -animus manendi -animus revertendi (1) Natural born citizen Article IV. par. 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. literacy is not required and it’s imposition is even prohibited (4) At least 40 years of age on the day of election for President . supposedly for “more maturity” BUT opposes rationale for decreasing age from 21 to 18 years. and manner of election and removal with the President The VP is essentially a President in reserve. par. 4.

Article VI OATH Taking of the oath of office by the President marks his formal assumption of his duties Oath is not a source of substantive power but is merely intended to deepen sense of responsibility of the President Corwin: “the fact that the President takes an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution does not authorize him to exceed his own powers under the Constitution on the pretext of preserving and protecting it Article VII. *(" " . PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CONTROVERSIES 1935 and 1973 Constitutions o No explicit provision designating the body with jurisdiction to be judge of presidential and vice presidential election contests o Lopez v.either immediately after his term or even after an interval of one or more terms Rationale: make a more independent President capable of making correct even if unpopular decisions Prohibition applies to any person who has served as President for more than four years (2) Vice President More liberal: may not serve for more than two successive terms but voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of VP’s service Note: if VP succeeds to the presidency. the Vice-President. they could not determine whether or not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with. constituting the Supreme Court as the electoral tribunal for presidential and vice presidential contests o Implicitly repealed by the adoption of 1973 Constitution and was not restored under reconstituted presidential system of 1973 Constitution o BUT this statutory law has now become a constitutional provision: Section 4. Roxas (1935 Constitution): petitioner seeking a recount of votes had no right thereto and therefore. if not. if he serves for less than 4 years. voting separately. the President. 1793 o Passed by Congress as response to Lopez v. he may run fro election as President (not a re-election) CONGRESS AS NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS 1935 and 1973 Constitutions: Congress was merely charged with the ministerial and executive duty to make declaration on the bases of the election returns duly certified by the provincial and city board of canvassers Therefore. BREAKING A TIE: vote of majority of all members of both Houses of Congress. Roxas case. 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.(1) President Not eligible for any re-election for that office i. and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. execute its laws. do justice to every man. So help me God." [In case of affirmation. to recount and determine the authenticity of each ballot cast 1987 Constitution: Congress now given authority to “determine authenticity and due execution” of the returns coming from provincial and city boards of canvassers in the manner provided by law.e. last sentence will be omitted]. or reflect the true result of the elections in the areas covered by each and. preserve and defend its Constitution. Before they enter on the execution of their office. matter is not justiciable R.A. Section 5.

or shall have been “chosen” and qualified as the case may be. Dies. apply sec. Section 6. or d.COMELEC Facts: In 1985. 9 of the Constitution which would justify the call of a special presidential election before the expiration of the resignation of President Marcos’ term in 1987 was supposed to occur before and not after the said election. Have not qualified. or in case of his inability. President Marcos submitted a questionable letter of resignation that was to be effective on the tenth day after the following the proclamation of the winners in the “snap election” to be called by the legislature on the strength of such resignation. there is a tie and Congress has not yet broken that tie) then the VP shall act as Pres until the Pres-elect shall have qualified. or b. Petitioners challenged the election on the ground that inter alia that the vacancy contemplated in Art. 2. 3.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. salary of President and VP shall be determined by law . If the Pres-elect a. therefore the President cannot accept other employment elsewhere. Become permanently disabled. shall act as President until a President or a VP shall have been chosen and qualified. provide for the “manner of selecting” the *)" " . They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. Article VII. Becomes permanently disabled at the start of the term then the VP-elect shall become the President.No other emoluments from the government or any other source can be received during tenure “Emoluments” which they may not receive during their tenure refers to any compensation received for services rendered or from possession of an office.g. The President shall have an official residence. If both Pres and VP a. 7 a. Have not been chosen or b. Sec. the Speaker of the House. If the Pres-elect cannot assume his post at the beginning of his term because -he has not qualified as yet (e. VII. Held: SC denied the petition and sustained the resignation and the call for a “snap” election on the ground that the calling of a “snap” election is not a justiciable but a political question resoluble only by the sovereign electorate. PRIVILEGE AND SALARY (Sec 6) Article VII. In Section 6. to seek a “fresh mandate” from the people. Before the beginning of the term (Section 7 Article VII) 1. or c.Philippine Bar Association v. then Congress shall by law. VACANCY AND SUCCESSION - - - A President has no right to “hold-over”: when designated date for the end of the term comes (noon of the 30th of June six years following his election) he MUST leave his office and president-elect assumes office. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure.a Pres has not been “chosen” and qualified as yet (e. If at appointed hour and day there is no president-elect (he died or failed to qualify or because no winner was proclaimed). private or public. Die.NO INCREASE shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved . In case both the Senate Pres and the Speaker of the House are unable to act as Pres. he had an operation and could not take oath) .g. then the Senate President.

without need of call. and qualified. in accordance with its rules. within 48 hour. Section 8. When the Pres transmits to the Senate President and the Speaker a written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In case of both the President’s and the VP’s a. since they have only 10 days to decide. This Acting Pres shall be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications. c. d. Resignation The VP shall become Pres for the unexpired portion of the term. Congress shall convene.one who will act as President until a Pres or VP shall been either chosen or elected (pursuant to the special election under Sec 10. Permanent disability c. if is not in session. Temporary vacancy during the term *A vacancy in the Presidency arising from his disability can occur in any of the ff ways: 1. it must convene in 2 days and decide before the 12th day) **" " . Upon such transmittal. then Congress shall step in. (par. *Voluntary declaration of inability by President a. the Pres shall automatically assume his office. Upon receipt of his second declaration by the Cabinet. Death b. When the majority of all the members of the cabinet transmit to the Senate Pres and the Speaker their written declaration that the Pres is unable to discharge his office. his stay being temporary) Then the Congress shall by law. The VP shall so act until the Pres transmits to the Senate President and the Speaker a written declaration that he is no longer unable to discharge his office. 2. Becomes permanently disabled c. finding by Congress by 2/3 vote that the President is disabled. Should the majority of the Cabinet insist on their original stand by transmitting a second written declaration of the Pres’ inability within 5 days from resumption of office of Pres. (If already in session. Art VII). Removal from office by impeachment d. In all these cases. a written declaration by the Pres 2. The Pres can contest this by sending his own written declaration to the Senate Pres and the Speaker. 1) 3. Dies b. provide who shall be Acting President until the Pres or VP shall have been “elected” (pursuant to the special election) and “qualified”. b. Death b. *Contested inability of the President a. the Speaker of the House. the VP temporarily acts as the President. Resigns (but is not removed. or in case of his disability. Permanent disability c. shall act as Pres until the Pres or VP shall have been elected (by special election) and qualified. that no inability exists. b. such powers and duties shall be discharged by the VP as Acting President. because there is no need to impeach him. c. In case of President’s a. resignation The Senate Pres. Removal from office (by impeachment) d. When the Acting President (i. then the VP shall immediately assume the Presidency in an acting capacity. whereas if is not in session. it must meet right away. written declaration by the Cabinet 3. Permanent Vacancy During the Term Article VII. 1. b.e. Senate Pres or Speaker of the House) a.

f. the extent of the immunity) 5. Verified complaint shall be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days. Vacancy in the office of the VP (Sec. 2. (In this part. by a 2/3 vote of both houses voting separately. and referred to the proper Committee within 3 session days thereafter. Art. VII. HELD 1.. Section 8) 3. The Court shall consider as justiciable the issue of WON the change in the presidency was done in the manner prescribed by the 1987 Constitution. A verified complaint may be filed by any member of the HoR or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof b. The issue is a political question and the Court cannot review Congress' decision without violating the principle of separation of powers. The Court held (shall rule) that the President enjoys immunity only during his tenure. change of presidency was done extra-constitutionally whereas EDSA II was not a revolution. see Art. The Court shall rule that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity. (Reasoning in the In Re: Bermudez case that the incumbent President is immune from suit or from being brought to court during his period of his incumbency and tenure but not beyond. If less than 2/3 find him unable. contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. Serious illness of the President . The petitions of Joseph E. 9. (Congress has laid Estrada's claim of inability to rest because of its recognition of GMA as president. !++" " . Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity. If President. or within 12 days after it is required to assemble if it is not in session. WON the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit (and assuming he enjoys immunity. the ponente differentiated EDSA I from EDSA II saying that EDSA I was a revolution. then the Pres shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. WON the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as president 4. (2) Verified complaint a. (In relation to this.) 5. then the VP shall act as Pres. The Court held that the question WON it may review and revise the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing GMA as the de jure President of the Philippines is a political one.The public shall be informed of the state of his health . there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced by the barrage of publicity. Removal: IMPEACHMENT (Art XI. Desierto -on the legitimacy of the ARROYO Administration ISSUES 1.For nomination to be effective.President authorized to nominate member of Congress from either Senate or the House of Representatives . WON the petitioner resigned as president 3. Congress shall determine the Pres’ inability within 10 days after receipt of the second written declaration by the Cabinet if it is in session. the change was done to an element of the government only and it was done intra-constitutionally because GMA swore to uphold or protect the 1987 Constitution.e. Sec 3) (1) Who may initiate: The House of Representatives (HoR) shall have exclusive power to initiate ALL cases of impeachment. VII) New rule .The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the AFP shall not be denied access to the Pres during such illness. WON the petitions present a justiciable controversy 2.Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED. determined to be “unable” to discharge his office.) 4. it must be confirmed by a majority vote of all the members of both Houses voting separately Estrada vs. The Court held that resignation shall be determined from the totality of prior.

They are only allowed positions expressly mentioned in the Constitution. (7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the RP. trial. Art VII section 13 does not prohibit exofficio positions. S13 Section 13 outlines the prohibitions placed on the President. Art IX-B as a blanket provision that as a general rule for all elective and appointive public officials. EO was declared null and void by the Supreme Court. However. Exceptions to the prohibition from holding another office • VP as member of the cabinet Art VII S 3 • Secretary of Justice as member of the Judicial and Bar Council CLU v Executive Secretary • Pres Aquino issued EO which allowed Cabinet members and subordinates to hold multiple offices. but shall not vote. Powers and Functions of the President • !+!" " . g.c. The Committee. but the party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution. and by a majority vote of all its Members. Prohibitions Art. They are allowed ex-officio positions but NOT compensation. shall submit its report to the House within 60 session days from such referral. (3) Number of votes necessary A vote of at least 1/3 of ALL the members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favourable resolution or override its contrary resolution. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. Because the position is ex-officio the work done is included in the primary position so the services done are paid for by the primary salary. the rest of the appointed and elected officials can hold other offices when allowed by law. But the Sc held that they are stand-ins for Cabinet Members. after hearing. Vice President. Ex-officio work is included in work done for the primary position. VP and Cabinet have stricter rules because of the sensitivity of their position. members of the Cabinet and their deputies and assistants o Shall not hold any other office or employment during tenure o Shall not directly or indirectly practice any other profession. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. IX-B Section 7 is the general rule for public officials. *The officer can still be tried for a criminal case aside from impeachment “Initiation” – governed by the rules of HoR “trial” – governed by rules of Senate f. business etc. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration within 10 session days from receipt. Secretaries so they can hold other positions. VP and Cabinet. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. they are only allowed to have other positions when allowed by the Constitution. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. • On the other hand. this Article is the exception for the Pres. Petitioners say they have lower rank than Asst. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least 1/3 of all the Members of the House. The Pres. and punishment. They cited Section 7. d. o No franchise or special privilege from the government or gov’t controlled companies • Art. When sitting for that purpose. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. h. VP and Cabinet are held to stricter standards as stated in Art VII Section 13. • The P. VII. They were allowed to hold multiple positions if allowed by law. Dela Cruz v COA • COA discontinued payment of petitioners because they were holding ex-officio positions. the Chief Justice of the SC shall preside. together with resolution. When the Pres of the Phils is on trial. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

S 1 and 17 • Vested in the President only • Heads of exec. Ople contends that it would violate the privacy. • Power of supervision is the power to ensure that laws are properly executed by inferiors. Pres has duty to protect general welfare and so can bar the return of the Marcoses. Security of tenure not violated because positions are not taken away. Supreme Court says that the AO is more of a law (it imposes duties on people). The Legislature enacts laws and the Executive executes them. General Supervision of LGU and Autonomous Regions Art. 3. he negotiates with foreign governments not Legislature. is the power to remove.1. Control of Executive Departments • President shall have power of control over all executive officials (the power to nullify or set aside what a subordinate has done and replace his actions) • Doctrine of qualified political agency. dept. modify. Supreme Court says the President is the representative of the country to the world. Petitioners think Senate ratifies. The DILG • !+#" " . Executive Power Art VII. • Disciplinary power. Does not include power to substitute action or judgment with subordinates • President has general supervision over all LGUs. which flows from his power to appoint. which states that the executive and administrative agencies are agents of the executive. So Executive has the power to control subordinate’s judgment but Legislature has control over their person. X S 4 • and 16 The power of general supervision is power to see that subordinates follow function according to law. He wants court to overrule Pres. Ratification is an executive act which is when the state accepts and confirms provisions of treaty. unless his decision is repealed by the President it is assumed that he acts as the President’s alter ego. The various functions of the President are done through the executive departments. He can choose not to submit treaty to senate. Aquino’s decision to bar their return. Ganzon v CA • Mayor Ganzon accused of transferring officials to other posts for personal reasons. He can only execute administrative rules and regulations. President needs 2/3 of Senate approval. The executive is singular not plural. The power to abolish comes with power to create. Unless acts by subordinates are disapproved they are presumably acts of the Chief Executive. occupy advisory positions but they are subject to direction of the President Marcos v Manglapus • Marcos wants to return home to die. Executive Secretary reversed decision and gave land to farmers for the sake of social justice. they are abolished. Also President can delegate power to Executive Secretary. 2. ore reverse actions of subordinates. Senate can give or withhold concurrence (not ratification). Lacson-Magallanes v Pano Director of Lands awarded land to corporation instead of Pano and other farmers. He kept postponing hearings and was preventively suspended 3 times in 20 mos. He can confirm. The President has the power to reorganize executive agencies because he has control (not just supervision). but must be express. but ratification depends on the Pres. Gone. but executive power isn’t limited to that. President has control over all executive departments. Ople v Torres • Ople challenges AO 308 which creates a Nationalized Computer Identification System. Subject to legislative limitation. Pimentel v Aguirre • Petitioners want to compel Executive Sec to submit Rome Statute to Senate for ratification. Life and liberty of all Filipinos. The President has many powers listed in the Constitution. Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v Executive Secretary • Pres Aquino created on bureau and Pres Estrada deactivated it and created another. the Executive can’t enact laws.

limitations on appointing power of the president Art VII S 13 and 15 • 2 mos before the next presidential elections the Pres shall not make appointments !+$" " . CHR chair is not one of those positions mentioned in Art VII Section 16’s first sentence so it doesn’t need COA approval. regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council. judges of the LC. 2. PNP not AFP. Manalo v Sistoza • Petitioners assailed constitutionality of 15 PNP appointments without COA confirmation. Even if the Local Government Code says that senior PNP officials have to be COA confirmed it must give way to constitution. Bautista v Salonga • Pres Aquino designated Mary Bautista as Chairman of Commission of Human Rights. • The Pres can’t voluntarily submit Bautista’s appointment to COA for approval. all the rest don’t need COA confirmation. the Ombudsman and deputies. b. Chief Executive can’t give COA a duty that was explicitly stated in Constitution as being for the President. may not be usurped by legislature. the appointment is an executive act. Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. The Civil Service Commission. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. COA opposed because she was not confirmed by COA. Legislature may create an office and prescribe qualifications of candidates but cannot specify who will be appointed and cannot appoint • President can appoint those enumerated in Section 16 and members of the SC. All other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law 3. chairman and members of the Constitutional Commission. Pres Aquino appointed someone else to the position pending Bautistas case. Yes. Power of appointment Art VII. Heads of the executive departments. AFP needs COA confirmation. Sectoral Representatives fall under Art VII Section 16 sentence 1. with consent of commission on appointments Sarmiento v Mison • Petitioners want to enjoin Sarmiento from holding his position as Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because he was not confirmed by COA and so his position is unconstitutional. • Pres Aquino didn’t need to get COA approval the first or second time. Local Governments have independence but executive and legislative still have power over them. Quintos-Deles v COA • Quintos-Deles was appointed Sectoral Representative while Congress was in recess. • Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint: 1. 4. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. a. Only the first group of officers is appointed with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Constitution does not include PNP officials in list of officials that need COA confirmation. ambassadors. It says “other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution” the seats for sectoral reps are filled by the President. S 16 • It is an executive function. Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint 4. other public ministers and consuls. COMELEC. COA asked her to submit info about her appointment but she refused because she said she wasn’t under COA’s jurisdiction. But in ’89 Pres Aquino offered it to Bautista again and submitted the appointment to COA for approval. Can’t create power where there is none. Commission on Audit all need COA approval according to the Consti.secretary can preventively suspend the Mayor.

but Sen. Probation: freedom with restrictions for a limited period of time. probation a. chance to be free provided there is good behavior b. d. Macapagal issued AO 2 to recall all ad interim appointments made by Pres Garcia after Dec 13. • Bautista: Recess is temporary dismissal. Quisimbing v Tanjanglangit • Dec 28. Court did not declare ALL midnight appointees revoked. Presumably the appointment of Jorge was made during office hours so it’s not affected by AO 2. 1961 with AO 2. Art VII S 16 • Ad interim appointments are those made during the recess of Congress • Effective without need for confirmation. but last only until disapproval of COA or the next adjournment of Congress • Can be revoked by the President at his discretion • Different from appointment in acting capacity. Quimsing was not questioned because his appointment was carefully considered. Pres. when: (a) the officer regularly appointed is unable to perform his duties because of illness. Art IX-C S 5 • This power exists to correct mistakes made by the courts • It can be used for administrative penalties • Reprieve: postpones execution of punishment • Commutation: remission of part of penalty • Limitations to executive clemency: 1) can’t be exercised over impeachment 2) concurrence of majority of Congress for amnesty 3) no amnesty. COA ceases to exist until next session of new Congress.Aytona v Castillo • Pres. Only extended to one whose conviction is final. limitations on appointing power of acting president 5. temporary designations Admin Code 1987. (2) The person designated shall receive the compensation attached to the position a. Garcia. already in the government service b. Removes penalties and legal disabilities. Confirmed by COA May 16. Executive Clemencies Art VII S 19. c. if he is already in the government service he shall receive additional compensation which shall not exceed the salary authorized by law for the position filled. • Padilla: Recess is period of time from adjournment to opening session of same Congress. interim recess appointments Art VI. pardon. Puyat moved for reconsideration. (3) In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year. absence or any other cause. S 19. Macapagal revoked all ad interim appointees after Dec 13. pardon: official. parole for violation of election laws without approval of COMELEC a. Garcia deprived new administration of opportunity to make appointments. b. b. 1961 Quimsing was given ad interim appointment as Chief of Police by Pres. private act of executive. Garcia in Dec 13. Garcia made an ad interim appointment by placing Aytona as Gov. e. of Central Bank (midnight appointments). which does not need COA confirmation and may be given when Congress is in session. other competent person To perform the functions of an office in the executive branch. or (b) there exists a vacancy. • Laying motion for reconsideration on table (Puyat) has no effect on confirmation. Garcia abused position as just care-taker of administration. 1961. pardon v. 1961. not complete without acceptance. The compensation be paid out of the funds appropriated for the office or agency concerned. Jorge v Mayor • Jorge was an ad interim appointee of Pres. pardon v. parole !+%" " . 1962. Book III Section 17 (1) The President may temporarily designate an officer: a. while the midnight appointments were rushed and ill-conceived.

and (1) day. c. Pardon distinguished from amnesty Amnesty. The maximum sentence would expire on 2 Nov 2000. Effect of Pardon: People vs Salle.On 18 April 1979. executive clemency may not yet be granted.an original petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of petitioner Wilfredo S. e. which was then pending appeal before the IAC. the Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to the petitioner. Torres was convicted by the CFI of Manila of the crime of estafa (two counts) and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of from (11) yrs. Gonzales Facts: .Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. . during this period if there is proof of rehabilitation then there will be no further prison sentence. exercised in favor of a single individual. Bernas: Barioquinto v. (10) mos and (22) days to (38) yrs. and is a public act of and which the courts may not take which the courts may take judicial notice of. if ever. a conditional pardon was granted by the President on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Sanctions for violations of conditional pardons Torres vs. notice. and forgives punishment. unless expressly treated as if he committed no crime restored by pardon at all d. Granted to one after conviction Granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty. People vs. The petitioner had been charged with 20 counts of estafa. Provincial Warden of Bohol. and is rarely. Where the judgment of conviction is still pending appeal. and is usually exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons. Many other charges have been brought against the petitioner. Torres. Walker. .Sometime before 1979. who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted. and to pay an indemnity of P127. 602) Pardon. !+&" " . In making its recommendation. . although some have been identified as dismissed. Before an appellant may be granted pardon. abolishes puts into oblivion the offense itself. Director of Prisons and Espuelas us. . .a. These convictions were affirmed by the CA. the Board relied upon the decisions of this Court in Tesoro vs. Fernandez. Jr.It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed. Patriarca Difference of Amnesty from Pardon Pardon Amnesty -granted by the Chief Executive. Parole: release after sentence is completed. the respondent Minister of Justice wrote to the President informing her of the Resolution of the Board recommending cancellation of the conditional pardon previously granted to petitioner. 161 U. suffrage.On 4 June 1986.It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense. but doesn’t as though he had committed no abolish civil liability offense Doesn’t restore rights to hold public Rights not affected as the offender is office. presently confined at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. generally before or after institution of prosecution and sometimes after conviction -looks forward and relieves offender -looks backward and abolishes and of consequences of crime. (9) mos. he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal. and convicted by the RTC of the crime of sedition. (Brown vs.728.On 21 May 1986. Should this condition be violated.75. thus -by proclamation of the president a private act which must be pleaded with the concurrence of the and proved by the person pardoned Congress. which were then pending trial before the RTC. he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law." Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement.S.

Petitioner now impugns the validity of the Order of Arrest and Recommitment. . The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon. The governor may withdraw his grace in a certain contingency. . and it is accepted upon those conditions.Tesoro vs. was binding and conclusive upon him. . It is as if the convict. Held: . whenever the governor should conclude that he had violated the conditions of his parole. Issue: WON conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence. substantive. and because the conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded judicial due process in his trial and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned. When he was conditionally pardoned it was a generous exercise by the Chief Executive of his constitutional prerogative. not subject to judicial scrutiny under Sec 64 of the Revised Administrative Code. Director of Prisons. that brought about or resulted in his conviction. with full competency to bind himself in the premises. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. the President cancelled the conditional pardon of the petitioner. 3.On 10 October 1986. As Tesoro had consented to place his liberty on parole upon the judgment of the power that had granted it. an executive order for his arrest and remandment to prison should at once issue. may be either a purely executive act. no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary. and be conclusive upon him.A convict granted conditional pardon. who is recommitted must of course be convicted by final judgment of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent offense(s) ran be imposed upon him." Tesoro had in effect agreed that the GovGen's determination (rather than that of the regular courts of law) that he had breached one of the conditions of his parole by committing adultery while he was conditionally at liberty.The Court reaffirmed the Tesoro and Sales rulings. the respondent Minister of Justice issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and Recommitment against petitioner. 2.Espuelas vs. Because due process is not semper et ubique judicial process. the parolee or convict who is regarded as having violated the provisions thereof must be charged.Sales vs. in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his conditional pardon. . Director of Prisons . had expressly contracted and agreed that. "Due process is not necessarily judicial The appellee had had his day in court and been afforded the opportunity to defend himself during his trial for the crime of inciting to sedition with which he was charged. or it may be a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under Art 159 RPC. and the proper consequences of such breach. Where the President opts to proceed under Section 64 (i) RAC. however erroneous the findings may be upon which his recommitment was ordered. Petitioner also contends that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before he was arrested and recommitted to prison." The status of our case law on the matter under consideration may be summed up in the following propositions: 1. !+'" " . and accordingly claims he has been deprived of his rights under the due process clause of the Constitution. Provincial Warden of Bohol . sentence and confinement in the penitentiary. Sec 64 (i) RAC is not afflicted with a constitutional vice. the Court held that "he [could not] invoke the aid of the courts.It was held that the determination if the parole had been breached rested exclusively in the sound judgment of the GovGen and that such determination would not be reviewed by the courts. . Since Art 159 RPC defines a distinct. .On 8 September 1986. The acceptance thereof by the convict or prisoner carrie[d] with it the authority or power of the Executive to determine whether a condition or conditions of the pardon has or have been violated To no other department of the Government [has] such power been entrusted. The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny. and the governor shall himself determine when that contingency has arisen.. much less conviction therefore by final judgment of a court. He claims that he did not violate his conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by final judgment.The executive clemency is extended upon the conditions named in it. felony. like the petitioner herein.

1995. . and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. tumults and other disturbances of public order. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. Who may avail of amnesty? People vs. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies.In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon. for a period not exceeding sixty days. and 97 (general article) of the Articles of War. committed in furtherance of. within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Jr. inciting to sedition. In case of invasion or rebellion. conspiracy to commit sedition. invasion or rebellion. Section 1 of Proclamation No. when the public safety requires it. Grant of Amnesty. incident to. insurrection. Pardon in administrative cases g. and explosives. whether punishable under the Revised Penal Code or special laws. direct assault. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. was granted amnesty under Proclamation No. The Congress. 94 (various crimes). the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Sec 64 (i) RAC. Decision Petition dismissed f. That the amnesty shall not cover crimes against chastity and other crimes for personal ends. 724 dated May 17. shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. indirect assault.prosecuted and convicted by final judgment before he can be made to suffer the penalty prescribed in Art 159. The President shall be the Commanderin-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary. in pursuit of their political beliefs. 62 (absence without leave). upon a convict who "having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. . shall. 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman). 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 violations of Articles 59 (desertion). Patriarca Accused-appellant Jose N. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Patriarca. The Congress. the Congress may. or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection. on or before June 1. alarms and scandals. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians !+(" " . sedition. disloyalty of public officers or employees. Provided. 347 dated March 25. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. 724 reads thus: "Section 1. 1996.Amnesty is hereby granted to all persons who shall apply therefor and who have or may have committed crimes. Powers as Commander-in-Chief Art. the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed against him under Sec 64 (i) RAC. illegal possession of firearms. ammunitions. coup d'etat. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. illegal association. Upon the initiative of the President. 68 (failure to suppress mutiny or sedition). conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances." 6. convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review. It amended Proclamation No. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. or (ii) to proceed against him under Art 159 RPC. 1994." Here. inciting to rebellion or insurrection. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. if not in session. he may. illegal assembly. resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such person. including but not limited to the following: rebellion or insurrection. may revoke such proclamation or suspension. voting jointly. 67 (mutiny or sedition). in the same manner. VII Section 18. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. or coup d'etat.

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. IBP vs. Zamora Facts: In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, President Estrada ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The IBP filed petition to declare the deployment of the Marines null and void and unconstitutional because no emergency situation obtains in Metro Manila as would justify the deployment of soldiers for law enforcement work, deployment constitutes an insidious incursion by the military in a civilian function of government, and deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military to perform civilian functions of the government. It also makes the military more powerful than what it should really be under the Constitution. Held: 1) The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of standing. It has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. It has not shown any specific injury, which it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned government act. The invocation of its duty to preserve the rule of law is too general and is therefore not sufficient to clothe it with standing. 2) The deployment of the Marines does not violate the civilian supremacy clause. The act constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement or crime prevention. Art VII Sec. 18 – (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. Art II Sec 3 - Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. Art XVI Sec 5 - (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution. !+)"

"

(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity, except to vote. (4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty. Lacson vs. Perez Facts: % Pres. Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the NCR when a an angry mob assaulted and attempted to break into Malacanang % She also issued General Order No. 1 directing the AFP and PNP to suppress the rebellion in the NCR. % Warrantless arrests of several alleged leaders and promoters of the “rebellion” were thereafter effected % Aggrieved by the warrantless arrests, and the declaration of a “state of rebellion,” four petitions were filed (1) G.R. No. 147780 habeas corpus -prohibition, injunction, mandamus, and

- filed by Panfilo Lacson, Michael Aquino, and Cezar Mancao (2) G.R. No. 147781 -mandamus and/or review of the factual basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with TRO - filed by Miriam Santiago

(3) G.R. No. 147799 -prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order -filed by Ronaldo Lumbao (4) G.R. No. 147810 -certiorari and prhobition -filed by Laban in Demokratikong Pilipino

% All the foregoing petitions assail the declaration of a state of rebellion by the Pres. And the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and in law % Later, the Pres. lifted the declaration of a “state of rebellion” % The instant petitions therefore, became moot and academic Issue: WoN the declaration of a “state of rebellion” and the effected warrantless arrests are valid Held: (1) The relief sought after by the petitioners is premature since no complaints or charges have been filed against any of them for any crime. With regards to their prayer that the hold departure orders issued against them be declared null and void ab initio, petitioners are not directly assailing the validity of the subject hold departure orders in their petition. The prayer to set aside the same must be made in proper proceedings initiated for that purpose. The writ of habeas corpus is also not called for since petitioners’ unlawful restraint remains speculative (2) For mandamus, the legal right of the petitioner to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled must be clear and !+*"

"

complete. Petitioner has not shown that she is in imminent danger of being arrested without a warrant (3) Petitioner’s argument that the declaration of a “state of rebellion” is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers, being an encroachment on the domain of the judiciary which has the constitutional prerogative to “determine of interpret” what took place in Malacanang is untenable. The Court cites Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution and its ruling in IBP vs. Zamora (4) The rule requires that a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision but petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself which would justify resort to the Court. Moreover, petitioner is a juridical person and therefore cannot claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest. The petition may be considered as an action for declaratory relief, but the Court has no jurisdiction in the first instance of such petition Decision: DISMISSED!

1. Whether or not the Court can adjudicate cases that are moot 2. Whether or not the President has the power to declare a state of rebellion Held: First Issue: The Court can adjudicate cases that are otherwise moot. As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of “actual controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of repetition yet evading review.” The case at bar is one such case. Once before, the President on May 1, 2001 declared a state of rebellion and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the rebellion through Proclamation No. 38 and General Order No. 1. On that occasion, “‘an angry and violent mob armed with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones and other deadly weapons’ assaulted and attempted to break into Malacañang.” Petitions were filed before this Court assailing the validity of the President’s declaration. Five days after such declaration, however, the President lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v. Perez and accompanying cases precluded this Court from addressing the constitutionality of the declaration. To prevent similar questions from reemerging, we seize this opportunity to finally lay to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion in the exercise of the President’s calling out power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding. Second Issue: The President, as Chief Executive, can declare a state of rebellion. The Constitution does not require the President to declare a state of rebellion to exercise her calling out power grants. Section 18, Article VII grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a “sequence” of “graduated power[s].” From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law. In the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution requires the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or rebellion, and that public safety requires the exercise of such power. However, as we observed in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, “these conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is that ‘whenever it !!+"

Sanlakas vs. Angelo Reyes Facts: On July 27, 2003, some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines stormed into the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati City demanding, among others, the resignation of the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the Philippine National Police. In the wake of the Oakwood occupation, the President issued Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, both declaring “a state of rebellion” and calling out the Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. By the evening of July 27, 2003, the Oakwood occupation had ended. After hourslong negotiation, the soldiers agreed to return to barracks. The President, however, did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion and did only on August 1, 2003 through Proclamation No. 435 “DECLARING THAT THE STATE OF REBELLION HAS CEASED TO EXIST.” This case is a consolidation of the cases filed before the Court that challenge the validity of Proclamation No. 427 and General order No. 4 Issues:

"

upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend. the declaration is deemed not written. and that (3) the Court has no other alternative remedies available. statutory authority for such a declaration may be found in Section 4. the bar. Chapter 2 (Ordinance Power). draws strength from her Commander-in-Chief powers. second. (2) that there can be no instance that the assailed law may be valid. Section 17 of the same Article provides: “He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. our most recent Charter has restricted the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief. President. The Court finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal significance. however. Article VII does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a state of rebellion.” Justice Cortes conducted her study against the backdrop of the 1935 Constitution. – Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest. there is a grave violation of the Constitution. Section 1. early on. which states: SEC. Proclamations. constitutional history is that the Commander-in-Chief powers are broad enough as it is and become more so when taken together with the provision on executive power and the presidential oath of office. Justice Irene R. She noted that. at the same time. [2] The requirement of locus standi which is the right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question shall be set aside by the Court whenever it is shown that the case is of transcendental importance. Codal – Art 8 Sec. with Executive powers. Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: “The executive power shall be vested in the President…. The same. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. as these powers can be exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief only where there is a !!!" " . and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees. Note that the Constitution vests the President not only with Commander-in. as the Solicitor General accurately points out. 4. David vs. The foregoing discussion notwithstanding. in calling out the armed forces. She attributed this distinction to the “unitary and highly centralized” nature of the Philippine government. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved. Macapagal Arroyo [1] Courts will decide cases. invasion or rebellion. “There is no counterpart of the several states of the American union which have reserved powers under the United States constitution. (c) take-over of news media and agencies and press censorship. Book III (Office of the President) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. and fourth. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. [3] Notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the constitutional exercise of the President of his/her calling out of power. it is equally true that Section 18. Perhaps the declaration may wreak emotionaleffects upon the perceived enemies of the State.a] The authority of the President to exercise his calling out power to suppress lawless violence shall not be deemed to include the power to authorize: (a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants. the framers of which. arrived at a general opinion in favor of a strong Executive in the Philippines. The President’s authority to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main from her powers as chief executive and. reeling from the aftermath of martial law. otherwise moot and academic. even on the entire nation. But the Court’s mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences of the declaration. third. the Courts shall have authority to inquire into the sufficiency factual basis of such exercise to determine whether it was within the constitutionally permissible limits or whether grave abuse of discretion attended its exercise. and the public.’ the President may call the armed forces ‘to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The lesson to be learned from the U. Cortes.becomes necessary. 1 on Judicial power [4] Facial invalidation of laws (Overbreadth Doctrine) shall not be resorted to in the absence of clear showing that (1) the law involves the exercise of free speech. proposed that the Philippine President was vested with residual power and that this is even greater than that of the U. a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. the plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the means to address exigencies or threats which undermine the very existence of government or the integrity of the State. cannot be said of the President’s powers as Chief Executive. At most.’” Nevertheless. shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order. For all legal intents. Thus.S. it only gives notice to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces may be called to prevent or suppress it.” As if by exposition. Indeed.Chief powers but. (b) ban on public assemblies. if: first.” Since then.” The provisions trace their history to the Constitution of the United States. In The Philippine Presidency A Study of Executive Power.S. first and foremost. [4.

Hernando DCA Iriberri in behalf of Gen. Senga did not attend to the requested hearing as per instruction from the President that NO AFP PERSONNEL SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATE HEARING WITHOUT HER APPROVAL. Note: The arrest of Randy David and other acts done by the authorities pursuant to the parts of the laws herein considered unconstitutional are also deemed unconstitutional without prejudice to the filing of necessary administrative. 6. of “Joint Task Force Ranao” by the AFP Southern Command. Balutan were likewise !!#" " . Col. 18 [4. but with arbitrariness of the invocation of such power. the extent of judicial review is not concerned with correctness. Balutan attended the invitation from Sen. However. Gudani. Senga. Gen.b] The take care power of the President. Gudani and Col. Gudani vs. Senga Facts: Petitioners Gen. ` While Gen. Sec.” and that the two officers “disobeyed a legal order. Baloing. criminal or civil actions against specific abuses committed by authorities Notes: [a] In this case. Thereafter. Biazon to attend the hearing. Balutan filed their respective requests for travel authority addressed to the PMA Superintendent. the office of Gen. Balutan had been invited to attend the Senate Committee hearing. Codal – Art. the Office of the Chief of Staff of the AFP issued a Memorandum addressed to Gen. laws governing family and property relations.valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Lt . Codal – Art. and Col. Conformably. Gen. Arbitrariness would mean WON there is a sufficient factual basis. Senator Biazon invited several senior officers of the military to appear at a public hearing before a Senate Committee to clarify allegations of massive cheating and the surfacing of copies of an audio excerpt purportedly of a phone conversation between the President and then Commission on Elections Commissioner Garcillano. the Memorandum directed the two officers to attend the hearing. Senga issued a statement which noted that the two had appeared before the Senate Committee “in spite of the fact that a guidance has been given that a Presidential approval should be sought prior to such an appearance. Balutan a member. Gudani and Col. which includes the power to enforce obedience of laws shall not be deemed to include calling the military to enforce or implement certain laws. Gudani and Col. 6. [4. 7.d] The Court shall not declare laws as invalid solely on the basis of their misapplication or abuse or susceptibility to abuse by the people tasked to implement them. Gudani had been designated as commander. and Col. Codal – Art. Sec. Gudani and Col. like Art 6 Sec. [b] Art 12 Sec 17 should be read in relation to other provisions. But only Gen. laws on obligations and contracts and the like. At the time of the 2004 elections. [4. hence they will be subjected to General Court Martial proceedings x x x” Both Gen. Noting that Gen. Sec 17 Note: The ordinance power of the President shall not include the power to make “decrees” with the same force and effect as those issued by President Marcos. Gudani and Lieutenant Colonel Balutan are high-ranking officers of Philippine Marines assigned to the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in Baguio City. Gen. It was signed by Lt.” that such directive was “in keeping with the time[-]honored principle of the Chain of Command. 23 (2) Note: Acts of terrorism no matter how repulsive shall not be deemed to be punishable in the absence of legislation clearly defining said acts and providing specific punishments therefor. Senga were among the several AFP officers also received a letter invitation from Sen. such as customs laws. Biazon.c] In the absence of delegated authority from Congress the authority of the President to declare a state of emergency shall not be deemed to include the power to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Balutan had concluded their testimony. 23. Gen. in violation of A[rticles of] W[ar] 65 (Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer).

Jr. The Office of the Solicitor General notes that the E. De Villa is useful in this regard. the notion of executive control also comes into consideration. that he may not issue any press statements or give any press conference during his period of detention.O.O. Kapunan was ordered confined under “house arrest” by then Chief of Staff (later President) Gen. as commander-in-chief. and that as a consequence a military officer who defies such injunction is liable under military justice. let it be emphasized that the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress does not turn on executive privilege. The commander-in-chief provision in the Constitution is denominated as Section 18.) 464. Petitioners also pray for injunctive relief against a pending preliminary investigation against them. The impression is wrong. in preparation for possible court-martial proceedings. Such authority includes the ability of the President to restrict the travel. Is EO 464 constitutional or not. the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the military officer. 464 which provides among others that NO AFP PERSONNEL SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATE HEARING WITHOUT HER APPROVAL is unconstitutional? Held: The Petition is dismissed. v. but on the Chief Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and speech of members of the armed forces. Again. Article XVI. we also hold that any chamber of Congress which seeks to appear before it a military officer against the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief. Any military official whom Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. “enjoined officials of the executive department including the military establishment from appearing in any legislative inquiry without her approval. Article VII. noting: !!$" " . movement and speech of military officers.O. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute. The Court has to resolve whether petitioners may be subjected to military discipline on account of their defiance of a direct order of the AFP Chief of Staff. as a condition for his house arrest. the President issued Executive Order (E. which begins with the simple declaration that “[t]he President shall be the Commander-inChief of all armed forces of the Philippines x x x Outside explicit constitutional limitations. The ability of the President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing in Congress pertains to wholly different and independent specie of presidential authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. Issue: Whether or not E. Reference to Kapunan. On the very day of the hearing. the commander-inchief powers of the President are not encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executive privilege or executive control. If the President is not so inclined. or may the President prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry? Insofar as E.relieved of their assignments then. The President’s prerogatives as commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in executive privilege. initiated within the military justice system in connection with petitioners’ violation of the aforementioned directive. activities which may otherwise be sanctioned under civilian law. Fidel Ramos. 464 compelled officials of the executive branch to seek prior presidential approval before appearing before Congress. the commander-in-chief clause vests on the President. Kapunan was also ordered.O. By tradition and jurisprudence. The Court unanimously upheld such restrictions. absolute authority over the persons and actions of the members of the armed forces. petitioners seek the annulment of a directive from the President enjoining them and other military officers from testifying before Congress without the President’s consent. Col. Lt. At the same time. such as those found in Section 5. We hold that the President has constitutional authority to do so. Now.

Section 21. If the information possessed by executive officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation on that subject. the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry. attendance or non-attendance in legislative inquiries. After all. an officer in the AFP. who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Hence. Section 21 also mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries be respected. To avoid conflict. The provision requires that the inquiry be done in accordance with the Senate or House’s duly published rules of procedure. it is ruinous to military discipline to foment an atmosphere that promotes an active dislike of or dissent against the President. Judicial relief as remedy: The refusal of the President to allow members of the military to appear before Congress is not absolute. individual rights may be curtailed.” is grounded on the necessity of information in the legislative process. and a military torn by political strife is incapable of fulfilling its constitutional function as protectors of the people and of the State. It elucidated on the constitutional scope and limitations on the constitutional power of congressional inquiry. It may thus be subjected to judicial review pursuant to the Court’s certiorari powers under Section 1. Thus. Article VIII of the Constitution. or to any person for that matter. lawful orders must be followed without question and rules must be faithfully complied with. In Senate. the exigencies of military discipline and the chain of command mandate that the President’s ability to control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost respect. Inasmuch as it is ill-advised for Congress to interfere with the President’s power as commander-in-chief. It is only the courts that can compel. the Court ruled that the President could not impose a blanket prohibition barring executive officials from testifying before Congress without the President’s consent notwithstanding the invocation of executive privilege to justify such prohibition. yet it is vital that such opinions be kept out of the public eye. For there is no constitutional provision or military indoctrination will eliminate a soldier’s ability to form a personal political opinion. Article VI likewise establishes critical safeguards that proscribe the legislative power of inquiry. Again. an imposition that obligates Congress to adhere to the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. it is similarly detrimental for the President to unduly interfere with Congress’s right to conduct legislative inquiries. the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Even petitioners are well aware that it was necessary for them to obtain permission from their superiors before they could travel to Manila to attend the Senate Hearing. Congress has the right to that information and the power to compel the disclosure thereof. For another. and not the Senate. the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. necessarily implying the constitutional infirmity of an inquiry conducted without duly published rules of procedure.“… to a certain degree. Senate affirmed both the Arnault and Bengzon rulings. it is integral to military discipline that the soldier’s speech be with the consent and approval of the military commander. The remedy lies with the courts. yet it is on the President that the Constitution vests the title as commander-in-chief and all the prerogatives and functions appertaining to the position. The impasse did not come to pass in this petition. by parity of reasoning. For one. It is from this viewpoint that the restrictions imposed on petitioner Kapunan. Congress must indicate in its invitations to the public officials concerned. Soldiers are constitutionally obliged to obey a President they may dislike or distrust. political belief is a potential source of discord among people. Should neither branch yield to the other branch’s assertion. “with process to enforce it. irrespective of a soldier's personal views on the matter.” As a general rule. Congress holds significant control over the armed forces in matters such as budget appropriations and the approval of higher-rank promotions. since petitioners testified anyway despite the presidential prohibition. the power of inquiry. with conclusiveness. the Constitution prescribes that it is the President. !!%" " . because the effectiveness of the military in fulfilling its duties under the law depends to a large extent on the maintenance of discipline within its ranks. the constitutional recourse is to the courts. The necessity of upholding the ability to restrain speech becomes even more imperative if the soldier desires to speak freely on political matters. have to be considered. Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate. as the final arbiter if the dispute.

must be temporary. an officer whose name was dropped from the roll of officers cannot be considered to be outside the jurisdiction of military authorities when military justice proceedings were initiated against him before the termination of his service.Courts are empowered. 408. as a taxpayer. Both officials refused to issue the required export license because it is prohibited by the EO. 7.” and points out that he is no longer in the active service. L-2044 and L-2756: Involved is Executive Order No. Guerrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Administrator of the Sugar Quota Office and the Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes by the petitioner. the Congress may. Leon Ma. !!&" " . Araneta is under prosecution in the CFI of Manila for violation of the provisions and prays for the issuance of the writ of prohibition to the judge and the city fiscal L-3055: Involved is EO No. By this and. as a citizen. L-3056: Involved is EO No. among others. by law. and for other purposes. Petitioner Antonio Barredo. 62. and voter asks the SC to prevent respondents from disbursing the amount or part of it Issue: Whether Commonwealth Act 671 has ceased to have any force or effect when the Executive Orders were passed Held: ! Article VI of the Constitution provides that any law [assed by virtue thereof should be for a “limited period. considering his retirement last 4 October 2005. Dinglasan Facts: ! The petitions challenege the validity of the executive orders of President Quezon avowedly issued by virtue of Commonwealth Act. to authorize the appearance of the military officers before Congress. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress. to arbitrate disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government on the proper constitutional parameters of power. etc. General Gudani argues that he can no longer fall within the jurisdiction of the court-martial.” “limited” having been defined as “restricted. the Chief Executive is nonetheless obliged to comply with the final orders of the courts. taxpayer. In times of war or other national emergency. 192. He cites Article 2. which appropriates funds for the operation of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines during the period from 01 July 1949 to 30 June 1950.” The words “limited period” as used in the Constitution are beyond question intended to mean restrictive in duration. However. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. authorize the President. under the constitutional principle of judicial review. which appropriates P6. Araneta vs. for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. Lastly. as commander-in-chief. L-3054: Relates to EO No. applies for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Treasurer of the Philippines from disbursing money under this EO. or “it cannot be said to be an emergrny” (First trust Joint Stock Land Bank of Chicago v. Petitioner J. and president of the Nacionalista Party. 226. Emergency powers Article VI Section 23(2). Once jurisdiction has been acquired over the officer. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Title I of Commonwealth Act No. “all officers and soldiers in the active service of the [AFP]. Even if the President has earlier disagreed with the notion of officers appearing before the legislature to testify. it continues until his case is terminated.000. 671. entitled “An Act Declaring A State of Total Emergency As A Result of War Involving the Philippines and Authorizing the ! ! ! ! President to Promulgate Rules and Regulations to Meet Such Emergency” & An act that grants emergency powers to the President Cases No. the holding of national elections to be held in November 1949. elector. if the courts so rule. Petitioner Eulogio Rodriguez. 225. which defines persons subject to military law as. the duty falls on the shoulders of the President. in order to justify the delegation of the powers. prescribed. and incidental to. which aims to control exports from the Philippines. bounded. No. which regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings. Emergency.000 to defray the expenses in connection with.

and the EOs being questioned were issued without the authority of the law.! ! ! ! ! ! Adolph). Power over foreign affairs a. within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. Otherwise. in the face of express provision for the repeal of rules and regulations issued in pursuance of it. was also taken into consideration. This case involved a Russian metal works company which had deposited money in an American bank prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917. there should be the premise that it fixed a definite. There is the presumption that Commonwealth Act 671 has been written with that limitation in view. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Soviet Union nationalized the company and attempted to reclaim its assets with the help of the United States. limited period. Hence. President Quezon’s autobiography also partly answered the contemplated period. Article XII. No. as soon as practicable upon the convning of the National Assembly. to report all the rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers granted by the Act The autobiography (“The Good Fight”) of President Quezon. 9. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Even if the emergency power of the Executive is suspended while Congress is in session. These denote that a new legislation is necessary to keep the law alive after its expiration. it would be repugnant to the Constitution. Section 3 provides that the President. The bank refused to cooperate. The silence of the law regarding the repeal of the authority itself. There is good basis in the language of Act. Issue: !!'" " . Recognition of foreign states US vs. Section 21. He says that the Act was made effective when it was obvious that because of the attacks. the anomaly would not be eliminated. 8. 671 for the inference that the National Assembly restricted the life of the emergency powers of the President to the time the Legislature was prevented from holding sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by the war. and containing other matters as may be provided by law. who recommended the enactment of Act No. the National Assembly could not have met To uphold the constitutionality of the act on the basis of duration. 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. He says that the Act was only for “a certain period” and “would become invalid unless reenacted. Ruling Petitions GRANTED. citing protection of a New York law. a clear manifestation of the belief held by the National Assembly that there was no necessity to provide for the former Another anomaly if the Commonwealth Act continued to be effective is that there would be two legislative bodies operating. Contracting and Guaranteeing Foreign Loans Article VII Section 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. Belmont Facts: In 1933. Court opines that the Act became inoperative when Congress met on regular session on 25 May 1946. The Monetary Board shall.” The court held that these phrases connote automatic extinction of the law upon the conclusion of a certain period. the United States established formal diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public. 671 and who was entrusted for its execution.

but nonetheless overrode state statutes." he reasoned. 89-08-01 under which applications to the PITC for importation from the People’s Republic of China must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products to PROC carried out by the importer himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer in an amount to the value of the importation from PROC being applied for (meaning 1:1 ratio). unconstitutional. both domestic corporations. RTC: - Other historical facts (supervening events): . Says that the subject AP and other similar issuances by the PITC suffer from serious constitutional infirmity. President is the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Pimentel. the court cannot compel the Executive branch by means of mandamus because it is beyond its jurisdiction. provides a limitation to such power to ratify by vesting in the Senate. As chief architect of foreign policy. President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. Granted authority after satisfying the requirements However. 133. 21 of 1987 Consti. acceptance and approval of the signatory states. Even though the diplomatic agreements had not been implemented as formal treaties with Senate approval. The Constitution. the external powers of the United States are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies. they did empower the United States to seek assets on the Soviet Union's behalf. however. files a petition for mandamus claiming that the ratification of a treaty (under domestic and international law) is a function of the Senate. individually applied for authority to import to PROC with the petitioner. Issue: WON the ExecSec and DFA have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute. however. the Executive Dept. The duty being in the province of the President’s official duties. hence. Says also that none of the trade protocols (1989-1991) has expressly or impliedly empowered the PITC to formulate or promulgate the assailed AO. ratification is under his/her authority. the import applications were withheld by petitioner when the private respondents failed to comply with their undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the value of their importations. as senator. Private respondents Remington and Firestone. Angeles Facts PITC issued AO No. has a duty to transmit the signed statute to the Senate for ratification. He !!(" " . Conduct of foreign relations Pimentel v. required that it be subject to ratification.Did the diplomatic agreements between the two countries compel the bank to release the assets? Held: Yes.FVR entered into a new trade agreement between RP and PROC encouraging liberalization of trade between the two countries. having been promulgated in pursuance of an international agreement (MOA between RP and PROC) which has not been concurred in by at least 2/3 of all members of the Senate pursuant to Sc. In the realm of treaty making. PITC vs. Held: No. Executive Secretary Facts: The Rome Statute was signed by the Philippines through the DFA. Private respondents assert that the AO is an undue restriction of trade and hence. "Plainly. PITC’s authority to approve and process applications for imports from SOCPEC and to issue rules and regulations pursuant to LOI 444 and PD 1071 has already been repealed by EO No. the power to concur with the President’s decision. b. It does not the agency delegated to ratify but the agency to concur or not with said decision. Justice Sutherland argued for a unanimous Court that different kinds of treaties existed which did not require Senate approval. Its’ provisions.

!!)" " . It shall act as a catalyst for intensified private sector activity in order to accelerate economic growth. o o o o Issue: 1. SC: PITC still has the authority to issue the AO. Allegedly in line with the powers under LOI 444 and in keeping with the o o o o o MOU and Trade Protocols with PROC that PITC issued the assailed AO. EO 133 was issued with the intent to reorganize the DTI and cope with streamlined bureaucracy. . These bodies have more expertise in their fields. Decision: No. o wherein the two countries agreed to make joint efforts within the next five years to expand bilateral trade and to strive for a steady progress towards achieving a balance between the value of their imports and exports during that period. the general repealing clause in EO 133 cannot operate because there is no irreconcilable inconsistency between the two issuances. It rearranges that administrative functions but it is not an abolition of executive power. Also.- - directed that DTI and the PITC to cease implementing AO No. RP and PROC entered into a Trade Protocol for 1989. Cites EO No. PITC was attached as an integral part of DTI as one of its line agencies. 2. It was given the focal task of implementing the department’s programs. 1. Contention of petitioners: Trade protocol did not bestow power to PITC to issue such AO. Yulo issued a corporate memorandum instructing that all import applications for the PROC filed with the PITC as of April 20. 2. o LOI 444 issued by Marcos directed that trade between the Philippines and other Centrally Planned Economy Countries shall be coursed through the PITC. PITC still holds such authbority to issue that assailed AO. SC: Trade Protocols are only the enumeration of the products and goods which the signatory countries have agreed to trade. No real inconsistency between LOI 444 and EO 133.the grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative bodies is NOT unconstitutional. Remington expressed its desire to have the present action declared moot and academic. EO 133 established DTI which is the primary coordinative arm of the government for the country’s trade. as an implementing arm of DTI. 8908-01. PITC – government owned or controlled corporation created under PD No. the AO was not published in the Official Gazette. 244. Was the authority of the PITC to issued the assailed AO and similar issuances repealed by EO 133? NO. Aquino in issuing EO 133 is empowered to modify and amend the provisions of LOI 444. No indication in the law (EO 133) of the removal of the powers of the PITC to exercise regulatory functions. This des not mean that t has lost the authority to issue the questioned AO. . PITC Pres. Do not bestow regulatory power. In promulgating EO 133 the president did not intend to overhaul the functions of PITC. EO 133 is silent about it. Firestone issued a Manifestation informing the court of the developments of the new trade program. o Conformably with the MOU.5% Counter Export Development service. The AO is not valid. Is the obligation still subsisting or are the respondents freed from it? No longer subsisting. 1993 shall no longer be covered by the trade balancing programs. 252. 90 and 91 which specified the commodities to be traded between them. Pres.However. PITC disagrees with the contention that it has become moot and academic because Remington has incurred obligations to the petitioner consisting of charges for the 0. Private respondents allowed to import anew from the PROC. 3. Is the AO valid? NO.

or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA. Honasan.) . 1947 – The Philippines and USA forged a Military Bases Agreement. WON the petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens. Jaworski. WON the Supreme Court will be deprived of its jurisdiction over offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher. Cooperation and Security. Treaty-making Article VII Section 21.This is a consolidation of 5 petitions assailing the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement. . WON the VFA is governed by the provisions of Sec 21. Coseteng. Magsaysay Jr. (Goodbye… but Mutual Defense Treaty still in effect. even before FVR lifted the trade balancing measures. Aquino-Oreta. Drilon. among others. 4. Legarda-Leviste. or facilities not allowed in the Phils except under a treaty duly concurred in by Senate. 2.October 5. the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory. ratified VFA. Sotto. Issues: 1. 1998 – President Estrada. WON VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine sovereignty. Petitioner required to approve all pending applications free from the requirement prescribed in the issuances. after a series of conferences and negotiations. and when Congress requires. 18. 1951 – The Philippines and USA entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty. troops.March 14. It also defines the rights of the US and the Phil government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction. Under the treaty. Article VII (concurrence of 2/3 of the members of the Senate) or Sec 25 Art XVIII of the Constitution (foreign military bases. Pimentel. (Trivia: Si Prof Te ang counsel para sa ibang petitioners) . .August 30. b.RP-US Military Base Agreement expired. . ratification by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum. the use of installations in the Philippine territory by US military personnel. armed forces. Executive Agreements Bayan vs. Roco. Who rejected: Guingona. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State) 3. Petitioner cannot further charge the petitioners of the service fee 2. 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. petitioner cannot implement the provisions of AO No 89-08-01 3. 1999. Osmeña. Flavier. it was never legally effective and private respondents could not be made subject to them. Held: Judgment AFFIRMED in favor of the respondents with the following modifications: 1. Senate rejected proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship. formalizing. Osmeña III. Revilla.1991. public vessels and aircraft. concurring with the ratification of the VFA.May 27. Also the AO is an unnecessary barrier to trade. Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President. Settlement of disputes with foreign powers d. Total=5) . Obligation no longer subsisting. Biazon. Tatad. The amendments filed at the UP Law Center and published in the ONAR do not cure such defect. (Who concurred: Fernan. Ople.- Thus. importation and exportation of equipment. Executive Secretary Facts: . e. 3. 1998 – President Ramos approved Visiting Forces Agreement.The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating circumstances and conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. movement of vessel and aircraft. materials and supplies. c.Senate passed Resolution No. through Secretary of Foreign affairs. . Total=17. The VFA is an agreement which defines treatment of US troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. WON the Philippine Courts will be deprived of their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed by the US Military personnel. a. Ponce-Enrile. and of the Senate in ratifying/concurring with the VFA? !!*" " . Cayetano. Defensor-Santiago. taxpayers.February 10. Barbers.

We treat VFA as a treaty. as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.5. Article 26 of the Convention: pacta sunt servanda. so the Court brushes aside procedural barriers and takes cognizance of the petitions. c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State (US).Were the requirements of Section 25 Art XVIII complied with? Section 25 Art XVIII requires the following conditions: a) it must be under a treaty. but the ponente didn’t really discuss an answer WON the VFA is an abdication of sovereignty. so the VFA is covered by this provision). Section 25 Article XVIII applies as it specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases. .A ‘treaty’. Section 21 Article VII find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate (Sec 21 Art VII requires 2/3 of the members of the Senate. No (and Yes). It is of TRANSCENDENTAL importance. 3. it can just be an agreement covering only troops – not bases—like the VFA. . Ambassador Hubbard’s letter states that the VFA is binding on the US gov’t and that in international legal terms such agreement is a ‘treaty’. 17 of 23 Senators concurred (Senator Gloria Arroyo was elected VP). in the lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic powers granted by the Constitution. Requirement of ratification in a national referendum unnecessary since Congress has not required it.As to the power to concur with treaties.. Section 25 Article XVIII makes no distinction whether the troops or facilities will be “transient” or “permanent”. whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum.-Complied with. We cannot readily plead the Constitution as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with our obligations.Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Law Commision 1949 provides that every state has a duty to carry out in good faith its obligations. and of the Senate in ratifying/concurring with the VFA? No. there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned. oh well… here goes…) . Was there grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President. 4. petitioner-legislators do not possess the requisite locus standi as there is absence of clear showing of any direct injury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. petitioners have NO legal standing as there are no public funds raised by taxation in the case. Sec 8 Article II (prohibition against nuclear weapons).In international law. Also. Held: 1.With the ratification of the VFA. or. It is governed by BOTH provisions. Thus once the Senate performs that power. Also. duties and responsibilities under international law. troops. The negotiation of the VFA and the ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts of the the President. (The ‘or’ is important to take note as it signifies independence of one thing from the others. is an “international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by the international law. WON the VFA violates Sec 1 Article III (equal protection clause).” . and so required by the Congress. . -. As a member of the family of nations. subject only to the concurrence of the members of Senate. or exercises its prerogative within the boundaries prescribed by the !#+" " . the issues raised in the petitions are of paramount importance and of constitutional significance. it becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part to be bound by the terms of the agreement. -. when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despostic manner. . as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate. As taxpayers.The Constitution vests the power to enter into treaties or International agreements in the President. . the Philippines agrees to be bound by generally accepted rules for the conduct of its international relations. Section 2 Article II of the Constitution declares that the “xxx Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land xxx” (this doesn’t really answer the issue above. the Constitution lodges the same with the Senate alone. Thus. while Sec 25 Art XVIII just says “duly concurred in by the Senate” with no specified number).Complied with. and Sec 28(4) Article VI (taxation) of the 1987 Constitution. HOWEVER. 2. On the other hand.Complied with. or facilities. .

Cruz. 3 dissenting. Manila. that a criminal conviction is necessary. Misericordia Street. that under section 37(3) of the law before an alien may be deported for having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more for a crime involving moral turpitude. f. • The dictum mentioned doesn’t apply to this case because in that case. a conviction is necessary. Cruz. and that they had jurisdiction over the case. Its ratio decidendi was about the provision of EO 398 (which stated that the Board may issue a !#!" " . Manila. the deportation proceeding was premature. He was one of those who were arrested at the believed headquarters of said unit at 1439 O’Donnel Street.” Therefore. 1 take no part.” • Go Tek filed a prohibition action and on 8 July 1964. Arturo Alafriz and Manuel Reyes) denied said motion because a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite in order for the State to exercise right to deport an undesirable alien and that the Board is only a “fact-finding body whose function is to make a report and recommendation to the President in whom is lodged the exclusive power to deport an alien or dismiss a deportation proceeding.” The Board appealed because the decision was said to be contrary to law. Writ dissolved. the aliens were charged with economic sabotage which is a ground for deportation under RA 503. • Go Tek filed a motion to dismiss. The charge wasn’t premature. as he was the sector commander and intelligence and record officer of a guerilla unit of the “Emergency Intelligence SAection. and that since Go Tek had not been convicted of the offense punished in article 168. Sta. Deportation Board. • The Board (composed of Manuel Concordia. Case remanded to Board for further proceedings.Constitution. It said that according to the dictum mentioned. “mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law. therefore he had violated RPC Article 168. Isabela and 1208-B. the concurrence cannot be viewed to constitute an abuse of power. ordering the Board to desist from taking cognizance of the complaint against Go Tek. Army of the United States”. obiter dictum said that the President may only deport aliens on the grounds specified in the law. He also contended that the Board had no jurisdiction to try his case as in the case of Qua Chee Gan vs. the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Go Tek for the illegal possession of fake dollar checks and his alleged guerilla activities even though he hadn’t been convicted and that it isn’t among the grounds for deportation in Immigration Law. Does the Board have jurisdiction over the case? YES Does the case of Qua Chee Gan apply in this case? NO Is criminal conviction necessary for deportation? NO Can the President deport undesirable aliens only on the grounds enumerated by the law? NO Issues: • • • • Held and Ratio: Decision reversed and set aside. that the court erred in assuming that the President could only deport on the grounds enumerated by law and that mere possession of forged dollar checks is not a ground for deportation. Deportation Board Facts: • Go Tek is a Chinaman residing at Ilagan. He said the complaint was premature because he already had a case pending in city fiscal’s office of Manila for violation of said article in RPC. Sta. the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the board from hearing the case. The trial court also granted the writ of prohibition • in its decision on 31 October 1964. It was also alleged that fake dollar checks were found on him. A deportation case was filed against him on 3 March 1964 because he was allegedly an undesirable alien. • The Deportation Board actually is an agency of the President “charged with the investigation of undesirable aliens and to report and recommend proper action on the basis of its findings therein. Decision Petitions Dismissed 11 concurring. Deportation of undesirable aliens Go Tek vs.

Power over Legislation (see President’s Veto Power under Legislative Process) 11. Jurisprudence states that deportation should not be dependent on criminal conviction: “it was held that the fact that an alien has been acquitted in a criminal proceeding of the particular charge does not prevent the deportation of such alien based on the same charge. J. 10. Petitioner is claiming that the said provision is “not clear” as to whom it refers (whether it refers to incumbent President Aquino and VP Laurel. and may be deported upon warrant of the CoI.” Sec 69 and EO 398 reorganized the Deportation Board but it did not specify grounds for deportation.” Antonio. Person in question has at least 3 days to come up with defense and has the right to be heard. Immunity from Suits The President may not be sued during his tenure although there is no express provision in the 1987 Constitution. “he may. as disclosed in an investigation conducted in accordance with aliens… No other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted… It should be borne in mind that the decision of the Deportation Board is merely recommendatory. The Chief Executive has to approve the board’s recommendation. This is to assure he exercises his duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction. “It is fundamental that an executive order for deportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a criminal case. 1986 elections. after due investigation. pursuant to Sec 69 RAC. It also said that the aliens may be arrested upon issuance of a warrant issued by the Commissioner of Immigration or an agent assigned by him. Sec 37 of IL enumerated 13 classes of aliens that may be deported. Nevertheless. concurs – full discretion is lodged in the Chief Executive to determine WON an alien’s residence in the country is injurious to national security. or elected President Marcos and VP Tolentino) ruling/doctrine: The petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent President of the Republic (Aquino). filing a petition for declaratory relief regarding the first paragraph of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution. even in the absence of express law.• • • • • warrant upon formally filing a complaint against a person) being unconstitutional because in the 1935 Constitution. “It has been held that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens. The legitimacy of Aquino’s government has already been resolved in previous cases. Petitioner’s allegation of ambiguity or vagueness is gratuitous. and interest. Such acquittal does not constitute res judicata in the deportation proceedings. and by the Commissioner of Immigration. The President has the power to deport undesirable aliens “when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation. and it is equally elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during of their incumbency and tenure. because it is obvious that the provision refers to Aquino and Laurel. Conviction of a crime is not necessary to warrant deportation. Under the existing law. etc. 7. the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected: by order of the President.can only be invoked and waived by the President himself In Re: Bermudez facts: Petitioner is a lawyer.” … “The right of a country to deport aliens because of their continued presence is detrimental to public welfare is absolute and unqualified. Abuses or harassments committed by the prosecutor or by the Board should first be brought to his attention. Beltran vs. if the Chief Executive finds that there are aliens whose presence in the country is injurious to the public interest. deport them. . upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners under Sec 37 of the Immigration Law. Makasiar !##" " . welfare. This provision is about the term of the incumbent President and VP elected in the Feb. Petition was dismissed. Sec 69 of RAC states that the Governor General may deport. only judges had the power to determine probably cause to issue warrants.” According to Justice Johnson. expel or exclude from said Islands or repatriate to his own country upon prior investigation conducted by the Executive or his authorized agent and recommendation of said action.

4)Discussion in closed-door cabinet meetings 5)Matters affecting national security and public order !#$" " . as witness for the prosecution and effectively negating the purpose of immunity from suit. Petitioner informed the court that he is going to file a motion to dismiss on grounds of Presidential immunity. “executive privilege” means the inherent power of the President to withhold certain types of info from the Courts. The court never suggested that the President or any other official has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity. she can do what she wants. Executive Privilege In the Philippine setting.Facts: A consolidation of three cases. the managing editor and business manager for libel. Nixon v Fitzgerald Facts: Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as management analyst with the department of the air force. she alleged that Clinton made sexual advances to her. reason: in the absence of immunity. Fitzgerald filed a suit for damages with the US district Court Ruling/doctrine: the Court recognized that government officials are entitled to some form of immunity from suits for civil damages. From EO 464: 1)Conversations and correspondence between the Pres and the public official concerned 2)Military. Following the decision. wherein the President (Aquino) is asking for the prosecution of a newspaper columnist. so in this case. The private respondent was a former employee of Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. The petitions were dismissed. Ruling/doctrine: There is no law that prevents the President from waiving this priviledge. executive officials would hesitate to exercise their discretion in a way injuriously affecting the claims of particular individuals. His discharge attracted unusual attention in the congress and the press. Also. she (Aquino) cannot file the case against him because by doing so. diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged. the President would have to appear in court sooner or later. this priviledge can only be invoked by the holder of the office. The court holds that petitioner. Ruling/doctrine: As explained in Fitzgerald. civil service commission decided on the case: dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations – motivated by reasons purely personal towards the respondent. rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by history o president’s unique status under the constitution distinguishes him from other executive officials o in view of visibility of his office and the effect t of his actions on countless people. 3)Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and exec agreements. from Congress and from the public. the complainant cannot use it as a defense. During a conference.occurred in the context of a departmental reorganization and reduction in force in which his job was eliminated. He asked the court to defer the proceedings. Immunities are grounded on the nature of the functions performed. as a former president of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts o functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office. publisher and chairman of the editorial board. not the identity of the actor who performed it. the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purpose which is the conduct of the President related to his official capacity of duty. the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damagesabsolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office o it clearly is within the president’s constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe the manner in which the secretary will conduct the business of the air force constitutional remedy from immunity of suits: impeachment Clinton v Jones Facts: The petitioner was the sitting Governor of Arkansas at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Beltran (one of the petitioners) argues that since the President has immunity from suit. 12.

claim of executive privilege is properly invoked by Neri applying the three elements in the case 1. he can run for reelection provided he served for not more than four years. he must take an oath or affirmation. . bribery. Increases will only take effect after his term.laid down the three elements of presidential communications privilege: 1. presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need such that the information sought likely contains important evidence and unavailability of the information elsewhere .Before he enters into the execution of his office. Executive privilege must be invoked after the question is asked by the legislative committee. In proceedings. he cannot receive any emolument from anywhere. other high crimes or betrayal of public trust ) Right of succession and membership in the cabinet . protected communication must be quintessential and non-delegable presidential power 2.Should there be a vacancy in the VP. being a member of the President’s cabinet 3. to be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses voting separately.) . graft and corruption. and to promote public interest Information covered by executive privilege remains confidential even after the expiry of the terms of office of the President. but based on a legitimate need to protect the President’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.His salary is determined by law and cannot be decreased during his tenure. same term. He can serve as President temporarily should there be a vacancy before the term starts ( failure to qualify) !#%" " . Neri is considered a close advisor.Elected to a term of 6 years.IF a VP steps into the Presidency. not before.He is removed from office through impeachment ( culpable violation of the Constitution. . Neri v Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Facts: Neri invoked executive privilege in refusing to answer the three questions. alleged that his non-appearance at the hearing was upon President’s order. Also. It must also be stated with sufficient particularity to enable the Congress or the court to determine its legitimacy. Essentially the same as the President. same process of removal from office) but does not exercise any substantial functions ( unless appointed to the cabinet or given an executive function ) His appointment to a cabinet position does not require confirmation. communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by an advisor in operational proximity with the president 3. the Congress can break the tie through a majority vote (houses vote separately) . ( the general rule is that a President cannot run for reelection. and his conversations with the president on NBN project were covered by the privilege being about national security and diplomatic matters.He takes over the Presidency when the latter dies or is permanently disabled. . All contests relating to the election of the President and VP are solely judged by the Supreme Court. the President shall nominate a VP from the Senate and HoR. commencing 12 noon on the 30th day of June. Jurisprudence 2. or resigns or is removed from office.The Congress serves as the board of canvassers for the Presidential and VP elections. (also the Presidency). en banc. ( Same qualifications.In the event that there is a tie in the elections for VP. He can only serve for one term. The VP can serve for a maximum of 2 successive terms. authority of the President to enter into executive agreement is recognized in Phil. (Art VII Sec 5) . . to uphold separation of powers. . treason. No adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of information 2. The Vice President AKA the “President in reserve”. Ruling/doctrine: .Privilege is strongest when used not out of a personal desire to avoid culpability. Cabinet members and presidential advisers.

and then went home to Polk Street in Greenhills. Webb and Tanada and Arroyo sued as members of Congress as well. 1. left Malacañang Palace through the back door at the Pasig River. VII. executive enforces or appoints agents charged with the duty of enforcing the law created by the legislative. The original President can reclaim his position by submitting to the same parties a written declaration to the contrary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the other. the legislature cannot exercise judicial or executive functions. execution to the executive. Petitioners opposed many !#&" " . By an amended act. Estrada v Arroyo Facts: Erap resigned. Malacanang gave the go-ahead. Unless otherwise provided by law. The court ruled that the resignation of Estrada was implied. and that his temporary incapacity to act is a political question in which the court had no jurisdiction to rule upon. settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Petitioners went to coaurt as the contract of lease was against the PCSO charter. ( Art VII Sec 11) -He can be appointed as a member of the cabinet. Separation of powers a. the Congress shall decide the issue. Petitioners were then voted in the National Coal Company and the National Bank according to the amendments stated above. Respondents claim that the election of the directors and managing agents is an executive function of the GovGeneral. Despite much opposition. This can also be done by a majority of the cabinet members. power was moved exclusively to the Board of Control composed of the Governor-General. IF within 5 days. Distribution and Separation of Powers Basically means that legislation belongs to Congress. KILOSBAYAN sued as taxpayers and citizens.The petitioner filed a Motion for reconsideration regarding an earlier case. Control over all departments Kilosbayan v Guingona Facts: PCSO partnered with PGMC to create an online lottery system. 3. System of Checks and Balances None of the departments are able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments. but the separation is not total. President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives National Bank: By the original act. Government v Springer Facts: National Coal Company: Voting power of all such stock owned by the government of the Philippines shall be vested in a committee consisting of the Governor. and at that time congress was not in session and had no opportunity to act a priori. Legislature creates laws.General a. a majority of the cabinet submits a written declaration of the President’s inability. the legislature cannot take part in it. Ruling/doctrine: Congress can decide whether the president has resigned or not. and such appointment does not require confirmation. 4. where he contended that he didn’t resign from his post. and that he was ONLY temporarily unable to act as president at that time. The powers exercised by the legislative were powers of the Governor. Ruling/Doctrine: Court holds that the voting of stock is executive power.. All the departments are forever separate and distinct 2. went to San Juan City Hall.General. There is nothing in the constitution which states that congress can’t decide on the president’s inability to act after the fact.Vice President discharges the powers of the President should the latter submit to the Senate President and House Speaker a written declaration of inability. the voting power of the government owned stock was vested exclusively in the GovernorGeneral. This is to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and prevent concentration of power in one department at the risk of inefficiency and gridlock. President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. and the court can’t decide on the matter of the proclamation of congress on the grounds that it is a political question.

It is not within the power of the Philippine Legislature to enact laws which either expressly or impliedly diminish the authority conferred by an Act of Congress on the Chief Executive and a branch of the Legislature. or appointment by lot/chance. hence it shall continue in force. PCSO cannot share its franchise or transfer it. Under the Rules of Court. However. This became law without the signature of the President. Instead of overriding it. Judges are normally appointed for specific offices. or are removed thorough impeachment proceedings. A. particularly its violation of the PCSO charter (RA 1169. 70 in 1948. There was paramount public interest. Ruling/doctrine: The candidates that are going to be admitted pursuant to the RA are inadequately prepared to study law. The Constitution has not conferred on the Congress and the Court equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. the required general average is 75%. which embodies substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. the RA should be applied to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not. definite districts. Legislative Intrusion into Executive Domain Concepcion v Paredes Facts: RA 2941 : Raffling off of judges to disricts.provisions in the contract of lease. The provisions betray its intent. the Congress approved a different Senate Bill. It obliges the Court to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner. If they are admitted to the bar. *Judicial lottery. B. and the validity of Act 2941 Ruling/doctrine: Organic Act specifically prescribes that the judges of the courts of first instance shall be appointed by the Governor-General. the part in article 1 referring to examinations of 1953 to 1955 lacks 8 votes to be declared null. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking this provision. 972 or the “Bar Flunkers” Act of 1953. alter and supplement the said rules. suspension. It reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70% effective since 1946. The Congress can only repeal. All CFI judges were called to Manila by Paredes to participate in a “drawing of lots” for judicial districts. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion. reach the age of retirement. The admission. is not appointment with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate. until they either resign. and 74 in 1949). It became RA no. amended by BP Blg 42) which grants it the authority to conduct lotteries etc. depriving the Court to determine if they are prepared to become members of the Bar. However. and thus the case was decided. 671 It granted President Quezon the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to meet the needs of the state of emergency as a result of war !#'" " . 69 in 1947. Collaboration: acts of working together. Ruling/Doctrine: Only a court order can stop Malacanang (the executive) from proceeding. It is at the least a joint venture. by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate. Senate Bill no. Some members of the Bar challenged this. It decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates. This is an encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the SC. the court passed candidates that got a lower GA (72 in 1948.§ After its approval. 12 was passed. The President vetoed it. Executive Intrusion into Legislative Domain Araneta v Dinglasan Facts: National Assembly enacted Act No. *Intention of law is to recognize separate and distinct judicial offices. C. Legislative Intrusion into Judicial Domain In Re Cunanan Facts: Bar exam.

Trial Court: “…Meaning to be given the cited PDs should be that the rules therein enumerated are intended merely to provide guidelines for the courts as they go about their functions of determining just compensation. The President (TRUMAN) referred the parties to the Wage Stabilization Board for resolution. ( The Korean War was going on. ordered the seizure of the steel mills (Exec Order 10340) to ensure the continuous production of steel. it is legislative and is not a function of the executive. Ruling/Doctrine: The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. it does.” Congress provided for the repeal of the rules but not the authority meaning they knew that Act 671 was made to be limited c. Section 3 of Act 671 said that the President will report his rules in a meeting. So Act 671 was not made to last long e. The executive or legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of Const’l rights that private property may not be taken for public use w/o just compensation. v Sawyer Facts: Wage negotiations between U. EO 62. It did not say meetings. A strike was announced. Section 4 of Act 671 provides that “rules and regulations shall effect unless the Congress otherwise provides. who recommended wage increases.Sec. Act 671 became inoperative when Congress was actually able to hold its regular session on May 25. Stated public purpose of expropriation: expansion of the Dasmarinas Resettlement Project to accommodate the squatters who were relocated from the Metropolitan Manila area Case is about failure of parties to reach an agreement on the market value of the lands in question. fearing that this would halt steel production. Trial court correctly applied the law on the matter of just compensation in rendering the disputed decision of April 7. If a new law were to be needed to repeal Act 671. the industry rejected that proposal unless it received $12 per ton increase in the ceiling price. Article VI provides that any law passed in virtue thereof should be for a limited period. Executive Intrusion into Judicial Domain Zaballero v NHA Facts: 1977: NHA instituted separate complaints for expropriation of sugarcane lands in Dasmarinas. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the just-ness of the decreed compensation. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Truman believed his action was valid under his inherent power as president and commander-in-chief. ) The presidents of the steel mills were ordered to operate under government standards. no statute. the President could just veto it. Nor is there any act of Congress from which such a power can fairly be implied. NHA. Ruling/Doctrine: The President’s power to issue an order must stem either from an act of Congress of from the Constitution itself. 26. also citing historical instances wherein seizures where made without the consent of Congress. 671 (several varying cases involved) Ruling/doctrine: a. Quezon issued the call for Act 671 under the intention that “we were helpless against air attack and Phil Legislature would unlikely hold its next regular session. therefore may not impute upon the presidency the !#(" " . decree. Article VI of the Constitution supports this (in times of war or emergency. or EO can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. b. Cavite belonging to Zaballeros. in this case. Upon learning this. D. Steelworkers and the industry were deadlocked. 1946.” Therefore. The court held that the separation of the three branches of government should be respected and that Truman exercised a law-making task that was clearly the role of the legislature. 225 an 226 which was issued under Act 671 after this time was without authority Youngstown Tube and Sheet Co. The power could end up unlimited. 192. Congress may authorize the President to promulgate rules an regulations)· Petitions were filed challenging the validity of executive orders issued in virtue of Commonwealth Act No.S. and steel is a raw material that is used for almost everything. If an executive order mimics a statute. the President. 1982.That was refused by the Board.

Appointed officials cannot hold any other office or position in govt or govt owned and controlled corporations unless provided for by law or by the primary functions of his office. under Commission on Elections) Decide election contests Art IX-C. Appointment of “lame ducks” Defeated candidates to any elective position cannot be appointed to any office in Govt or any govt owned or controlled corporations within a year of their defeat. 3) value declared by owners. returns. 5) reasonable “disturbance compensation” for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of the sugar cane crops. and city officials Appellate jurisdiction over contests involving: Elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction Elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction • The decision of COMELEC on these cases may be appealed to the SC through certiorari limited to question of law involving lack or excess of jurisdiction. trees. or any other bureau or office including government owned or controlled corporations. (Page 15 of the outline. subdivisions. The Constitutional Commissions A. members of a constitutional commission shall not. Trial court considered the evidence presented by the Zaballeros consisting of documents and the testimony of Marina Reyes: 1) classification and use.spouse and relatives both by affinity or consanguinity within the 4th civil degree of the President cannot be appointed to the Constitutional Commissions or the Office of the Ombudsman. provincial. including owned and controlled corporations with original charters.The president. VIII. (created by special law) A. unless otherwise provided by the Constitution. Reviewer for page 14 of the syllabus appended. VP. 4) selling price of similar lands in the vicinity. and other improvements thereon. Sec. congressmen. §2(2) “Judicial power” of COMELEC Exclusive original jurisdiction over contests involving: election. (to avoid conflict of interest) (exceptions: VP who may be appointed to the cabinet.4 All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution “ “Sec 18. ANYWHERE. . 1.unconstitutional intent of direct executive determination of just compensation in the promulgation of the cited decrees and as a delegate of presidential powers. Terms and Conditions of employment in the Civil Service (1) Oath of Allegiance “Sec. the NHA certainly cannot rise higher that its principal’s constitutional source of authority. instrumentalities and agencies of Govt. …. senators. hold any other office or employment. Ban on partisan political activities Elective officials cannot be appointed or designated in any capacity to public office or position during his tenure.any public officer or employee who wishes to change citizenship or acquire status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure will be dealt with by law” (2) Merit System A. Civil Service Commission Serves as the “personnel office” of the government. cabinet members and their deputies and assistants. and qualifications of elective regional. In determining just compensation. 2) developmental costs for improving land.. Scope Includes all branches. B. of Justice and one representative of Congress who are ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council ) . !#)" " .

§7 • COMELEC decision: Decided by a majority vote of all its members within 60 days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution • Review: by the SC on certiorari brought by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the decision. increase or modify substantive rights Art IX-C. §8 • Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by law 6. municipality and district of Metro-manila 7. §5 The approved annual appropriations shall be automatically released C. orders and resolutions Art IX-C. order or ruling • Exception: unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or b law 8. Other functions Art IX-A. §6 • COMELEC en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Rule-making Art IX-A. Appeal to the COMELEC 4. §2(2) • Decisions. and registration of voters • Excludes: questions involving the right to vote (falls within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts) • COMELEC may punish for contempt only in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power and of its “judicial power” RA 7166 §22 Election contests for Municipal Offices • Original Jurisdiction – RTC. and not appealable Art IX-A. final orders. city. Such rules however shall not diminish. §3 • COMELEC may sit en banc or in 2 divisions • Shall promulgate rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases. candidate has been proclaimed. §1 • National Board of Canvassers for the election of senators • Composed of a chairman and members of the COMELEC sitting en banc • Shall canvass certificates of canvass from the district. including pre-proclamation controversies • All the such election cases shall be heard and decided in division Motions for Reconsiderations of decisions shall be decided en banc 5. executory. or rulings of COMELEC on contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final. Art IX-D • Composed of 1 chairman and 2 commissioners !#*" " . Act as National Board of Canvassers for senators EO 144. appointment of election officials and inspectors. taken his oath and assumed office. Fiscal Autonomy Art IX-A.• COMELEC’s jurisdiction ends when a winning House of Rep. Review of COMELEC decisions. and city boards of canvassers of those cities which comprise one or more legislative districts • A board of canvassers for each province. (HRET’s jurisdiction begins) Art IX-C §2(3) “Administrative Questions” • Power to decide all questions affecting elections • Includes: determination of the number and location of polling places. provincial. Commission on Audit Function: to examine the accuracy of the records kept by accountable officers and to determine whether expenditures have been made in conformity with law.

!$+" " . XI. Under Art. or on complaint by any person. §5-8 Common provisions • Fiscal Autonomy • Promulgate rules concerning pleadings an practice before the them • Decision through majority vote • Other functions as may be provided by law Art XI.. governor of Antique. §17 Annual Salaries Chairmen: P204. or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government. 13. §7 • Two offices are created: Ombudsman/Tanodbayan and the Special Prosecutor • The Special prosecutor inherits the prosecutorial responsibility of the Tanodbayan of the 1973 Constitution. §12. RULING: The SC found the petitions impressed w/ merit.. and no longer called Tanodbayan • • Power to investigate given to Ombudsman The Special prosecutor may investigate and file cases only when so authorized by the Ombudsman Art VII. 1 of the Consti.• • • Qualifications: (1) Natural born citizen (2) At least 35 years old (3) Either CPA or lawyer both with 10 years experience (members cannot all belong to same profession) (4) must not have been candidates for any elective position in the election immediately preceding the appointment Appointed by the president with the consent of the Commission on Appointments Term: 7 years without reappointment D. Other Agencies of the Government A. §20 Records and books of accounts of Congress to be audited by COA which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each member. filed a petition for certiorari. Sec.000 Members: P180. GOCCs Art IX-A. Office of the Special Prosecutor Art XI. §2 Common provisions on disqualifications: • Hold any other office or employment • Engage in the practice of any profession or control of business which may be affected by the his office • Be financially. Commission on Human Rights • The Commission on Human Rights is a creation of the Constitution although it is not on the same level as the 3 Constitutional Commissions • Its full operationalization will require congressional action IX. ZALDIVAR V SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Petitioner. prohibition and mandamus to restrain the Sandiganbayan & Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales from proceeding with the prosecution & hearing of criminal cases against him on the ground that said cases were filed by the Tanodbayan w/o legal & constitutional authority since under the 1987 Consti. the Ombudsman (as distinguished w/ the incumbent Tanodbayan) is charged w/ the duty to: "Investigate on its own. in any contract with. par 2 (inexistent") Art XVIII. any act or omission of any public official.000 Art IX-A. par. directly or indirectly. it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan. agencies. §2 Members of Commission on Audit to be removed only through impeachment Art VI.

improper or inefficient. The Manila Prince Hotel is considered part of our national patrimony. Economic and Planning Agency: NEDA Art XII. shall function as the independent planning agency MANILA PRINCE HOTEL V GSIS FACTS GSIS sold through public bidding 51% of the outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation which owns the historic Manila Hotel. until the Congress provides otherwise.employee. except upon orders of the Ombudsman. integrity and patriotism • Majority from private sector • As prescribed by law Central bank. §§9-10 • NEDA. when such act or omission appears to be illegal." On the other hand. §§20-21 Qualifications of members: • Natural-born citizen • Of know probity. unless congress provides otherwise. Central Monetary Authority Art XII. XI. Art. the incumbent Tanodbayan (now called Special Prosecutor) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases. Sec. & Renong Berhad. except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law. shall function as the Central Monetary Authority Functions: • Provide policy direction in the areas of money. Renong Berhad won the bidding the but the the Filipino firm sent a letter to the GSIS declaring it was matching the Malaysians’ bid and then filed an action for prohibition and mandamus with the SC to compel GSIS to declare it the winner of the bidding. banking and credit " . provides that "The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. a Filipino corporation. Constitutional provisions are presumed to be self-executing unless the contrary is clearly intended. office or agency. a Malaysian firm. This right to do so was lost effective Feb. The term “national patrimony” includes not only natural resources but also cultural heritage. inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the Ombudsman. 7 of the Consti. RULING SC held that the Filipino firm should be allowed to match the bid and therefore win the bidding. Only two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. unjust. The provision is self-executing as it does not require any legislation to be operative. 1987 • Have supervision over the operations of banks and exercise regulatory powers over operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar functions RA 7356 Law creating National Commission for Culture and the Arts C. then. 51% percent of the shares of stock of the MHC is considered national patrimony because whoever owns it will have actual !$!" PD 1630 Law creating the office of the Tanodbayan B." Now. 2.

one where no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office. National Police Commission Art XVI. (4) Congress. (5)SC. D. sec 12 • • The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities Composition: majority of the members shall come from such communities X. the officers being merely agents and not rulers of the people. (3) Cabinet members. supra National Language Commission Art XIV. §1 The basic idea of government is that of a representative government. sec 6 • • • The State shall establish one police force Characteristics: (1) national in scope (2) civilian in character (3) administered and controlled by a national police commission.control of the hotel. (7) other Constitutional offices. (6) Con-com. (2)VP. §16 To the (1) Pres. (4) Congress. liabilities and net worth Art XI. (5) SC. sec 9 • Composition: representatives of various regions and disciplines • Functions: undertake. §17 In the case of the (1) President. It cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which it stands. (6) Con-com. (8) or any firm in which they have interest # No loan. (7)Ombudsman. the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. Art XI §18 Public officers/employees owe allegiance to the State and the Constitution. Disclosure of assets. Any public officer/employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law • This provision applies to “incumbents” Art IX-B. Ban on financial accommodations Art XI. Accountability of Public Officers " . Public Office as a Public trust Art XI. In the grant of rights. National Commissions Commission on Human Rights. coordinate and promote researches for the development. or other financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted. guaranty. propagation. directly or indirectly !$#" Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities Art XVI. (2) Vice President. Jurisdiction: The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law A. and preservation of Filipino and other languages. (3) Cabinet members. and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. privileges. but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and holds office as a trust for the people whom he represents. §4 Public officers and employees shall take an oath of affirmation to uphold and defend the Constitution RA 6713 Law establishing a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees B. (8) AFP members with general or Flag rank # the declaration shall be disclosed to the public C.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. The crimes are also of such enormous gravity that they strike at the very life or orderly working of government. Sec. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. members of Supreme Court. trust under the RP but he shall still be liable and subject to prosecution. Bernas: There are 2 phases: initiation of impeachment by the House of Representatives & trial by Senate. but not by impeachment. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House. or override its contrary resolution. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. according to law. When the President of the Philippines is on trial. and conviction of. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. Francisco v. and by a majority vote of all its Members. bribery. shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral. not just his innocence or guilt in a criminal sense. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. (7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. after hearing. Effect of impeachment is limited to the loss of position. 2: The president. and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. House of Representatives !$$" " . “to secure the state against gross political misdemeanors… (by) simply divesting him of his political capacity” (Justice Storey). Bernas: Impeachment as political justice. supra On Impeachment: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over public officers except for impeachment proceedings of constitutional officers as mandated in the constitution. (8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. Judgment in cases of impeachment is solely removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor. culpable violation of the Constitution.Impeachment Art 11. graft and corruption. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. trial. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Agencies for insuring public accountability (END OF PAGE 15 ") 1. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. other high crimes. (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof. treason. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. An impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. The Committee. or betrayal of public trust. When sitting for that purpose. but shall not vote. Sandiganbayan. Impeachment proceedings seek to discover the worthiness or unworthiness of a public official of public trust. Section 3. outside the monopoly of courts. Art 11. VP. together with the corresponding resolution.D. A function exercised by Congress. Lecaroz v. The object of impeachment is not to punish but to only to remove a person from office. which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. trial and punishment in accordance with the law. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. The right to be removed only by impeachment is the Constitution’s guarantee of security of tenure. Constitutional commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for. and punishment. Congress . (3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee.

improper. Section 11. of the Constitutional Commissions. or to stop. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. Section 6. respectively. Sandiganbayan Art 11. Section 12. It has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft & corrupt practices against public officers and private persons who may be tried jointly as accomplices or accessories to the crime. Marcos’ PD 1606. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed. Visayas. and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article 1X-A of this Constitution. unjust. and shall. Section 13. 3. upon complaint or at its own instance. During their tenure. and they shall receive the same salary which shall not be decreased during their term of office. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur. in any appropriate case. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members. functions. the Sandiganbayan was a recognition of the continuing need to combat graft & corruption. prevent. Section 9. to furnish it with copies of documents !$%" " . one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon. or any subdivision. any act or omission of any public official. (4) Direct the officer concerned. notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. including government-owned or controlled corporations. fine. (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault. and ensure compliance therewith. demotion. as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman. and Mindanao. and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. The Ombudsman must have. any public official or employee of the Government. agency or instrumentality thereof. Section 8. in appropriate cases. Sec 4: The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. Held: An impeachment proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed or referred to the Committee on Justice for action. or prosecution. (2) Direct. Section 10. office or agency. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. Bernas: Created by Pres. for ten years or more. shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government. and at the time of their appointment. censure. The Ombudsman and his Deputies. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. Ombudsman Art 11. agency or instrumentality thereof. 2. Section 5. of recognized probity and independence. suspension. as protectors of the people. at least forty years old. or any subdivision. according to the Civil Service Law. and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. other than the Deputies. employee. and duties: (1) Investigate on its own. shall be appointed by the Ombudsman. composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. or inefficient. and members of the Philippine Bar. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural born citizens of the Philippines.Facts: This was the second attempted impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide after he facilitated the swearing into office by PGMA. or on complaint by any person. and recommend his removal. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman. to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law.

It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law. the Ombudsman has the following duties: • Complaints and actions bureau • Investigate on its own. employee. or on complaint by any person. The Ombudsman & his deputies shall be removed only through impeachment. and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan. Concept & Definition State: A community of persons more or less numerous. red tape. improper or inefficient (Art 11 Sec 13 (1)) • Duty to investigate “any illegal act or omission of any public official” even if the offense committed is not related to the performance of his functions • May be delegated to others who have power to investigate and take back any time. It stands in subordinate to the Ombudsman. As a constitutional office it may no be abolished nor may its composition be changed by ordinary legislation. and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. The Philippines is a republican state & sovereignty is correlated with the people. and 7 year tenure period is protected. Bernas: In contrary to the Ombudsman (known also as the Tanodbayan). (7) Determine the causes of inefficiency. pertinent records and documents. unjust. and to examine. shall not be barred by prescription. Essential constituents of a state: a) Territory b) People c) Government d) Sovereignty !$&" " . XI. Section 14.relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. Sec 7: The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. fraud. mismanagement. Bernas: The intention of the commission in creating this provision was to make imprescriptibility applicable to both the civil & criminal aspects of a case. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities. laches or estoppel. Office of Special Prosecutor Art 11. if necessary. Sec 15: The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees. (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. Actions for Recovery of illegally acquired property Art 11. 4. E. permanently occupying a definite territory. The Philippines as a State A. except upon order of the Ombudsman. Appointment of Ombudsman and his Deputies require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments and the office is also privileged with fiscal autonomy. (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence. Bernas: Coined as the “People’s Champion”. except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. from them or from their nominees or transferees. the Special prosecutor has prosecutorial duties which are subject to authorization of the Ombudsman. independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. office or agency. any act or omission of nay public official.

between. Treaty of Paris. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. A nation is a non-juristic concept made of people bound together by an awareness of community interests based upon one or more factors such as racial. (November 7. B. interconnecting waters and other natural features which are closely interrelated. The waters around. Campos Rueda Facts: Alleged is a tax exemption in favor of a resident of Tangier. Determining the baseline !$'" " . regardless of their breadth and dimension. 1968) . cultural identity. the subsoil. 1898) . Treaty of Washington. the insular shelves. however it left some doubt about the inclusion of Batanes islands to the north and Sibutu islands & Cagayan de Sulu to the south. fluvial. drew straight line baselines around the Philippines. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. Tangier national falls within the tax exemption of Sec. The former means a state composed of one or more archipelagos & may include other islands. Following the definition of an archipelago. Morocco. I: The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. including parts of islands. as well as Turtle & Mangsee Islands. PD No. Collector of Internal Revenue v. but inclusion of Batanes was left in question. Held: Neither independence nor an intentional personality is a requisite to be called a foreign state. RA 5446 (September 8. with all the islands and waters embraced therein. and comprehending the islands lying within the following line. and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. e. US-Great Britain Treaty (January 2. A technical definition was provided to delineate the limits of Philippine territory. June 11. consisting of it terrestrial. June 11.The Philippine Archipelago: Art. Territory. the sea bed."An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines": All waters within the baselines provided for in Section one hereof are considered inland or internal waters of the Philippines. 1978 (200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone ) – President FM established the Exclusive economic zone of the Philippines to be within 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Convention on the Law of the Sea – distinguished between an archipelagic state and an archipelago. Batanes Island falls within the area of the Philippine archipelago. c. This included Batanes Island which since time immemorial had undisputedly been part of the Philippine Islands. and other submarine areas.Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands. common economic and social interdependence or other bonds of organic unity. subject to whether or not it can be recognized as a state even without an international personality. 1978 (other territories) – claim to Kalayaan Island Group on historical basis and indispensible need. 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Treaty Limits: a. 1599. RA 3046 (June 17. b. d. 1900) Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu were deemed included in Philippine territory. Nation-state: where different races living together as a political group acquire a community of cultural and economic interests and develop common sympathies and aspirations. and aerial domains. Article III.Distinguished from Nation The state is a legal concept while a nation is a racial or ethnic concept. Determination of the National Territory Seaa. 1596. b. Elements 1. (December 10. c. 1961).N. the latter refers to a group of islands.Amended RA 3046. U. including its territorial sea. PD No. 1930) Jurisdiction over the Turtle and Mangsee Islands was clarified by the convention. *Bernas gives a 4th point of reference in determining Philippine territory to be “all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction”.

and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. houses. so long as they are inhabitants. and a s a manifestation of our solidarity as a people (Delegate Raul Roco. section 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. to be subject of the right to due process and equal protection from the law. section 2: The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Relevance of an article on National Territory in the Constitution Arguments for the exclusion of a definition on national territory were that it was a subject of international law. People . “people” refers to individuals. In the Constitution. A definition of territory is for the protection of our natural resources (Delegate Nolledo. RA 3046 & RA 5446 drew straight baselines around the Philippines. Straight baseline method: (used in Archipelagic States) straight lines are drawn connecting selected points on the coast without appreciable departure from the general shape of the coast. Likewise. Article 2. 2. whether citizens or aliens. section 4: The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people Article XVI. the constitutional definition of territory provided a security blanket and a rhetoric assertion of historic identity. electors or non-electors. not of municipal law (Delegate Garcia of Rizal) and that it was a repulsive reminder of the indignity of our colonial past having been lifted from the Treaty of Paris (Delegate Sorongon & Gunigundo). Normal baseline method: drawn following the low-water mark. in the state policies. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. liberty or property without due process of law. Arguments for inclusion ran on 2 levels: 1. There is also a need espoused to strengthen the country’s position in international law and for the provision to be flexible enough to allow for future territorial acquisitions of the Philippines (ie. Article 2. Palawan). and traditions of the people. inhabitants of the Philippines shall be protected by the State in their rights to health. nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. by law. A territorial definition was necessary for the preservation of our national wealth. As Electors – Article VII. adopt a new name for the country. a clean environment and a balanced ecology. The difference in the 1987 version from the 1973 was to remove a language possibly offending to neighboring ASEAN countries & achieving a more logical sequencing of the elements that make up the national territory. which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals. Subsequent arguments for inclusion was for the definition of national territory be made in an authoritative fashion such as the Constitution rather than on “whereas” clauses in the prior republic acts. papers. the mean of the high and low tides. held together by a common bond of law.1. along the coast. Marianas Island and Freedom Land) In sum. Issues on Sabah. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum.A community of persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community. b. !$(" " . All are likewise protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. history. for national security. Bernas: In the Bill of rights. Article III. Camarines Sur). section 1: No person shall be deprived of life. a national anthem. As Inhabitants – Article III. 2. 2. the meaning of persons and people depends on the context where it is found. or a national seal. section 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. a. section 2: The Congress may.

) a. under conditions provided by law. and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands by insulting the appointment of natives in administrative positions. transactions. section 4: The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. Government of the republic of the Philippines defined – Section 2 (1). Article. section 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. *People as citizens belong to the Philippine political community. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and. the agency through which the state enforces its will (Bernas). and the system by which the authority of the United States is enforced in the Islands. foreign military bases. in the fulfillment thereof. The sources of the funds of the System do not preclude the Government from later adding to the !$)" " . Not included are government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by corporation law. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. when the Congress so requires. Dorr Facts: Defendants were charged of scurrilous libel against the Government of the U. People v. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. section 7: The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. to render personal. as well as in adhering or opposing to state decisions by means of a plebiscite or national referendum. (The definition of a government in this case. the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines. & other forms of local government. section 25: After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases. Held: The AFP-RSBS was created for the purpose of handling & disbursing retirement and pension funds in the military system i. municipal or barangay subdivisions. Sec1 & 4. provincial city. Government – is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state. of the members of the AFP and the PNP. shall be afforded the citizen. Sandiganbayan Facts: On point is the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan to try a case involving the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). or which are imposed upon people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing such. alleged to be a government-owned & controlled corporation. all citizens may be required. whether pertaining to: Autonomous regions.As Citizens – Article II. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.e. Article II. Held: The article contains no attack upon the governmental system of the U. as the reservoir of sovereign will. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and. Art III sec7 Article II. not the state itself. It is one of the component parts of that state. As the State has a duty to protect its citizens. vested with full civil and political rights subject to disqualifications by law. The issue is whether it is a private corporation with private funds. III. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. 3. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. or decisions. * The people. US v.S. troops. it is the character of the men who are entrusted with the administration of the government that the writer attacks. is that which is stated above. Rather. are deemed to have a direct participation in electing their national leaders by a direct vote. the latter have reciprocal duties of allegiance to the country. People as referred to in this sense is the electorate. that segment of the political community which can establish or alter the fundamental law c.S. including save as the contrary appears from the context. Administrative Code of 1987: The corporate governmental authority through which the function of government are exercised throughout the Philippines. military or civil service. Access to official records.Article XVIII. and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts.

the GSIS in granting the loans. Confederation of Unions and Government Corporations and Offices. d. For example. transmission & interchange of property. the Court said that the government whether carrying out its sovereign attributes or running some business. regulation of the holding.Powers of government which are optional and intended for achieving a better life for its citizens.funds of the AFP-RSBS in order to provide additional benefits to the men in uniform. 3012 which were initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. CUGCO ACCFA v. governments are classified into either de jure or de facto governments. Constituent. De Jure and De Facto Governments On the basis of legitimacy. AFP-RSBS is a government entity and its funds are in nature of public funds. In contrast. a government that has been overthrown and has moved to another state will attain de jure status if other nations refuse to accept the legitimacy of the revolutionary government. ACCFA v. was exercising a proprietary function which would not justify the exclusion of the transactions from the coverage and scope of the right to information. regulations and processes of any !$*" " . Belmonte (1989) Facts: Petitioners Valmont et al assert their constitutional right to information and asks the respondent GSIS to furnish for them the list of the names of the Batasang Pambansa members of UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure ‘clean’ loans with the intercession of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos. Valmonte v. legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. petitioner prays that the respondent court be ordered to continue the proceedings in Civil Case No. and trade & industry. b. Article II. Most important functions are: public works. but the compelling urgency with which the Constitution speaks of social justice does not leave any doubt that land reform is not an optional but a compulsory function of sovereignty. Citing ACCFA v.Functions that are compulsory and which constitute the very bonds of society examples of which are keeping of order & providing protection. health & safety regulations. discharges the same function of service to the people. The respondent judge refused to continue the proceedings by virtue of the proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur which provided that “all laws. public charity. then its loan transactions are not covered by the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the right to information which is applicable only to “official” functions. Co Kim Cham v. Constituent and Ministrant Functions of the Government Ministrant . Consequently. A de jure government is the legal. c. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution highlights the inherent duty of the State to act as parens patriae and to protect the right of persons and individuals who because of age or inherent incapacity are in an unfavorable position vis-à-vis other parties. Held: The function may not strictly be “constituent”. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (1945) Facts: In here. As such. fixing of legal relations in the family. The Supreme Court held that the “constituent-ministrant” dichotomy characterizing government function has long been repudiated. Ruling: (Relevant) It was contended that since the loan function of the GSIS is merely incidental to its insurance function. public education. a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state. Parens Patriae Parens Patriae is a doctrine that grants to the State the inherent power and authority to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf. Court decisions have called attention to the inherent connection between the duty of the State as parens patriae and the concern of the fundamental law for the strengthening of the family as the basic social institution. CUGCO 30 SCRA 649 (1969) Facts: At issue is the characterization of the functions of a government agency charged with the implementation of the land reform program. The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest.

The Court took notice that the Philippine Executive Commission and the Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines belong to the second kind of de facto governments and that during a military occupation. Sec. Lawyer’s League for a Better Philippines v. X of the Constitution. Sec. the distinguishing characteristics of a de facto government of the second kind are 1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories. national officers are still reluctant to give up its centralized hold over local governments. However. the court stated that the exercise of autonomy of local governments has been a national goal since the turn of the century. and which is denominated a government of paramount force. provided that such judicial acts and proceedings are not of a political complexion. differed from the second kind in that its authority did not originate from lawful acts of regular war. or usurps. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war. the 1973 Constitution expressed the promotion of local autonomy which was made explicit in Art. by force or by the voice of the majority. 25) Dadole v. XI. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative. Moreover. do not become responsible for those acts though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. In San Juan v. local government can only be an intra-sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation. 1) Art. According to the Hague Conventions. Local government in such a system can only mean a measure of autonomy and decentralization of the functions of government. Civil Service Commission. and is subject to all restrictions which it imposes. X. executive and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. And the third is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent State. remained good and valid after the liberation. that he possesses all the powers of a de facto government. e. X. and that he can suspend the old laws and promulgate new ones and make such changes in the old as he sees fit. There are several kinds of de facto governments. (Art. and by virtue of postliminy. (Art. and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government and. The first is that government that gets possession and control of. Commission on Audit (2002) Facts: !%+" " . which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and in law. Decentralization: Autonomy of Local Governments Local government has been described as “a political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. 2) The 1935 Constitution placed local governments under the power of control of the legislature. Sec. but he is enjoined to respect. a belligerent occupant has the right and duty to insure public order and safety during his military occupation. the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. Autonomy for local governments is. Aquino (1986) Ruling: The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. a de jure one. Smith. less than for the autonomous regions. the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. it may exercise all the powers given by the laws of war to the conquer over the conquered. Sec. And the people have made their judgment. 2 gives the assurance that local autonomy will not only be for Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras but for all local units. On the other hand. on the other hand. unless absolutely prevented the municipal laws in force in the country. The third kind. The 1987 Constitution adopted this attitude and embodied them in Art.other government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect…” Ruling: 1. II. 2) that while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who. Aquino. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force. (Art. In a unitary system of government. Citing Thorington v. however. X. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines being de facto governments. it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments were good and valid.

Creation Section 13 authorizes local government units to group themselves. acting on the said directive. The Mandaue City Auditor. It is important to note that the authority to decide whether to enter into group efforts with local government units is given to the units themselves. They no longer have to wait for a statutory grant of these powers. services. issued notice of disallowance to respondent judges. the President or any of his/her alter egos cannot interfere in local affairs. 1. Sec 3 of the 1973 is in question in this petition. This is the scope of the President’s supervisory powers over local government units. divided or merged. The Department of Budget and Management then issued Local Budget Circular No. In order for a ratification to be effected. 885-An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte was conducted by petitioners as being unconstitutional and is not in accord with the Local Government Code enacted under the 1973 Constitution. consolidate. X. RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 provides for initiative and referendum on the local level.In 1986. The Court ruled that the said article provides that whenever a province is created. General supervision of local governments by the President General supervision by the President was seen during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission as meaning no more than ensuring that laws are faithfully executed or that subordinate officers act within the law. division or merging of political subdivisions. Two political units are at one subject to the creation of Negros del Norte i. Negros del Norte and Negros Occidental. Mandaue City increased the amount to P1. the RTC and MTC judges of Mandaue City started receiving monthly allowances of P1.260 each through the yearly appropriation ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the said city. Ruling: Although the Constitution guarantees autonomy to local government units. The Two Autonomous Regions a. and must be within the jurisdiction of the local units to pass. The principal guidelines given to Congress for structuring local government units are that the structure must be responsive and accountable and instituted through a system of decentralization. the power to ensure that subordinate officers execute and act within existing laws. The President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he/she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law. 55. Sec 5 of the 1987 Constitution does not change this doctrine. must not be confiscatory. 2. In 1991. It is only of general supervision that is. Tan v. !%!" " . 4. What it provides is that it confers on municipal corporations a general power to levy taxes and otherwise create sources of revenue. COMELEC (1986) Facts: Batas Pambansa Blg.500 for each judge. Art. and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law. there should be a majority of affirmative votes in the plebiscite conducted in the areas directly affected by the creation. Taxes imposed by local governments must be for a public purpose. Any directive by the President or any of his/her alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates the principle of local autonomy and the separation of powers in governing municipal corporations. Hence. Power of Local Governments Municipal corporations possess no inherent power to tax. the exercise of local autonomy remains subject to the power of control by Congress and the power of supervision by the President. The power of the President over autonomous regions is the same as his power over local governments. or coordinate their efforts. the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected should be secured.e. uniform within a locality. and resources among the different local government units and local officials has been placed by the Constitution in the hands of Congress. responsibilities. Local Government Code The structuring of local governments and the allocation of powers. 3. Ruling: The interpretation of Art XI.

however. c. Various rationalizations were offered by Philippine decisions to justify this doctrine. the suit must be considered as one against the State itself. Section 21 makes a distinction between the problem of internal peace and order and the problem of national defense and security. “a continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties. the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted. Paredes offered the justification that “In a republican state like the Philippines. Art. v. Metran v. !%#" " . It may be applied to both elective and appointive officials. however. to pass the Organic Acts within eighteen months from the time of its organization. When is a suit against a State? When the suit is against the Republic of the Philippines eo nomine the suit is one clearly against the State. Sovereignty Doctrine of State Immunity The State is regarded as immune from suits unless it itself gives consent to the suit. Sec. enquiry must be made whether in fact ultimate liability will fall on the officer or on the government. 4. is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and national laws. X. If it is the latter. General Supervision by the President (See above. with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative commissions. Recall Recall. b. Problems arise when the Republic is not sued by name but rather through any of its instrumentalities or officers.” Philippine jurisprudence also accepted Holmes’ formulation to the effect that a sovereign is exempt from suit. Republic of the Philippines. means a device or procedure by which a public official’s tenure may be terminated by a public vote. government immunity from suit without its consent is derived from the will of the people themselves in freely creating a government. a. When the suit is against an officer of the state. as an instrument for effecting official accountability.” The current law on recall is now found under the Local Government Code of 1991. Santos based the principle on “the juridical and practical notion that the State can do no wrong. Sec 18 refers to the formulation of Organic Acts while Sec 19 commands Congress. Section 3 tells Congress that in formulating a system of recall the system formulated must be “effective. Santos v. Powers not included in the enumeration and not implicit in those enumerated remain vested in the national government. 16) d.Section 18 and 19 of Art X of the 1987 Constitution provides for the process of establishing these autonomous regions. As stated in Providence Washington Insurance Co. It is encompassed in the notion of popular sovereignty. not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory.” which is a restatement of the expression “the King can do no wrong. Powers of Autonomous Regions Section 17 enunciates that these autonomous regions are local units which are given enumerated powers. The grant of power. The need for consent would flow from the fact of having been established for governmental purposes which makes the corporation participate in the immunity of the sovereign. but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Notably not included in the enumeration are: National Defense and Security Foreign Relations and Foreign Trade Customs and Tariff Quarantine Currency Monetary Affairs Foreign Exchange Banking and Quasi-Banking External Borrowings Posts and Communications Air and Sea Transport Immigration and Deportation Citizenship and Naturalization General Auditing Section 20 enumerates the irreducible legislative powers conferred by the Constitution on autonomous regions. the most acceptable explanation is a practical one.” In the end.

the Office of the District Engineer requisitioned various spare parts for the repair of a D-8 bulldozer. failed to show that the State consented to be sued. The exclusion of existing private rights from the reservation established by Proclamation No. The controlling doctrine was Mobil Philippines Exploration. Proclamation No. b. Ruling: The doctrine of non-suability recognized in this jurisdiction even prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution is a logical corollary to the positivist concept of law which negates the assertion of any legal right as against the state. designated for reservation for subdivision and distribution to settlers. will not be inferred lightly. Ruling: The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land. Moreover. Singson (1973) Facts: In January 1967. however. The State may be said to have provided for consent either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. v. in itself the source of law on which such a right may be predicated. A special law waiving immunity may come in the form of a private bill authorizing a named individual to bring suit on a specified claim. said land was. bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property. 90. under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 327 which prescribe the conditions under which money claims against the government may be filed. Torts Committed by Special Agents Meritt v. which cannot prosper or be entertained by the Court except with the consent of the State. They could still proceed to seek collection of their money claims by pursuing the statutory remedy of having the Auditor General pass upon them subject to appeal to judicial tribunals for final adjudication. Inc. Government of the Philippine Islands (1916) Facts: !%$" " . Express Consent Consent to be sued may be given by the legislature through a special law or by general law. However. by virtue of Proclamation No.Republic v. Inc. 90 cannot be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. Purisima (1977) Facts: There was a money claim arising from an alleged breach of contract filed by Rice and Corn Administration against Yellow Ball Freight Lines. represented by the Land Authority . the Proclamation is not a legislative act. is a suit against the State. i. Waiver of immunity. Customs Arrastre Service. 90 does not give consent to the petitioner to sue the State. Plaintiff. A general law authorizes any person who meets the conditions stated in the law to sue the government in accordance with the procedure specified in the law. However. In other words. the respondent should have filed his claim with the General Auditing Office. Whatever counsel for defendant Rice and Corn Administration agreed to had no binding force on the government. for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Salvacion. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. but must be construed in strictissimi juris. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. The judge was misled. Money claims arising from contract Sayson v. Republic v. the General Auditing Office found that the office charged excessive prices for the purchase of the spare parts and equipment as shown by the vouchers. Tinambac. Feliciano (1987) Facts: Respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the Republic of the Philippines. ii. being a derogation of sovereignty. Ruling: The suit disguised as one for mandamus to compel the Auditors to approve the vouchers for payment. Camarines Sur. The consent to be effective must come from the State acting through a duly enacted statute.

It has corporate powers separate and distinct from the government. The government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments. Incorporated Government Agencies PNB v. Ruling: When the government enters into commercial business. it was misdeclared and the Collector of Customs forfeited the shipment in favor of the government. SSS filed with the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the conditions of the mortgage had been broken since October 1967 with the default on the part of the mortgagor to pay in full the installments then due and payable on the principal debt and interest and all of the monthly installments due and payable thereafter up to the present date. The State is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office. the inquiry arises whether the government is legally liable for damages. !%%" " . the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character. which would be subversive of the public interest. Court of Appeals (1983) Facts: Spouses David B. so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations. duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim. CIR (1978) Facts: The money of People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation was sought to be garnished to satisfy a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. except when expressly made so by legislative enactment. SSS own organic act provides that it can sue and be sued in court. difficulties and losses. SSS v. subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. to permit private respondent's claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity. By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation. Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained. Ruling: The amendability of the SSS to judicial action and legal responsibility for its acts have come to the courts. Otherwise. However. By consenting to be sued. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court. The State is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs. As the negligence was committed by an agent or employee of the government involving tort. it abandons its sovereign capacity and is treated like any other corporation. Cruz and Socorro Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate loan by the SSS. there should be no question considering that the SSS is a juridical entity with a personality of its own. Said importation was declared through a customs broker. Act No. Court of Tax Appeals (1993) Facts: The vessel S/S “Pacific Hawk” arrived at the Port of Manila carrying 80 bales of screen net consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading. a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability or create any cause of action in his favor. 2457 was enacted in his favor. Ruling: The accident was due to the negligence of the ambulance’s chauffeur. or extend his liability to any cause not previously recognized. we opine that the Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private respondent sustained with regard to its goods. iii. On July 1968. Ruling: On the third issue.Plaintiff was involved in an accident concerning him and a General Hospital ambulance resulting in him being incapacitated and sustained severe injuries rendering him unable to return to work. The Government has waived its immunity with respect to the SSS. because neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches in the public service and in the appointment of its agents. Farolan v. The responsibility of the State is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent.

Santos vs. it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. Santos d. accounting. for reconveyance. Must be entered into by the proper officer acting within the scope of his authority c. and damages. it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a suit against the state. Santiago vs Republic i. NOT when it is a complaint in intervention merely to resist a claim against a private party 3) When the state authorizes an agency to run what is essentially a business ( not maintain a necessary function of government) a. allowed intervention and entered the Answer in Intervention. through its officers or agents in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority. Descends to level of private individual b. When the State itself files a complaint Republic vs. it descends from its privileged position to the level of a private individual and thereby opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the private individual may have against the state. private respondent's claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fail. with the Rep of Phil as a done is entitled to go to court in case of alleged breach of such donation 2) When the state takes initiative in a suit against a private party (through its duly authorized officers) a. Simplicio Palanca and other stockholders of Bacolod Real Estate Development Corporation (BREDCO) filed a “Motion for Leave to Intervene” saying that they have a legal interest in the action because their properties and stocks are included in the “illgotten wealth” to be reconveyed even if the complaint made no mention of BREDCO. the state itself may be sued even without its express consent because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract. whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise. taxation. the Bureau of Customs performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary function." categorically applies. C. in the Sandiganbayan. As an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own. !%&" " . It has also been held that when the state through its duly authorized officers take the initiative in a suit against a private party. On this point. restitution. Implied Consent (Bernas): 1) When the state/government enters into a contract a. al. Because it descended to the level of a citizen b. SOVERIEGNTY (p18) c. (2) Then. Opens itself to counterclaims or defenses c. Thus. Normally undertaken by the private sector b. As an agency. When government submits itself to the court’s jurisdiction ii. namely. It descended to the level of a private citizen i.for which ultimately liability will fall on the government. the political doctrine that "the state may not be sued without its consent. (4) The Sandiganbyan denied such motion. Consent can also be implied when the state authorizes an agency not to maintain a necessary function of government but to run what is essentially a business. Sandiganbayan Facts: (1) Republic of the Philippines through the PCGG filed a complaint against Marcos et. reversion. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. A donor. (3) RP filed a Motion to Dismiss saying that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction and that intervenors do not have a legal interest in the case. Implied Consent When the state or its government enters into a contract. the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit. They said that such properties should not be involved in the said action as the company is not a party to it.

which laid down that whenever the government files a complaint in intervention. Properties illegally acquired by President Marcos xxx. Froilan vs. ' The lower court issued the writ of replevin prayed for by Froilan. it in effect waives its right to non-suability. This is not a case where respondents take the initiative in an action against the plaintiff. It can be made for the purpose of uniting with the plaintiff in the party’s complaint or uniting with the defense in resisting the claims of the plaintiff. The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction. answered that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines was obligated to deliver the vessel in question to it by virtue of a contract of bareboat charter with option to purchase. Issues: 1. ' The Government of the Republic of the Philippines filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim of Pan Oriental Shipping Co. In this case. Pena which ruled that “Section 2 of EO 14 xxx all cases of the Commission regarding Funds. Facts: Froilan filed a complaint against Pan Oriental alleging that he purchased from the shipping commission the vessel FS-197 for P200. The Shipping Commission took possession of the vessel due to nonpayment of the instalment. He executed a chattel mortgage against the vessel in favor of the Shipping Commission.000 downpayment. that the intervenor was entitled to the possession of the vessel. Intervention is not an independent action. interest and the advances on the insurance premium excluding the dry-docking expenses incurred on said vessel by the Pan Oriental Shipping Co. Furthermore. Froilan appealed to the President of the Philippines and as a result the Congress restored to him all right under his original contract with the Shipping Commission. In this case. xxx.93 in payment of his obligation to the Shipping Administration ' Lower court held that the payment made by Froilan constituted a payment and a discharge of his obligation to the Government of the Philippines. the State.000 and paying P50. incidental to.576. but Pan Oriental Shipping Co denied the right of Froilan and it alleged that the action of the Cabinet was null and void. Pan Oriental Shipping Corporation refused to give to Froilan the vessel. In relation to the syllabus: The case sites Froilan vs. No. ' Pan Oriental Shipping Co. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. it is not suit or counter-suit against RP. ' Froilan tendered to the Board of Liquidators a check in the amount of P162. Assets.(5) In herein petition for certiorari. Did the intervention amount to a suit against the State such that it is not legal? Held: 1. or related to. Moneys. Thus. No. the court lacks jurisdiction and the intervenors do not have legal interest. Decision: Petition dismissed.. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. the court acted in contravention of a public policy as RP cannot be sued without its consent and the intervention amounted to a suit or counter-suit against the sovereign RP. but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation. the intervention is merely to unite with the defendants and the intervenors are not asking for any relief from the plaintiff. ' After obtaining the intervenor-appelle the Government of the Philippines filed a complaint in intervention alleging that Froilan failed to pay to the Shipping Commission the balance.” 2. are lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and all incidents arising from. there is implied consent that allows the State to be sued as such intervention involved the State in a complaint with the knowledge that a counterclaim can be filed against it. through the SG argued that in allowing such intervention. against it on the ground that the purpose of said counterclaim was to compel the Government to deliver the !%'" " . Did the Sandiganbayan lack jurisdiction in this case? 2. Such has been settled in PCGG vs.

it would be a very rigid principle to deny to him the right of setting up such claim in court of justice. PNR Facts: Jaime Aquino. who was brought to the hospital after the incident where he eventually died. The NIA filed for a Motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial !%(" " . and turn him around to an application to Congress. and various suits against certain corporations created by the State for public purposes. The court dismissed the complaint saying that it had no jurisdiction because the PNR is a government instrumentally and the action was a suit against the State. the state surrenders its privileged position and comes down to the level of the defendant. the State has impliedly given its consent to be sued by engaging into a business activity. the Manila Railroad Company. Sec 13(2) of the Corporation Law provides that every corporation has the power to sue and be sued in any court. it is not immune from suit. is immune from suit Held: The state acted in a corporate capacity. Malliaman Facts: Spouses Jose Fontanilla and Virginia Fontanilla filed an action against the National Irrigation Administration for damages for the death of their son after Hugo Garcia. to exercise all powers of railroad corporation under the Corporation Law Sec36 of the Corporation Code provides that every corporation has the power to sue and be sued in its corporate name.…the Philippine National Railways must be administered with the view of serving the interests of the public by providing them the maximum of service and. Fontanilla vs. iii. The Malong spouses appealed to the SC. Held: No. The US SC held that no direct suit can be maintained against the US. General powers – the PNR shall have the ff general powers: (b) Generally. an employee of the NIA. But when an action is brought by the US to recover money in the hands of a party who has legal claim against them. Government entering into business contracts Malong vs. but to engage in matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business rather than functions of a governmental or political character. The charter of the PNR provides the ff: Sec 1-a. Issue: WON the state acted in a sovereign capacity or corporate capacity when it created PNR WON PNR. MRC is not immune from suit according to its charter. being government instrumentality. while aiming at its greatest utility by the public. bumped a bicycle being ridden by their son (Francisco Fontanilla). The motion of Pan Oriental was dismissed.vessel to Pan Oriental in the event that the Government recovers the vessel from Froilan. Statement of policy . As a result of the dismissal Pan Oriental appealed the case Issue: WON the case should be dismissed because the State is immune from suit. are not regarded as suits against the State. a paying passenger.” In this case. fell and died from a PNR train because the train was overloaded and he had to sit near the door of the coach. SC held that the State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is no different from its predecessor. The trial court ordered NIA to pay the spouses damages (death benefits) and actual expenses (the cost of the burial). the economy of operation must be ensured… Sec 4. His parents (Malong sopuses) prayed in the CFI that PNR be ordered to pay them damages. “Suits against state agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or nongovernmental capacity. The Government’s action of filing its complaint in intervention had the effect of waiving its immunity and right on nonsuability. When the government enters into a commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other private corporation. By taking the initiative in an action against a private party.

the state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders. NIA is liable for the acts of its ordinary employee and the Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality by the Court. also P. While it may be true that the NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare. The Bureau failed to comply with said conditions. 3601) . Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental functions. With regards to equity and justice. the impact of the pick-up truck threw Francisco 50 meters away from the road which shows that the driver was driving at high speed when he bumped Francisco’s bicycle and at that time Garcia was with his supervisor who obviously failed to caution him about going too fast along the road. including all communal and pump irrigation projects.court. Held: Santiago can sue for the breach of conditions of donation. When unequitable for government to claim immunity Santiago vs. rehabilitating. and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines. In this particular case. The doctrine of governmental authority from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to the citizen. The Court ruled that the NIA was indeed a government agency but they were invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government.D. it becomes answerable for damages. such fact does not make the NIA essentially and purely a "government-function" corporation. iv. The issue deliberated by the SC was whether or not the NIA was liable to pay for damages since it was an agency of the State performing governmental functions and the driver was an ordinary employee. Since the assumption of liability rests on whether there was negligence of supervision on the part of NIA. NIA was created for the purpose of "constructing. thus is governed by the Corporation Law. If the government is susceptible to the charge of acting !%)" " . Santiago now filed a suit against the State for a revocation of the deed of donation. Santiago’s petitions were dismissed due to the constitutional provision re: State’s non-suability without its consent. Thus. not a special agent who was performing a job or an act foreign to his usual duties hence the liability of the tortuous act should not be borne by the NIA. No. Held: Yes. the alleged failure to abide by the conditions in the donation is an enough cause for a civil action& consent is presumed. EXCEPT: 1) when the contract is of a proprietary nature or 2) Consent is waived either expressly or impliedly. improving. The government should set the example. the NIA assumes the responsibility of an ordinary employer and as such. it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortuous act of its driver-employee. which states that the NIA does not solely and primarily perform proprietary function but is an agency of the government tasked with governmental functions and therefore not liable for the acts of their driver who was not a special agent. which is the irrigation of lands. The NIA is a government agency invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government. The NIA filed a Motion for reconsideration citing P. Republic Facts: Santiago donated a property to the Phil government through the Bureau of Plant and Industry under the condition that the Bureau shall install lighting facilities and water system on the property donated and build an office building and parking lot. 552 which amended the charter of NIA (R. The Court said that there was negligence since from the facts of the case. The Court eventually affirmed the trial court’s decision and ordered NIA to pay the spouses damages and actual expenses." Certainly.A. According to the SC the NIA was a government agency with a juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government.D. The National Irrigation Administration was not created for purposes of local government. Santiago filed a petition for certiorari. No. 552 allows the NIA to sue and be sued. The general rule is the State cannot be sued when it enters into a contract in the fulfillment of its government functions. After which they filed an instant petition with the Supreme Court. but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency.

Where the suit is filed against the a foreign government without it giving its consent i. try and decide plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages in the sum of P50. to which the appellant is entitled. then it forfeits public trust. 1924. including attorney’s fees. As registered owner.000. • As held in Ministerio vs CFI. 1959. the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government w/o thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent.T-18060 issued by Register of Deeds of Cebu on Feb. d. Only applies if the state or its subdivision is made a party upon the record. On Feb. b) that it had no original or appellate jurisdiction to hear. Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of ownership and possession of the appropriated land. Where government has no interest to protect in the outcome of a suit i. Decision appealed from is set aside and case remanded to the court a quo for the determination of compensation. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale. Dismissal of case in compliance with the doctrine of non-suability would result in unfairness Amigable vs. Considering that no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of her certificate of title and that she has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of her lot to the government. Suits against Public officers Bernas: • Will the ultimate liability fall on the government? • Suit against office is not suit against government: a. Syquia vs. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City with Transfer Certificate of Title No. Petitioner’s counsel wrote the President of the Philippines requesting payment for the portion of lot but Auditor General dismissed it. Amigable filed in the court a quo a complaint against Nicolas Cuenca.00 and. • • • The doctrine of governmental immunity of suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Note: There was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property at the back of the certificate. she could bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in question at anytime because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. Cuenca Facts: Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of Lot No. or is actually necessary to be made a party in order to furnish the relief demanded by the suit d.dishonorably. 1. where the government takes away property from a private land owner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale. the appellant remains the owner of the whole lot. Trial Court held that a) it had no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s cause of action for the recovery of possession and ownership of the portion of her lot in question on the ground that the gov’t cannot be sued without its consent. If there was an observance of procedural regularity. Held: Yes. Government should manifest its adherence to the highest ethical standards. Ruiz vs. petitioners would not be in the said plaint they are now. Almeda Lopez b. Even though the officers or agents disclaim any personal interest in themselves and claim to act only by virtue of a title of the state and as its agents and servants !%*" " . the government used 6. Where a statutory consent of the state is absent i. c0 that the claim for moral damages have long prescribed nor did it have jurisdiction over said claim because the gov’t had not given its consent to be sued. cabahug c. Where the relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action or discharge of any obligation on the part of the state i. 6.167 square meters of said lot for construction of the “Mango” and “Gorordo” Avenues.

Unauthorized acts of the government officials or officers are not acts of the State. such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded them. CAPCOM commander Ramon Mantano made preparations for government forces to quell impending attacks. search. she was subjected to speculations of theft. arising from a tortuous act in the performance of his duties i. Montoya found out that she was the only person searched that day and that store policy dictates that searches are not to be made outside the store unless there is strong evidence of wrongdoing. acting in official duties. QC. However. may be relaxed where its strict application will result in an injustice. WON Bradford is immune from suit for acts done by her in the performance of her official functions The doctrine of immunity will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. Sec 3. of the 1987 Consti and adopted as part of the law of the land under Art II. Reyes Facts: Montoya. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him Republic vs. Bradford and the USA claims that the suit was against the country who cannot be sued without its consent and that Bradford. She was searched on the premise that the process was routine for everyone that daw. If officers of the state. sec 2. An officer who exceeds the power conferred on him by law must bear the liability personally ii. Bradford. As a defense. was searched at the parking lot of a retail store of the US Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters upon the instructions of its store manager. Where liability of the officer is personal. a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of another. Held: WON the complaint is a suit against the US (a foreign sovereign immune from suit which has not given consent to such suit) The US is immune from suit under the doctrine of state immunity as indicated by Art XVI. Montoya claims that due to illegal. OPLAN YELLOW was put into effect. is immune from suit for acts done by her in the performance of her official functions under the Philippines and that the checking of purchases at the NEX is a routine procedure observed at base retail outlets to protect and safeguard merchandise. Meanwhile. as manager of the US Navy Excahnge Branch at JUSMAG. cash and equipment !&+" " . It is however. e. in anticipating a civil disturbance. Example: 1. the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. the rule is that if the judgment against such ofifical will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same. KMP then decided to march to Malacanang from QC Circle to air their demands to the President. for the protection of his rights. Sandoval Facts: The case is a complaint for damages against the Republic of the Philippines for the death of 12 rallyists in the Mendiola massacre. a Fil-Am. There must be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be maintained The rule on immunity of the state however. She claims damages through a suit. US vs. the courts have jurisdiction to eject them. The Mendiola massacre started when members of the KMP started demanding for “genuine agrarian reform”. The KMP and the government couldn’t reach a settlement in their negotiations and eventually a heated discussion ensued between them. seize the property of a citizen without the state having a valif right thereto.• ii. is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. shoplifting and such other wrongdoings and has exposed her to contempt and ridicule which has caused her undue embarrassment and indignity ant that the illegal search was due to racial discrimination. However. Relief: require the state or its political subdivision the affiormative performance of some asserted obligation iii. and an action against the officials or officers by one wshose rightes have been invaded or violated by such acts. Immunity cannot serve as an instrument of pepetrating an injustice on a citizen iii.

a. The Solicitor General contends however that the State cannot be sued without its consent. a. Pres Aquino issued AO11 creating the Citizens Mendiola Commission whose purpose was to conduct investigations of the disorder. Its recommendations do not bind the state immediately c. Immunity of suit cannot be invoked by military officers i. EXTRA NOTES: The principle of immunity of suit is based: 1) On the very essence of sovereignty 2) On the practical ground – t at there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends 3) On Public policy – that public service would be hindered. but a clash occurred and “pandemonium broke loose”. It is only a fact finding body 2) Whatever acts or utterances that the President may have done or said. a. After the investigations. the Commission issued recommendations to aggrieved parties. Thus. Proper suits: i. Consent to execution Bernas: • When the state consents to be sued. The most significant recommendation was for the deceased and wounded victims of the Mendiola incident to be compensated by the government. SanDiego !&!" " . ii. The promise that the government would address the grievances of the rallyists is not an admittance of liability of the State. 4) The ultimate liability does not pertain to the government a. c. nor consent to the suit. death and casualties that took place. 1) The recommendation made by the Commission does not mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. High position in the govt does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another. it does not: o concede to the liability o deprive the state of the right to interpose any lawful defense o Follow that the judgment can be enforced by execution • Case: Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Although the military officers and personnel (who may have caused the deaths) were discharging their official functions when the incident occurred. is not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. and the public endangered. 12 marchers were confirmed dead. b. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency iii.When the marchers reached CM Recto. Those were acts of solidarity by the government with the people b. their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. they proceeded toward the police lines. The findings of the Commission shall only serve as the cause of action in the event any party decides to litigate his/her claim b. 3) The case does not qualify as a suit against the State. After the clash. An officer cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office when his acts re wholly without authority\immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic. Held: The state did not waive its immunity from suit. When the suit is on its face against a govt officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government. even though the officers claim to hold or act only by virtue of title of the state and as its agents and servants. After the event. the complaint for damages. e. if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for proper administration of the govt. When the Republic is sued by name ii. The principle of immunity from suit does not apply when the relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the state in its official capacity. No dialogue took place. But it was argued that the state impliedly waived its immunity from suit when the Commission issued its recommendation and in the public addresses of Pres Aquino in the aftermath of the killings.

it is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business. It is apparent. Jo regarding a parcel of land and improvements on it. then. so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations. Manila Hotel Company. Following the ruling in National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. 904. Justice Ozaeta: “On the other hard. PNB initiated a certiorari and prohibition proceeding against respondent judge. certainly. and the powers of the Courts end when the judgment is rendered Government funds may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy court judgments Disbursement of public funds = covered by corresponding appropriation as required by law Functions and public services of the State cannot be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. such a provision would be a bar to garnishment. Makati and registered under Arceli Jo. Invoking the doctrine of state non-suability. PNB vs. The premise that the funds could be spoken of as public in character may be accepted in the sense that PNB is a government owned entity. • Petitioner filed a motion to lift garnishment since payment should be done in installments which the respondent judge failed to indicate in his decision. 9 Wheat. it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. respondent moved for issuance of writ of execution. In the language of its ponente. which was granted by respondent judge and a Notice of Garnishment was served by respondent sheriff upon manager of PNB Buendia Branch. has a personality of its own and may be sued as an entity distinct from the RP by another government instrumentality.510 pursuant to PD 42. By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation.. 1824 to be exact.291. When this decision became final. Land is located at Mayapis St. It was handed down more than one hundred fifty years ago. Jo filed opposition to motion." It is worth mentioning that Justice Ozaeta could find support for such a pronouncement from the leading American Supreme Court case of United States v. Court of Industrial Relations. so Jo filed a motion on 27 Jan 1988 praying that an order to direct the bank to deliver to respondent sheriff the amount equivalent to unpaid balance be issued. Pabalan Facts: Judge Javier Pabalan issued a writ of execution. 6 L. PNB. Pending these motions.160 which was released earlier to Jo. ed.A directive from a court or other related authority directed to a third party who owes money or property to a judgment debtor not to pay or surrender the property to the judgment debtor but to deliver it to the judgment creditor for use in either satisfying a judgment Municipality of Makati vs CA • Facts: There were expropriation proceedings initiated by Makati against Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium. GARNISHMENT -. If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government. Funds of public corporations could properly be made the object of a notice of garnishment. followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment. San Antonio Village. that petitioner Bank could not legally set forth as a bar or impediment to a notice of garnishment the doctrine of non-suability. decided as far back as 1941. (Bank of the United States v. the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character. • Eminent domain proceedings were filed and Petitioner showed certification that a bank account had been opened with PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner’s name containing P417.666 and ordered petitioner to pay this amount minus the advanced P338. PNB contended that the garnishment order should be set aside. It does not follow though that they were exempt from garnishment. as appropriated by law. However. Planters' Bank. Inc. instructing PNB to deliver the funds of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration deposited with it. with the opinion coming from the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall. sheriff was informed that a “hold code” was placed on the account.o o o o Rule: Consent may limit the claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to stage of execution . Such is not the case here. P filed a “Manifestation” informing the court that Jo no longer owned the land because a new title had been registered in name of !&#" " . 244). Held: The State may not be sued without its consent. The ruling therein could be inferred from the judgment announced in Manila Hotel Employees Association v. RTC decided that property was valued at P5. The National Shipyard and Steel Corporation decision was not the first of its kind. therefore. as a public corporation. Planters' Bank.

are exempted from execution without the proper appropriation required under the law. • P had no objection to the garnishment or levy over PNB Account specifically opened for expropriation. Nesia filed a complaint against Fermin and the municipality of Victorias Negros Occidental for recovery of damages and reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of his official duties as the then Deputy Municipal Asseso of Victorias. Fermin countered that the claims of Nesia could not be approved because they exceeded the budgetary appropriations therefor. • • public funds earmarked for the municipal government’s other statutory obligations. licenses and market fees. which are Nessia vs Fermin Facts: Nesia claimed reimbursement of travel expense allowances but Fermin deliberately ignored and caused the non-payment of the vouchers in question because Nesia defied Fermin’s request to all municipal officials to register and vote in Voctorias in the 1980 local elections.953. Makati is benefitting from the property (it’s the site of Makati West High School). Since this was only alleged in the latter periods of the case.965. The trila court ruled in favor of Nesia findint that Fermin deliberately refused to act on plaintiff.45 from the garnished account of the petitioner and ordering PSB and Jo to execute the necessary deed of conveyance of property in favor of Makati. it has had reasonable time to be able to pay. Hence the present petition for review. Upon appeal to the CA. Respondent judge denied motion for reconsideration so both filed separate petitions for certiorari with CA. Inc. However. and another for the public funds of the municipality. “Municipal revenues derived from taxes.506.45 the funds garnished by respondent sheriff in excess of P99. Antonio Bautista. it is the petitioner’s main contention that inasmuch as the assailed orders of respondent RTC judge involved the net amount of P4. CA dismissed both petitions for lack of merit. are exempt from execution.94. the court of appeals ruled in favor of Fermin. (PSB) Respondent judge ordered PSB to show documents pertaining to its transactions regarding land and PNB to reveal the amount in P’s account garnished by sheriff. … Absent showing that the municipal council of Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due under the RTC decision … . no levy under execution may be validly effected on the public funds of petitioner…. and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality. PSB informed court that it had consolidated ownership over the property. unless otherwise provided for by statute.” The funds are public funds and such are not subject to levy and execution. Held: Can the PNB Account made in compliance with PD 42 be subject to execution – NO Held and Ratio: Court orders Makati to pay within 60 days. P also contended in its motion for reconsideration that its funds at PNB could neither be garnished nor levied for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law. “After several conferences. which were eventually consolidated. !&$" " .506. the court gives Petitioner the benefit of the doubt.743. PSB and Jo entered into compromise agreement whereby they agreed to divide between themselves the compensation due from the expropriation proceedings.” Respondent judge issued an order approving the compromise agreement and ordering PNB to release P4.• • Philippine Savings Bank. Manager of PNB. Properties of a municipality which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality.” This isn’t to say that Jo doesn’t have legal recourse: mandamus may be filed to make Makati pay. “However. Since it’s been 3 years and evidently. • Petitioner alleged that it actually had 2 accounts with PNB: one for the subject property and transaction. court believes that the 2nd account could’ve been made in order to be able to assert the disbursement argument.s vouchers and failed to act on the latter’s follow-up letters. Makati’s motion to lift garnishment was denied. failed to comply and was held in contempt even though he said that he was waiting for the authorization of PNB Head office.

0143 was the corresponding appropriation as required by law. ' Ordinance no. Judge Allarde denied the motion and directed the sheriff to levy and schedule at public auction 3 more vehicles.NO. Allarde ' Facts: In 1972 Mayor Marcial Samson of Caloocan abolished the position of Assistant City Administrator and 17 other positions via the ordinance no. ' In 1987 the City appropriated funds for her unpaid back salaries (supplemental budget #3) but the City refused to release the money to Santiago.91 The others were paid in full. PNB decided to follow the order of Judge Allarde.083.14 claimed by Santiago as back salaries.Held: WON the court may reverse the decision of the trial court which has become final and executor against Victorias for failure to appeal therefrom . 0134 which included the amount of P439. WON Fermin erred in exonerating Fermin from laicious refusal to act on petititioner’s claims . this rule does not apply if an ordinance has already been enacted for the payment of the City’s obligation. The City government appealed the decision but it was also dismissed. as appropriated by law. or money owed by such 3rd person or garnishee to the defendant. The affected employees assailed the legality of the abolition and in 1973 the CFI declared that it was illegal and ordered the reinstatement of all the dismissed employees and the payment of their back salaries and other emoluments. Public officials are called upon to act expeditiously on matters pending before them. Notice of garnishment was forwarded to PNB but the City Treasurer sent an advice letter to PNB that the garnishment was illegal and that it would hold PNB liable for any damages which may be caused by the withholding the funds of the city. EXCEPTION: When there is a corresponding appropriation as required by law. CFI of Manila – government funds deposited in the PNB are exempt from execution or garnishment. ' During 1986 the City paid Santiago P75. in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law. ' May 7. The City of Caloocan were arguing that Santiago was not entitled to back wages. Based on consideration of Public Policy. WON the garnishment of the funds of the City if Caloocan still needed authority of the Mayor to be released – NO ' Garnishment is considered a specie of attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim property of the defendant in the hands of a 3rd person. ' On July 27. 1993 Judge Allarde ordered the Sheriff to immediately garnish the funds of the City Government of Caloocan corresponding to the claim of Santiago. State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. 1749. ' RULE: All government funds deposited in PNB or any other official depositary of the Philippine Government remains government funds and may not be subject to garnishment or levy. seek an affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the court below. Judge Allarde issued an order to the City Treasurer to release the check but the City Treasurer can’t release it because the Mayor refuses to sign the check. In such a case monetary judgement may be legally enforced by judicial process. 1992 Sheriff Castillo levied and sold at a public auction one of the motor vehicles of the City Government for 100. Remaining balance = P530.377. The City Government questioned the validity of the motor vehicle maintaining that the properties of the municipality were exempt from execution. Inaction constitutes an offense against the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act Inaction results to material/moral loss City of Caloocan vs. The sum that was indicated in the ordinance was deemed !&%" o " . on appeal.000. 1993 the City Council of Caloocan passed ordinance no. a non appellant cannot. ' October 5. Its appraisal of conflicting testimonies is afforded greater weight. WON appellate court may grant affirmative relief to Victorias which did not appeal the trail court’s decision .YES.NO..37 in partial payment of her backwages. The amount was given to Santiago. ' Pasay City Government vs. Held: Issues and Ratio 1. Opinion of the trial court deserves greater acceptance since it was the trial court who originally heard the case.761. plus interest.

YES Sheriff complied with the rules on public auction and the administrative complaint acknowledges that fact. and 4. WON the auction of the vehicle was valid. Citizens under the 1935 Constitution i. Who are Philippine Citizens Article IV Sec 1: The following are citizens of the Philippines: 1. 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Those born before Jan 17. 3. Importance • Land ownership Case: Lee vs. Those whose fathers were citizens ii. but since his heirs were Filipino. 2. Republic o Facts: The heirs of Lee Liong was requesting for a reconstitution of certificate of title for a certain parcel of land Lee Liong acquired. Those who elected Fil citizenship upon reaching majority age (mothers are Filipinos. of Filipino mothers. 3. aka The Caram rule !&&" XII. Petitioner cannot now be heard to impugn the validity of the auction sale. the heirs are entitled to own the land. Definition • Personal and permanent membership in a political community • Denotes possession of full civil and political rights in the political community • Imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community B. o Held: Liong was not entitled to own the land. father are not) 1. The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of " . Since the prohibition no longer applies. Those who are citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. A valid appropriation lifts its exemption from execution. Bernas Notes: 1. there is no more violation of public policy. It gives the capacity to enjoy political rights o Right to participate in government o Right to vote o Right to hold public office o Right to petition the government for redress of grievances o Right to have rights A person with no citizenship is stateless – disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen C. The appropriation was duly signed and approved by the council and the mayor. Modes of acquisition • Jus sanguinis – acquisition on the basis of blood relationship (this is the one applied in the Philippines) • Jus soli – on the basis of birth • Naturalization – legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born citizen D. WON the levy and sale at public auction of 3 motor vehicles owned by the City cannot be attached nor sold in an execution sale to satisfy a money judgement against the City of Caloocan. CITIZENSHIP A. – MOOT CASE Judge Allarde already the levy on the three vehicles thereby formally discharging them from the jurisdiction of this court. • • lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. it was alleged that Lee Liong is Chinese and hence is not entitled to own such land.automatically segregated from other budgetary allocation of the City of Caloocan and earmarked solely for the City’s monetary obligation to her. However. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Constitution: a. 1973. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

not to filiation by adoption • Parental authority remains unchanged under the new Consti o Only legitimate children follow the citizenship of the father ! Illegitimate children follow the mother’s ! Illegitimate child. is a Fil citizen from the moment of birth b. whether born in the Philippines or abroad. iii. elect Fil citizenship (sec4) ! This provision is supplemented by Commonwealth Act No. elected to public office before the adoption of the 1935 Consti b. and although he has never been naturalized. Those born of foreign parents. the child is a Fil citizen (even if the father is an alien) o BUT! Mother must be Filipino at the time of the birth of the child (not at the time of her marriage) Not retroactive: applies only on or after adoption of 1973 Consti (Jan17. 1973 Consti • Expanded application of jus sangunis: Fil woman = Fil male (in matters of citizenship • If the mother is a Fil citizen. Those who elected Fil citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Consti iv. he was elected provincial board member of Iloilo before the consti convention. it remains subject to challenge under the new law – WON judicial challenge had been commenced prior to the new law’s effectivity 2. Fil father + and alien mother = Filipino (FPJ) • Child may also have dual citizenship • the legislature may adopt the principle of jus soli (if they wanted to) o 3.1973) o Came under assault by: ! Roberto Concepcion: Arguing based on the nationalist perspective. Commissioner of Immigration o Must the mother be a Filipino at the time of the election by the child? !&'" " . 625 (procedure for making the election) • Case: Villahermoso vs. Those who are already citizens at the time of the adoption of Consti ii. Those naturalized Note: if a person’s citizenship was subject to judicial challenge under the old law. Citizens under the 1973 Consti i. Delegate Fermin Caram to erase all doubts as to his citizenship 3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship • Scope of the right of election given by the 1935 Consti: o Those whose mothers are Fil citizens and. 1935 Consti • The child of a Filipino father. Those who were naturalized iv.2. upon the age of majority. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens (Principle of jus sanguinis) a. This provision was tailor-made for one of the delegates of the constitutional convention. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens iii. he thought the provision could open up to exploitation of natural resources by “half-breeds” ! Ambrosio Padilla: Saw this as a fruit of the feminist movement and said that it ignored the real differences between children of a Filipino father and that of a Fil mother (because a Fil mother must leave her country with her foreign husband to raise her child abroad) c. 1987 Consti Jus sanguinis • Applies only to natural filiation. Caram was born in the Philippines by Syrian parents.

there was no fixed procedure. For proof of election.• • • • • It is sufficient that the mother be a Fil citizen. ! ! ! The 1973 Consti does not grant but merely preserves a right already acquired Expires once those who have the right to elect have already elected or have forfeited • 21 years after the 1973 Constitution = 1994 (and so it was carried over to the 1987 Consti) 4. either by birth or by naturalization. at the time of her marriage o If the mother lost her citizenship by marriage. delicate and exacting nature o Affects public interest of the highest order o May be enjoyed only under precise conditions prescribed by the law • Admission to citizenship is an aspect of sovereignty o Every independent nation has the inherent right to determine what classes of people shall be entitled to its citizenship ! Letter of Instruction 270 • Provided for administrative screening preparatory to the grant of citizenship by presidential decree • Historical Background: !&(" " . Electoral Tribunal of House of Representatives o Election of citizenship is not needed if the father has been naturalized while he is still a minor Case: In re Mallare o The court recognizes informal election under special circumstances: participation in the election process on the belief that one was a citizen 1973 Consti o A Filipino woman who marries an alien can retain her original citizenship ! And their child is allowed to follow her citizenship o The right to elect was acquired under the 1935 Consti ! It is a transitory provision applicable to children born under the 1935 Consti who had not yet reached the age of majority when 1973 Consti took effect. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law o Naturalization ! Legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the rights that belong to a natural born citizen ! Obtained through a general law of naturalization applied through a judicial process • Revised Naturalization Law (CA473) ! Named individuals may acquire citizenship through a special act passed by the legislature or by the President in the exercise of legislative power ! Philippine Bill of 1902 • Mass naturalization law • All inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside in them who were Spanish subjects on April 11. Secretary of Justice o Reasonable period within which the child must make the lection upon reaching 18: 3 years o Except: when the person concerned has always considered himself a Fil citizen (3-year period can be extended) Case: Co vs. but a privilege o Privilege of the most discriminating. 1899 and then resided in said islands were made Filipino citizens ! Positivist rule • Citizenship is not a right.1941) o The election must be: ! Expressed in a statement sworn before any officer authorized to administer oaths ! Filed with the nearest civil registry ! Accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Phil Consti o Before. the Court accepted: ! Participating in elections ! Campaigning for a candidate Case: Dy Cuenco vs. but subsequently reacquired it during the minority of the child? ! the child must still make the election CA 625 Procedure for making the election (June 7.

able to read and write. at least forty years of age on the day of the election. Natural Born Citizens –Art. able to read and write. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.o o o Measure to counteract the potential national security threat o Vast number of Chinese residing in the Philippines when the country was establishing diplomatic relations with Peking o For greater simplification and liberalization of naturalization law Power of the legislature in naturalization: ! Control over processes through which citizenship is acquired or lost ! Determination of substantive criteria for admission to citizenship ! Fixing the consequences of the grant of citizenship on the wife or minor children of the grantee Prevailing policy: make acquisition of citizenship a slow. a registered voter. a registered voter. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and. subject to limitations provided by law. but becomes one after: • Administrative procedure to cancel her alien certificate of registration • She has none of the disqualifications found in CA 473 o o Administrative naturalization ! Handled through the Special committee on Naturalization ! Chaired by the Solicitor General ! Governed by Sec 3.” 1. and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election” “Section 3. Advantages of natural born citizens Article XII. Sections 3 & 6 “Section 3. cumbersome process ! Sec 2 of CA 473Requirements: • Age • Residence • Moral character and political belief • Real property or lucrative occupation • Language • Education of children ! Procedural requirements • Declaration of intention • Filing of petition • Hearing and initial judgment • Period of probation • Rehearing and final judgment • Oath of citizenship The grant of citizenship to a parent extends to the minor children under parental authority ! Wife is deemed a citizen. 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. on the day of the election. is at least thirty-five years of age. except the party-list representatives.” “Section 6. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3).“Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. 5 and 6 of RA 9139 E. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. XXX” Article VI. is at least twenty-five years of age. 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. IV. Section 2 . Sections 2 &3 “Section 2. and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. 4. a registered voter in the !&)" " . arduous. Section 8 – “Section 8. on the day of the election. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article. and.” Article VII. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. able to read and write. and. a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands.

shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. at least thirty-five years of age. and the HRET declared Cruz a duly elected Representative. Petitioner Bengson III contends !&*" " . who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and. and must not have been candidates for a any elective position in the election immediately preceding their appointment. XXX” Article XIII. Fornier argued that Poe’s mother was an American citizen and that his father was a Spanish national. Fornier filed a petition praying that the Comelec disqualify FPJ from running for president on the grounds that he misrepresented himself in his certificate of candidacy when he claimed that he was a natural-born Filipino citizen. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners. At no time shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same profession. Who are Natural Born Citizens a. However.” Article VIII. or Accepting Commission in. and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. holders of a college degree. at least forty years old. with proven capacity for public administration. an illegitimate child of a Filipino father is a natural born Filipino citizen. Section 20 – “Section 20.district in which he shall be elected. and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. of known probity. he could not have transmitted his citizenship to FPJ because FPJ was illegitimate. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. A member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age. Ruling: (taken from Bernas) As long as paternity is proved. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens b. XXX” Article IX-B Section 1(1) – “Section 1. and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. (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.” Article XI Section 8 – The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines. at the time of their appointment. (1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and. the Armed Forces of the United States”). Bengzon vs HRET (2001) Facts: Teodoro Cruz was a Philippine citizen. but he enlisted in the US Marine Corps and subsequently became a naturalized US citizen. at the time of their appointment. the majority of whom shall come from the private sector. the members of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino citizens.” 2. Cruz ran and was elected for the position of Representative of Pangasinan. and members of the Philippine Bar.” Article IX-C Section 1(1) – “Section 1. and patriotism. of recognized probity and independence. at least thirty-five years of age. Former natural born citizens who reacquire citizenship by repatriation Tecson vs Comelec (2004) Facts: Victorino X. a majority thereof.” Article IX-D Section 1(1) – “Section 1. at least thirty-five years of age.” Article XII. including the Chairman. at the time of their appointment. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and. and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. (2) The Commission [on Human Rights] shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. Those who elect Filipino citizenship c. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law. and at the time of their appointment. 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. integrity. and even if his father was a Filipino citizen. He reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630 (Title: “An Act Providing For Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship By Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To. or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten year. certified public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing experience. Fornier failed to substantiate his case. Section 17(2) – “Section 17. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority. Section 7(1) – “Section 7.

He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years. or must have some known lucrative trade. The HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. By Judicial Proceeding a) Com. and while his father was born (1905) a Chinese citizen who applied for and was granted naturalization when Ong was still a child. any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization: First. Special qualifications. He graduated from Law school and passed the Bar. Jr. Ong grew up as a Filipino. and his citizenship is cemented by his mother’s citizenship. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages. Norther Samar. 7. he was not allowed to take his oath. Section 3. and Sixth. he had to elect his Filipino citizenship by the time he reached the age of majority. 914 (1999) Facts: Vicente D. Jr. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. 15 & 18 “Section 2. Ruling: Cruz is a natural-born Filipino Citizen. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition. Jose Ong. Co vs HRET (1991) Facts: Jose Ong. Under the 1935 Constitution. Philippine currency. Cruz has all the qualifications to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives. or political subdivisions thereof. This privilege should be availed of with fervor. 8. municipalities. Ching was already 35 when he complied with the requirements of CA 625. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age. was elected for the position of representative of the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar. or lawful occupation. Ruling: Ching’s citizenship election was beyond the allowable period within which to exercise his privilege. Under the 1987 Constitution. government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum. was declared a naturalborn citizen of the Philippines and a resident of Laoang. Ruling: Ong’s mother was a natural born Filipina. Naturalization (I just put in the original texts since I know they can be hard to come by) 1.that Cruz was not qualified to be Representative of Pangasinan because he was no longer a natural born citizen. but because of the questionable status of his citizenship. cities. saying that he was not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and that he was not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar. Fourth. The ten years of continuous residence required under the second condition of the last preceding section shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications: 1. His opponents. Third. in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education1 of the Philippines. Ching is the son of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces. Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co filed election protests again Ong. 3. profession. !'+" " . By then he well past the age of majority and his election could not be considered to have retroacted to the time he took the Bar. only naturalized Filipinos are not considered natural-born citizens. 5. Act No. where the Philippine history. In re Ching. Second. 6. F. and promptitude. Ching had to formally elect Philippine citizenship within “reasonable time” prior to taking his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar. enthusiasm. and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. 4. 473 (Revised naturalization Law) –Sections 2. during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. Fifth. Bar Matter No.

b. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention. age. last foreign residence and allegiance. personal assault. Being married to a Filipino woman. the name. . the name of the port of debarkation. Section 4. and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum. during the period of such war. and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act. specifying the same. the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice4 a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs. during the period of their residence in the Philippines. government. – Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court. Who are disqualified. may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. and manner of his arrival has been issued. and dies before he is actually naturalized. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments. that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act. in which he came to the Philippines. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy. age. c. during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years.6 Section 7. 5. Declaration of intention. occupation. and. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate showing the date. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases. in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education5 of the Philippines. and ideals of the Filipinos. his occupation. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines. 3. h. whether single or married and the father of children. accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner. Such declaration shall set forth name. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence. Petition for citizenship. Each declarant must furnish two photographs of himself. if any. birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children. d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens: a. – Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. Having been born in the Philippines. f. if he remembers it. 4. a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act. the name of the vessel or aircraft. e. traditions. the place and date of his birth. personal description. place. – One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship. Persons who. and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the !'!" " . The same shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. if any. setting forth his name and surname. place of birth. and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application. Section 5. a petition in triplicate. the name of the ship on which he came. Section 6. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States 2and the Philippines are at war. his present and former places of residence. the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines. have not mingled socially with the Filipinos. or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas. g. The declarant must also state that he has enrolled his minor children. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States 3 whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. where Philippine history.2. To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. the date of arrival.

Cancellation of Naturalization Certificate Issued. . use or enjoyment of a right. through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring hem to another school or schools. who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized.” “Sec.petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. A certified copy of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Justice.-Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines. or by the proper provincial fiscal. 5. nor shall any decision granting the application become executory until after two years from its !'#" " .” b) RA No. shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up his permanent residence in the same. where Philippine history. and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition. A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent. If the person naturalized shall. and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines. and a foreign-born minor child. he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age. unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor. or two years in any other foreign country.—The Court of First Instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition. A foreign-born minor child. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof. shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his minority. shall be considered a Philippine citizen. within the five years next following the issuance of said naturalization certificate. stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons. 4. 15. Section 1 – effect on the wife and children “Section 1. If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally. government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum. and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the exercise. shall automatically become a Philippine citizen. the competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the Civil Register: 1. and to take the necessary oath of allegiance. 530. 3. If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. in which case. no petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by the courts until after six months from the publication of the application required by law. franchise or privilege. he fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the American Consulate of the country where he resides. Competent court. Section 8. That the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality.Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor-General or his representative. The certificate of arrival. if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent.” “Sec. return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there: Provided. 18. The provisions of existing laws notwithstanding. If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines. unless within one year after reaching the age of majority. 2.

” Joketime. Loss of Citizenship – Article IV. No. Ruling: Frivaldo’s naturalization proceedings were full of procedural flaws and he could not be considered a Filipino citizen. 15 of CA 473.When one had a Portuguese passport and was granted naturalization as a Filipino citizen. Ruling: Under Sec. but still declared Portuguese citizenship and obtained a Portuguese passport.When a Filipino took an oath of allegiance to another country. Frivaldo was elected Governor of Sorsogon. and RA 965. Title: RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2. No. Ruling: The cancellation of Li Yao’s certificate of naturalization was valid. Commissioner (1971) Facts: Lau Yuen Yeung. Republic vs. (4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. 63 as amended. he died. but to no avail. because he was not a Filipino citizen.A.“Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. but he became a US Citizen when he fled the Marcos regime. an alleged Filipino citizen. By Administrative Proceedings (R. his actions constituted a renunciation of Filipino citizenship. He was originally a natural-born Filipino citizen. married Moy Ya Lim Yao a. when it was found that he was not a person of “good moral character. He filed a notice of appeal. As a Filipino citizen.k.a. it was a renunciation of Filipino citizenship !'$" " . His moral character was found lacking. By Direct Act of Congress 4.Commonwealth Act No.“R. and RA 2639. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favor of the government and against the applicant. Edilberto Aguinaldo.” . Raul Lee wanted annulment of Frivaldo’s proclamation as Governor-elect and cancellation of Frivaldo’s certificate of candidacy.A.A. 9139. Liyao (1992) Facts: William Li Yao was a Chinese national who was granted naturalization. (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession. with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative. kase sinearch ko sa internet. and then by direct act of congress. 4 of CA 473. but while it was pending. His citizenship was revoked. and PD 725 on repatriation. Moya Lim Yao vs. unequivocal and convincing showing that it had been obtained fraudulently or the person is shown to have violated the prohibitions . a Chinese citizen. and statute na ito ay “act establishing the Guimaras State College. He had to vacate his office and turn it over to the Vice Governor. He later returned to the Philippines and sought Filipino citizenship again. provided that she did not suffer from any of the disqualifications under Sec. (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules.” Republic vs. but he was declared an alien and disqualified from serving as governor. Frivaldo was disqualified. No. is satisfied. He also attempted repatriation but prevailing repatriation laws at the time were only open to army deserters and Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to foreigners. 9138” is a typo. however. De la Rosa (1994) Facts: Juan G. Section 3 .” he evaded taxes and used different names. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION LAW OF 2000” 3.A certificate of naturalization may be canceled if there is a clear. Lau Yuen Yeung has become a naturalized Filipino citizen. but Moy Ya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed her arrest and deportation. on proper hearing. She overstayed her nonimmigrant visa and was about to be deported. . this disqualified him from naturalization. by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao. that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines. Dapat “R. Denaturalization G.promulgation and after the court. first through petition for naturalization. 9139” siya. and so finds. she cannot be deported. 9138) . govern loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship .

Registration of repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation . He returned to the Philippines and got a residence certificate. 63. he lacked the requisite residency to qualify for the position of Mayor. He later joined the US Navy and was naturalized as a US citizen.Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where affected persons are not made parties . Comelec (1996) Facts: Juan G. Comelec (2002) Facts: Coquilla was born and grew up in Eastern Samar. his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application to run for governor. saying that he had been a resident of Oras for “2 years. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon and won. Coquilla vs. because her father was a Filipino citizen. Ruling: The RTC could not take cognizance of Angat’s petition for readmission as a citizen of the Philippines under CA 63 and RAs 965 and 263 (0). and had proclaimed Lee -2nd placer. . saying that he had resided in Oras for only about 6 months. On petition at the RTC to regain citizenship.Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born in 1934. Raul R. she is also a Filipino citizen. what will be reacquired would be naturalized citizenship .as Sorsogon Governor-elect. Act. An application for repatriation could be filed by Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and by natural !'%" " . How citizenship may be lost. in Australia. He applied for and was granted repatriation under RA 8171 and he later filed for a certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Oras.. Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law. . Ruling: Frivaldo’s repatriation was valid and legal and because of PD 725’s curative nature. he was repatriated and declared a citizen under RA 8171. the Court had already ruled based on his previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship.” Respondent incumbent mayor sought cancellation of Coquilla’s certificate of candidacy. Section 1(2) “Section 1. Reacquisition of Citizenship – See Com.Effective date of repatriation when approved is date of application for repatriation (for natural born citizens) . He was an alien without a right to reside in the Philippines until he reacquired his Philippine citizenship.For citizenship to be lost by renunciation. Republic (1999) Facts: Gerardo Angat y Legaspi was a natural born citizen who lost his citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. or repatriation. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon. Sol Gen asserted that petition for repatriation should have been dismissed because the proper forum for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization. No. Eastern Samar. to a Filipino father and an Australian mother.Repatriation is the recovery of original citizenship. Again. Ruling: Comelec has jurisdiction over the case even though Coquilla was already proclaimed mayor. therefore. H. He petitioned for repatriation under PD 725 and was able to take his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen. Angat vs.Lost citizenship may be reacquired either through naturalization.A mother’s repatriation entitles her minor son to a declaration that he is entitled to Philippine citizenship.” a woman who has lost her citizenship through marriage only needs to take the oath of allegiance and register it in the proper civil registry . but continued to go on trips to the US. If what was lost was naturalized citizenship. it renunciation must be express .There is no law authorizing “judicial repatriation. Again. Lee questioned his citizenship. but on the day that he got his citizenship. – A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country (2) By express renunciation of citizenship” Frivaldo vs.Repatriation may be accomplished depending on how citizenship was lost o Women who lost their citizenship through marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of economic or political necessity o Those who lost citizenship serving in the US Armed Forces . Comelec was unable to render judgment and Coquilla won the elections. Coquilla lost his domicile of origin when he became a US citizen.

Manzano (1999) Facts: Eduardo Manzano won the 1998 vice mayoral elections for the City of Makati.” .” Mercado vs. appointive positions. etc. Intention to abandon the old domicile (loss of domicile is evidentiary and there is presumption that being an immigrant according to another country’s laws may not necessarily mean loss of domicile) o Requirement of residence where one is to vote can mean either domicile. 1(7) was the law on citizenship of Filipinas married to aliens. Suffrage – Article V “Section 1. she acquires his nationality. but under the 1987 Constitution. property. CA 63. these must concur: 1. In relation to Article IV. " . Intention to remain there 3. it’s just a right. to have renounced it. It is voluntary. Sec. His parents were Filipino (Filipino according to the 1935 Constitution). Those born in the Philippines to alien fathers.born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship with the Special Committee on Naturalization. who are at least eighteen years of age. As far as Philippine law is concern. but he was born in San Francisco. the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification (for candidacy. (See Sec. Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Dual Citizenship . Manzano is a Philippine citizen and is not disqualified from running for office. recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may. Suffrage is the right to vote. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. or temporary residence. they are citizens of that country On the other hand.“Section 4. The voting age was lowered to broaden the mass electoral base and emphasize the role of the youth in public affairs . Dual Allegiance – Article IV. under the law. he has repudiated his American citizenship. and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. Code) . “Residence” as used in election law has 2 meanings o Synonymous with “domicile” – intention to reside in a fixed place. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. A Filipina loses her Philippine citizenship “upon her marriage to a foreigner. without performing any act. Ruling: Dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification under Sec. Manzano grew up and had a career in the Philippines.) must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance” J. those who have dual citizenship are… Those born to Filipino parent/s in a foreign country that follows the principle of jus soli ii. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. it was also an obligation. . California (American under US law). by some positive act. 5’s concept of dual allegiance. RA 7160. Ernesto Mamari alleged that Manzano should be disqualified because he was not a Filipino citizen. 40 of the Local Government Code of 1991.“Dual citizenship” is different from the 1987 Art. XIII.” o Before the 1973 Constitution. Therefore. or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. To acquire a domicile by choice. if by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country. The person’s acts must conform with his purpose and the change must be voluntary. Residence or bodily presence in the new locality 2. that one owes loyalty to 2 states. Sections 4 & 5. IV Sec. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. !'&" i. Manzano manifested in his certificate of candidacy that he will defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to it. He has dual citizenship.” The 1987 Constitution made this rule applicable to male citizens as well . if by the laws of the foreigner’s country. and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. if the law of the father’s country says that they are citizens of that country iii. Those who marry aliens. dual allegiance is when one shows. In the 1973 Constitution. as well as a personal presence in that place. be also a citizen of another state. No literacy. I. Local Govt.“Section 5. 40.

Romualdez v RTC: Philip Romualdez returned from US where he sought asylum after EDSA. o Anyone adjudged by final judgment of having violated his allegiance to the Philippines o Insane or feeble-minded persons . they call be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot. Section 8. property. vice-president. Can vote again upon expiration of 5 years after service of sentence. court took judicial notice of the fact that the President issued a proclamation calling Congress to a Special Session to allow the conduct of special registration for new voters and that bills had been filed in Congress to amend RA 8189. However. they missed their chance. 5 of RA 9189 says… o Individuals recognized as immigrants in their host countries can vote in absentia if… ! Upon registration. RA 8189: Any registered voter. Comelec (2003) Facts: Petitioner assails constitutionality of RA 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) as a taxpayer and a lawyer Ruling: RA 9189 does not violate the Constitution. but it is prohibited from prescribing any literacy. and party-list representatives . 4 of RA 9189 covers… o Philippine citizens abroad not otherwise disqualified o At least 18 years of age on the day of elections o …who have not lost their domicile in the Philippines o May vote for president. Section 35. Comelec) “Section 2. and was allowed to register as a voter in Tolosay.. or other substantive requirements . Sec. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES !''" " . Leyte. Ruling: The Supreme Court could not compel Comelec to conduct a special registration of new voters. Petitioners failed to register. he/she executes an affidavit declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippine not later than 3 years from approval of his/her registration. Sec. Persons not qualified to vote under the Election Code (substantive disqualifications): o Anyone sentenced by final judgment to not less than 1 year of imprisonment. Some parts clash with Constitution. The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disable and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. senators. and stating that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. XIV. Absentee voting is allowed under RA. 8 of RA 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting 120 days before a regular election. 15 year olds can vote in the referendum on 27 February 1975p it was purely consultative (Gonzales v. RA 8189 (Voter’s Registration Act of 1996): “System of Continuing Registration of Voters” o …No registration shall be conducted 120 days before regular election and 90 days before special election . except 100 days prior to a regular election . Comelec disapproved the request for additional registration. such as the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to implement RA 9189. . Congress has been given discretion to create disqualifications. Comelec (2001) Facts: Akbayan-Youth wanted Comelec to conduct a special registration before May 2001 General elections for new voters. representative. ! Failure to return means permanent disqualification to vote in absentia Material points of: Macalintal vs. Sec. The Constitution provides for a system of absentee voting for qualified Filipino abroad. and some other parts. Until then. or political party may file for the exclusion of voters from the permanent voter’s list. Akbayan Youth vs. .” . 9189. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. since it was recognized as never having been abandoned. The right to suffrage is not absolute and must be exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the Constitution.

II. and amity with all nations.A. by reason of its membership in the family of nations. imploring the aid of Almighty God. efforts should be exerted to harmonize them. Preamble: Nature. sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. conserve and develop our patrimony. and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations. justice. and secure to ourselves and our posterity. territorial integrity. bound by the generally accepted principles of international law. love. purpose and aims PREAMBLE We. Sec. the sovereign Filipino people. In re: Garcia). if the conflict is irreconcilable. and manufacture of nuclear weapons. • Doctrine of Incorporation: every state is. • This ensures that the foreign policy of the Philippines shall be independent of the dictates of foreign influence Art. Art. II. Sec. This shows that the Philippines is not just a representative government but also shares some aspects of direct democracy. equality. Sec 2: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. Hernandez. cooperation. devices. • The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons includes the prohibition not only of the possession. the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth. do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace. II. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. so as to give effect to both. Its purpose is the promotion of the common welfare according to the will of the people themselves (usually determined by the rule of the majority). and parts thereof. • It should be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted rules of international law. • When there appears to be a conflict between international law and municipal law. control. Principles 1. • In a republican form of government. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration will be national sovereignty. Initiative and referendum • Essential features of republicanism: o representation and renovation o Manifestations ! Ours is a government of laws and not of men ! Rule of the majority [plurality in elections] Accountability of public officials Bill of rights Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws • Separation of powers 2. in order to build a just and humane society. municipal law should be upheld as against international law (Ichong v. II. justice. Sovereignty of the People and Republicanism Art. o Ex. !'(" • • • " . • Republican form of government: one constructed on the principle that the supreme power resides in the body of the people. promote the common good. 7: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. • . Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Sec. 8: The Philippines. 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Hechanova. equality.“Democratic”: the Constitutional Commission to the 1987 Constitution added this phrase. which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws. freedom. ADOPTION OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Art. • This is nothing more than a formal acceptance of a principle to which all civilized nations must conform. B. However. consistent with the national interest. and the right to self-determination. and peace. freedom. national interest. Gonzales v. but also nuclear arms tests.

Good faith e. XVI. at all times. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. • Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. Freedom of the seas f. !')" " .However. be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government. Recognition c. Abstention from the use of threat or force b. The armed forces of the Philippines shall consist of a citizen armed force and a regular force. Cooperation e. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. . No member of the military shall engage. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. Sec. However. (4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall. at any time. and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. Peaceful settlement of disputes c. (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. Non-intervention on matters within the jurisdiction of any state d. The armed forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. (2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military. Sec. XVI. 5: (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.Citizen armed force: maintaining such a force would be more economical than maintaining a large standing force. Consent d. Sec. 4: The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. Sovereignty b. • Art. which makes the President Commander-inChief of the AFP. Self-defense Duties of States (Based on the “Declaration on the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States”) a. _ This policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 3: Civilian authority is. the political departments may provide for the exceptions to this policy but this must be justified by the demands of the national interest. • • Seven Fundamental Principles a. Sec. (Art VII. II. including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State. directly or indirectly. International responsibility g. Civilian Supremacy Art. except to vote. supreme over the military. the President may extend such tour of duty. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. 18) Armed Forces Art. • The principle of civilian supremacy is institutionalized by the provision. in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress. Respect for the sovereign equality of states g. and would also provide the nation with a force well trained in military matters as well as in respect for human rights. Upholding the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples f.Regular force: the segment of the citizen armed force which is kept in active duty . Fulfilling in good faith the obligations assumedin the un Charter 3. in any partisan political activity.

(Cruz) • State: prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs • Church: barred from meddling in purely secular matters (Cruz) • Reason: A union of church and State “tends to destroy government and to degrade religion” (Cruz) !'*" 4.. Art. . to render personal military or civil service. . The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and. . Defense of State Art. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Art II. But it prevents him from campaigning for a specific candidate. 4: The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. all citizens may be required.This prohibition does not prevent a soldier from expressing his preferences. a State may take up all necessary action.Since much is expected of a soldier. and that the military or civil service required from them must be personal. . and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessing of democracy . . second. . it is expected that members of the armed forces should be imbued not only with a patriotic and nationalistic spirit but also with deep respect for people’s rights. including women.Professionalism should not only mean expertise in the technical and martial aspects of military science. third. invasion. 6: the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. -This provision recognized a hierarchy of rights: firs.The rule of prohibiting exclusion of service of those who under law are retirable is intended to prevent the demoralization of junior officers who cannot go up in rank because of the extension of service of senior officers. II. These are necessary components of “professionalism”. life. Sec. property. -The duty to defend the state is imposed upon all citizens. including the use of armed force. II. 5: The maintenance of peace and order.Members of the Armed Forces are sworn to defend the Constitution . Government as protector of People and People as Defenders of the State " . soldiers are prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity. under conditions provided by law.Section 5(6) attempts to spread out the recruitment of officer and men proportionately among the different provinces in order to prevent the creation of regional blocs within the military. 5.Because of the power that is wielded by a holder of arms.This precludes the hiring by the rich of “mercenaries” or p[professional soldiers to take their place in the defense of the state.Partisan politics: can seriously erode military professionalism. .The prohibition of holding civilian positions concurrently with active military service does not allow for exceptions. . . • Purpose: to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions. by virtue of this right.This provision has no counterpart either in the 1935 or 1973 Constitution.War or national emergency will allow for extension of the tour of duty of the AFP Chief of Staff. .The emergency contemplated is one in which the office of the Chief of Staff is a relevant factor. liberty and property. such as lawless violence. Sec. . in fulfillment thereof. • This provision is based upon the inherent right of every state to existence and self-preservation. to repel any threat to its security. Sec. Thus. liberty.Partisan political activity means campaigning for a candidate or for a party. the protection of life. the state owes him adequate remuneration and benefits. or situations which have direct military implications.

or government orphanage or leprosarium. or dignitary as such. XIV sec. except when such priest. minister. aid all religions. to ensure religious liberty · Not only for property but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purpose. 3. or system of religion. ** EXCEPTIONS 1. exemption would redound to the benefit of the students · Charitable institutions. Government must not prefer one religion over another or over irreligion 2. shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or !(+" " . (American jurisprudence on the non-establishment clause) • NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE/ freedom of religion clause (Sec. VI. Sec. 2. church. sectarian institution. Government action must not result in excessive entanglement with religion Test for laws to pass as not violating the NonEstablishment clause: (1) What are the purposes and primary effect of the enactment? (2) If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution? • ** For it to be valid. directly or indirectly. other than those established by religious groups and mission boards. 4. denomination. Government funds must not be applied to religious Purposes 3. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. Social: growth of a religious sect as a social force must come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief that both spiritual and secular society will benefit of official patronage Four general propositions of government neutrality: 1. 5. XIV Sec. No appropriation for sects. or to any penal institution. so as to enhance services they are capable of giving · Religious property. religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong. minister. Government action must not aid religion 4. III): Prohibits the state from passing “laws which aid one religion. benefit. exemptions: Art. applied. for the use. or employed. · Applies to both profit and non-profit educational institutions with respect to realty tax. or of any priest. or prefer one religion over the another” • 2 intermediate views: 1. VI Section 29 (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated. preacher. except religious groups and mission boards Art. other religious teacher. or support of any sect.Note: In settling recent non-establishment problems. Art. Religious. 28 (3)) · 1973: Did not include educational institutions in exemptions. preacher. whathas been useful for the court is not the metaphor of a dividing “wall” but the concept of neutrality. Charitable. Educational Institutions and their properties— Exempted (Art. paid. Optional Religious Instruction Art. 4 (2) Educational institutions. Both direct and indirect aid to religion are prohibited but only if the support involves the preference of one religion over another or preference of religion over irreligion • Values non-establishment seeks to protect: Voluntarism 3. Clause prohibits only direct support of institutional religion but not support indirectly accruing to churches and church agencies through support given to members 2. there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Personal: inviolability of the human conscience (protected by the free exercise clause) -Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension 4. Filipino ownership for schools. 4 (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians. without additional cost to the Government.

Independent foreign policy and a nuclear-free Philippines Art.: Questioning the Consitutionality of the Balikatan exercises. !(!" " . The 1987 Constitution. devices. the Constitution shall prevail (doctrine of incorporation). Exec. and an improved quality of life for all.: VFA intends to supplement the 1952 Mutual Defense Pact with the US. ratification of the people in Section 25. In the Transitory Provisions: (1) foreign military bases shall not be allowed EXCEPT by another treaty concurred by Senate. C. and manufacture of nuclear weapons. and when in conflict. promote full employment. Executive Sec. 2. it is a treaty that would require concurrene of the Senate pursuant to Art VII. International laws are to be given equal standing with local legislation. In the Executive Department: (1) concurrence of Senate by at least 2/3 in Section 21. • However.” Moreover. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. sec. II. UN Charter refrains all members from using threat or force against other territories. in its Declaration of Principles and State Policies: (1) renounces war in Section 2. CASE LAW 1. which covers not only the presence of bases but also of troops. 25 of Art. The Congress may. PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services. • The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons includes the prohibition not only of the possession. the political departments may provide for the exceptions to this policy but this must be justified by the demands of the national interest. The Court held that the agreement requires a treaty because of Sec. POLICIES 1. hence. The phrase “recognised as a treaty be the other contracting State” means that it only requires taht the other contracting State must go through all the steps needed to make the agreement a treaty under their laws before the Phils recognises it as effective. • It reflects the state’s preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire the people in a life of dependence. petitioners contending that (1)MDT of 1951 only allows “assistance” in cases of armed attack by external aggressors or a third country. 2. XVIII. and (3) VFA does not allow US soldiers to engage in combat in Philippine territory. control. the scope activities shall not include combat or engagement in offensive war in the Philippine territory. require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. (2) Abu Sayyaf bandits are not external aggressors. consistent with the national interest. LIM v. VItenna Convention on the Law of Treaties gives freedom to each state to choose form of giving consent to treaty. however. BAYAN v. and (3) adopts a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in Section 8. a rising standard of living. Court ruled that The MDT and the VFA must be read with the Constitution. _ This policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. (2) pursues an independent foreign policy with paramount consideration for national sovereignty in Section 7. 8: The Philippines. Sec. 25. but also nuclear arms tests. not even to fire back if fired upon. Section 10: The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. so it allows Amercian military to enter the Phils on a temporary basis for training purposes.corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. or when Congress so requires. A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER a. and parts thereof. Also. Sec.

For purposes of judiciary. and disposition of property and its increments. to the executive arm which implements policy.Mere procedural technicalities should not be allowed to get in the way of adequate protection of labor. ideals which government is expected to respect. • Social justice is principally the embodiment of the principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. ownership. . • However. Section 11: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. an interpretation that favors the underprivileged must be followed. . . but when law can be interpreted in more ways than one. . and political inequalities. where the President was both executive and legislator. reduce social. the import of social justice. the Constitution was adopted in the midst of surging unrest and dissatisfaction resulting from economic and social distress. . which focused on economic inequities. economic. To this end.Those who have less in life should have more in law The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interests. general provisions were inserted in the Constitution intended to bring about the needed social economic equilibrium through the application of justitia communis. . !(#" " . .Because of this.(Social Justice in the 1935 Constitution) Although frequently invoked as a protest against arbitrariness in legislation. which creates policy.In the 1935 Convention. . was that when the law is clear and valid. “The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of the people” was thus inserted as a vital principle in the Constitution. .The new constitution covers all phases of national development. and to the judicial arm. the idea of social justice was developed to mean justice to the common tao or to the “little man. II of the 1973 Constitution was addressed to the legislative arm.Under the 1973 Constitution.The new constitution emphasizes not just the socioeconomic but also the political and cultural inequities. which interprets policy. • Social rights are primarily in nature of claims or demands which people expect government to satisfy. it simply must be applied. Section 2: The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. • The 1987 Constitution advances beyond the other constitutions because it seeks not only economic social justice but also political justice. commanding a legal bias in favor of those who are underprivileged.The concretization of this provision is found principally in the Bill of Rights and the human rights provisions of Article XIII Social Justice and Human Rights Section 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. substantive due process was rarely invoked with success.(Social Justice in the 1973 Constitution) What the 1973 Constitution had succeeded in doing was merely to preserve and codify what had been accomplished under the 1935 Constitution. Art.The constitutional command in Sec 6. . and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.At the outset. • The guarantees of the civil and political rights found principally in the Bill of rights are self-executory and ready for use..” .use. the response to the social justice command came principally from the president. it does not tolerate behavior that is contrary to law. . unlike its precedents. Social and welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally in favor of labor. (Social Justice under the 1987 Constitution) The provisions on social justice go beyond what was covered in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. the State shall regulate the acquisition. which developed.

Labor Article 2.Cultural inequities are evil and therefore must be removed.The section communicates what expected of the Congress is not just day-to-day police power but of powers needed to achieve radical social reform of critical urgency . the adoption by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of Society. a recognition of the reality of poverty. 1 puts down a dual goal of diffusing economic wealth and political power. constitutionally. including conciliation. 1. . HELD: Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people. In Sec. and to expansion and growth. including the right to strike in accordance with law. the 2nd paragraph and Sec. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. because inequalities by themselves are not evil.. comfort and quiet of all persons and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number.Satisfaction of these demands depends for the most part on legislation. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. collective bargaining and negotiations. Williams FACTS: Petitioner alleged that the National Traffic Commission. and peaceful concerted activities. 2 deal only with wealth. through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law). Section 3: The State shall afford full protection to labor. This is really an assertion of human dignity over things. and a living wage. through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community. • CASE LAW Calalang v. or even extra-constitutionally. one goal of the State is to reduce inequalities. and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. humane conditions of work. !($" " . local and overseas.” ii. Aspects of social justice 1. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes. .While Sec. capital is sometimes given more weight than labor xxx such that labor takes the last place in the consideration and computation of the things that must be increased. . They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers.Without the improvement of economic conditions. • • Proclaims the primacy of the human factor over the non-human factors of production Commissioner Bacani: In our present system. political rights become rights largely enjoyed by the upper and middle classes and are a myth for the underprivileged. there can be no real enhancement of the political rights of all people. It is inconsistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health. Section 18: The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. organized and unorganized. recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments. not remove them.In a situation of extreme mass poverty. in its resolution resolved to recommend that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along certain roads at certain times from a period of 1 year in pursuance of the provisions of CA 548. They shall be entitled to security of tenure. through the adoption of measures justifiable. . It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Article 13.

conciliation proceedings. It is not in the Constitution qualified by the phrase “in accordance with law” as a recognition that the law has traditionally denied the right to strike to certain sectors of the working force. The right to strike was first recognized in the 1953 Industrial Peace Act. a. Bernas: This does not mean that government employees may not be given the right to strike by statute. effective associational action. We are only talking about organizing. but this is not an immutable right. to form unions. !(%" • " . • Commissioner Aquino: The farmer has the right to the land he tills. Farmers are those who have a tenancy relationship with the landowners. developmental. which may be present or historical. Rural development is not just agricultural development but includes a broad spectrum. • Commissioner Lerum: They right to organize does not include the right to strike. Section 2(5): The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. Paragraph 3 establishes a preferential bias for voluntary modes of settling disputes as it is recognized can be too costly for the nation. The valid grounds to strike are unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlocks. The right of government workers to form unions Article 3. To this end. Distinctions can arise either from the public or private character of the employment or from the nature of the work that is performed. His claim of ownership does not automatically pertain or correspond to the same land that he is actually and physically tilling.• • • • • • • Employers Confederation v. to own directly or collectively the lands they till or. Article 9-B. However. labor and management are not completely free to decide between themselves how their relationship should go even in the matter so personal as wages. Line 3. Secretary of Labor: The right to association (labor unionism) may be exercised with or without registration. The right to in engage in “peaceful concerted activities” includes everything short of strike. the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands. NWPC: Under the constitution. Bernas: It is correct that the right to form associations does not include the grant of legal personality. Section 21: The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. it the law itself should make possession of legal personality a precondition for Article 13. 2. Section 4: The State shall. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. including those employed in the public and private sectors. to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. • PAFLU v. undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless. In determining retention limits. and collective bargaining and negotiations. uniting as union. It would yield to retention limits. the State shall respect the right of small landowners. associations. in the case of other farmworkers. The latter is merely a condition sine qua non for the acquisition of legal personality xxx. Agrarian and natural resources reform Article 2. • The emphasis is on the word comprehensive. voluntary modes of settling disputes. by law. and subject to the payment of just compensation. subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe. Paragraph 2 of the foregoing section is a guarantee that labor can participate in decisions which affect their rights and benefits through grievance procedures. Section 8: The right of the people. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. taking into account ecological. involved would be not just the right to have legal personality but also the right to be an association. or equity considerations. the rights guaranteed are not necessarily the same for all. Although all workers are protected.

subject to prior rights. and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research. including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture. whenever applicable in accordance with law. clerks. which is the size of land an individual owner is allowed to keep. According to jurisprudence. But where to carry out the regulation. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. marketing. homestead rights of small settlers. small landowners refer to “teachers. DAR: Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined by RA 6657 (CARL of 1998) and not classified as mineral or forest by the DENR xxx. in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources. " . and management of the program. and other support services. It requires prompt payment. If Congress does not act on this. HELD: Measures under challenge merely describe retention limits for land owners.A. 6657 implements the agrarian reform provisions. nurses and other hardworking and frugal people xxx”.• • • • • • • • • • The right to claim the land they till is recognized only in the regular farm worker. Section 6: The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship. and adequate financial. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or R. The principal natural resource is land. This power is inherent in the State. Section 5: The State shall recognize the right of farmers. there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is necessary. and only a right to a just share in the fruits of production is conceded to the non-regulars. Inc. and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning. just compensation is defined as the fair or market value of the property as between one who receives. production. Congress is given the discretion o set priorities and retention limits. Furthermore. The right to a waiver of this right is not recognized when it amounts to a waiver in favor of the other (landowner). What the provision recognizes is a situation when the tenant may not want to exercise his right. Retention limit. organization. v. 4. In determining retention limits. It also involves payment on reasonable time from its taking. should be reasonable (standard). the right of the small landowners should be respected. • • One can say that the same principles apply to “natural resources reform”. petitioners allege that Proclamation 131 and EO 299 should be invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits required by Article XII Sec. and one who desires to sell. and landowners. • It should be note is that this participation in the management of the land reform program and not the management of privately-owned farms. Commissioner Rodrigo: Just compensation is the amount paid to the owner and it does not necessarily have to come from the farmer. as well as cooperatives. there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the constitution. Petitioners assail it on the ground that it does not conform to the requirements of a valid appropriation as specified in the Constitution. the executive can proceed with implementation or there can be judicial expropriation. According to the Constitution and jurisprudence. which can be alienable or inalienable. !(&" Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines. Article 13. it becomes necessary to deprive landowners of what they may own in the excess of the maximum allowed. Article 13. Private rights must yield to irresistible demands of public interest on the justification that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. farmworkers. and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343) FACTS: Proclamation 131 creates the fund for the implementation of the CARP.

should always be the present. especially of local communities.A. production. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners. Stewardship: the individual would have free use of free occupancy but will not be given legal title. • • Artcile 13. usufructuary. in cooperation with the private sector. by law. decent housing and basic services to under-privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. • Commissioner Foz: The goals are to liberate human communities form blight. iii. notification.• • Commissioner Monsod: In applying the principles. and privatization of public sector enterprises. Section 8: The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated. to provide equitable access to and opportunity for the use and enjoyment for the fruits of the land. and other services. The State shall also protect. Section 10: Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished. and marketing assistance. the chief beneficiaries should be the people in the areas. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. adequate financial. and conserve such resources.e. except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. Foreign intrusion also refers to foreign capital. Section 9: The State shall. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. and humane treatment. and for the common good. to acquire such lands for public welfare. both inland and offshore. Extends to both those who have valid claims to the land and those who do not Due process. In other words. The National Housing Authority (NHA) will be the main agency tasked for the management of expropriated properties as well as the relocation of the evicted. fish sorters and Pescadores which refer to the former two. develop. congestions and hazards to promote their development and modernization. undertake. consultation. Health Article 13. affordable cost. to bring the optimum use of land for public welfare. Section 11: The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods. employment creation. Urban land reform and housing Article 13. R. i. a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at iv. • • • • • These refer mainly to squatters. • Commissioner Ople: The intent of the proposal is almost allencompassing with respect to real and actual fishermen in the area who fish for a living. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. Article 13. Fish workers include fish-haulers. Article 13. health and other social services available to all the !('" " . to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources. • This provision sees agrarian reform as a unique instrument for releasing capital locked up in land for use in industrialization in particular and economic development in general. Section 7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen. 7279 is the law on demolition and resettlement. and to maintain and support a vigorous enterprise system responsive to community requirements in the sue and development of urban lands.

Women Article 2. • This does not mean absolute sameness. political. This does not confer standing to challenge in court the validity of government policies. within the democratic framework. by law. Section 14: The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions. and selfreliance. Respect for human dignity and human rights Article 13. a combination of public and private sector. Section 15: The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect. it is vague because it is actually in the fundamental that men and women are different. and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. • b. Section 16: The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social. • This is recognition of the direct role that people play and will play in setting the directions the nation will take. • Bernas: This acknowledges that men and women have distinctions which make for real differences. • • • Health is a fundamental human right (Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978). thus. Comprehensiveness: health promotion. Article 13. or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. Section 17: There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights. and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. their maternal functions. Integration: a unified health delivery system. disabled. women. community-based. and their integration into the mainstream of society. facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. Article 13. responsive to the country's health needs and problems. self-development. taking into account !((" " . Section 13: The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their rehabilitation. Article 13. their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. Section 14: The State recognizes the role of women in nationbuilding. However. membership. and children. There shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged. and structure. The State shall. education and planning This expresses a clear bias for the underprivileged. Health: state of complete physical.people at affordable cost. and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. vi. elderly. • • v. qualified by fundamental equality before the law. Section 12: The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health. manpower development. This is people empowerment. sick. and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation. disease prevention. and research. mental and social well-being. Article 13. according to Bernas. Article 13. and a blend of western medicine and traditional healthcare modalities. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. People’s organizations Article 2. People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership. Section 23: The State shall encourage non-governmental.

Section 5(2): The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military. (7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. on its own or on complaint by any party. bureau. Article 2. Section 18. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission. The scope is civil and political rights and does not include economic and social rights. and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection. • The commission cannot be dispensed with by Congress but it is not of the same level as other Constitutional Commissions. education. It also has visitorial powers and power to grant immunity to witnesses. Section 11: The State values the dignity of every human persona and guarantees full respect for human rights. or detention facilities. and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. Section 19. • • • The principal function is investigatory and it relies on the DOJ for prosecution. (4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released. (6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights. !()" " . (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails. (5) Establish a continuing program of research. (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines. taking into account its recommendations. as well as Filipinos residing abroad. or their families. and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions: (1) Investigate. Article 16. (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law. all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. or agency in the performance of its functions. prisons. and Article 13. (3) Until this Commission is constituted. (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority.(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law. (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure. the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers. (9) Request the assistance of any department. office.

she filed a petition for mandamus before the CFI of Rizal presided herein by respondent Judge Pano but was denied. science and technology. accelerate social progress. ISSUE: WON TIP exceeded in their exercise of academic freedom HELD: No. As to private institutions. nor to control or review the exercise of discretion. • i. TIP (1985) FACTS: Petitioners are asking the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition to compel the Technological Institute of the Philippines to let them enroll in SY 1985-86. when refused. A school’s right to refuse to enroll a student falls with the “academic freedom clause” of the Constitution.. Mere exercise of freedom of assembly does not bar a student from enrolling. culture and sports Article 2. This entails to duty of screening those who seek education. standards must be reasonable and not arbitrary for the courts to not set them aside. 2. Through a closer look at the grades of the petitioners. This right is demandable from the State only. Petitioner has miserably failed to show a clear and legal right to be admitted and be enrolled in respondent’s School of Nursing. 2) failure to present a “sealed” honorable dismissal and transcript of records 3) bribing a dean. Section 17: The State shall give priority to education. It neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It cannot be compelled by mandamus to enroll a student. As a corollary. Educational mandate of the State !(*" 1. Salcon. but not students who merely exercised these constitutional rights. and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. A university or college has the right to set academic standards and exclude from enrollment those with several failing grades. and Recitis and entitled to enroll again in the coming semester " . hence this petition. Education because their co-petitioners all have failing grades that would not merit them to enroll in the coming semester. Section 1: The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels. it will show that only petitioners Villar. The petitioners were claiming that they were barred from enrolling because they led the students in “exercising their freedom of assembly”. A school may refuse to enroll a student for academic delinquency. Right to education Article 14. the damnd should be commensurate to the tuition fees paid. The priority of education. It douse not lie to require anyone to fulfill contractual obligations or to compel a course of conduct. Mandamus does not lie in doubtful cases. She agreed to transfer to another school but instead of doing so. Most of the petitioners have failed majority of their classes and they are barred form enrolling not because they have picketed in their schools but because (obviously) of failing grades. arts. This is as gateway to economic advancement and the cultivation of the yearning for freedom and justice. science. Cruz-Paño (1985) FACTS: Mely Tangonan was refused enrollment by the Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing because of three grounds namely: 1) Poor academic records. and promote total human liberation. • • Quality education should be made accessible and affordable to the people by the State. • Villar vs.c. Guilatco Jr. ISSUE: Won mandamus should be granted to her HELD: No. culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism. arts. this being themain objective. of a ministerial duty. Mandamus is to be employed to compel the performance. technology. Tangonan vs.

(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. adequate. Court held that the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative powers has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern government.): the four essential freedoms of a university – to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach. and (5) Provide adult citizens. (b) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. This also means freedom of intellectual enquiry. especially to the under-privileged. student loan programs. J. Without limiting the natural rights of parents to rear their children. (3) Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants. if desired. elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age. (5) The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. reasonable. The obligation to give quality education also has an effect on the obligation and right of public school teachers. with the assistance of counsel. and other skills. vocational efficiency. (4) The State shall enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement. maintain. informal.Article 14. • • Tablarin v Gutierrez Petitioners claim that there was undue delegation of legislative power granted to the Board of Medical Education in that no sufficient standard had been set by the law for the board’s promulgation of rules and regulations. and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs. Minimum standards to satisfy due process: (a) students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them. Garcia v. " . Court further ruled that the desirability or wisdom or utility !)+" Article 14. (c) they shall be informed of the evidence against them. Section 5: (1) the State shall take into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions and shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs. and equitable admission and academic requirements. and other incentives which shall be available to deserving students in both public and private schools. and thus released a regulation that required the passing of the NMAT for aspiring medical students. Non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State. independent. and out-of-school youth with training in civics. (4) Encourage non-formal. (3) Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study. subject to fair. the disabled. and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society. • • The intent of the Convention was to guarantee the academic freedom and administrative autonomy of educational institutions. a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. and support a complete. (d) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. as well as self-learning. what may be taught. and so giving rise to subordinate legislation. and indigenous learning systems. Section 2: The State shall: (1) Establish. how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study. Faculty Admissions Committee (Frankfurter through Fernando. The standards set for subordinate legislation are necessarily broad and highly abstract and therefore the Board was acting within its scope. (2) Establish and maintain. • • Compulsory education is only up to elementary. subsidies.

Secondary education is not the mandated function of the University of the Philippines. Tamayo is permanent but having joined the unlawful rally.of legislation or administrative regulation is not a matter to be decided upon by the courts. They were dismissed for engaging in unlawful demonstrations. religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong. on the other hand. Dean Patricio Lazaro issued a memorandum directing the principal of UPCBHS not to accept any incoming freshmen anymore. Tamayo had been with the PSBA for 3 " years. However. The desire should be critical thinking and not rote memorization. UPCBHS was established subject to a number of conditions. and promote vocational efficiency. The University of the Philippines as an institution of higher learning enjoys academic freedom. • • Heroes should not be blindly worshipped but critically studied. develop moral character and personal discipline. Section 3: (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution as part of the curricula. The University of the Philippines was created under its charter to provide advanced tertiary education and not secondary education. his performance is deemed far from satisfactory. which were not met. teach the rights and duties of citizenship. !)!" " . The reason for this is that the High School does not serve the purpose for which it was created which were: 1)to be a self-supporting high school and 2) that it will serve as a laboratory school for prospective teachers. Encarnacion for 2 " years and Cortes for 1 " years. having attained a permanent status they cannot be removed from office except for just cause and due process. respect for human rights. (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians. strengthen ethical and spiritual values. without additional cost to the Government. Thus. ISSUE: Won dismissal is valid FACTS: The UP Board of Regents recommended the phasing out of the UP College Baguio High School (UPCBHS) and in line with this. They hold that the teachers were dismissed HELD: Yes. (2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism. Educational system Article 14. appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country. ISSUE: WON the phasing out of UPCBHS is a valid exercise of academic freedom HELD: Yes. The other 2 on the other hand do not enjoy the permanency status.” Alcuaz vs. PSBA (1989) FACTS: Petitioners are students of PSBA. The UPCBHS filed a petition with herein respondent RTC judge Ayson alleging that the decision was without basis and unconstitutional because it violates the rights to quality education and free public secondary education. who are all teachers of the PSBA. RA 6655 requires that the students enrolled therein “shall be free from payment of tuition and other school fees. should UP operate a high school in the exercise of academic freedom. encourage critical and creative thinking. broaden scientific and technological knowledge. Petitioners. University of the Philippines vs. Full-time teachers who have rendered 3 years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent. Encarnacion and Cortes. Ayson (1989) without due process. 3. They are questioning the dismissal of Tamayo. foster love of humanity. the UP cannot be compelled to provide secondary education. As an institution of higher learning enjoying academic freedom. are claiming their right to exercise of academic freedom.

Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions. it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.(1) The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions. English. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. all grants. The supervision and regulation of the State must be reasonable. endowments. Section 7: For purposes of communication and instruction. The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein. No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. !)#" " . This provision has a threefold rationale: (1) to preserve the democratic choice of students. subject to the limitations provided by law. As it evolves. (2) Educational institutions. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.Section 4. for other foreign temporary residents. their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. such institutions should be non-stock and non-profit. • • The private and the public both form the Philippine educational system. Section 6: The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. however. (4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law. donations. • • • Education has to be Filipinized to attain its goals. directly. Article 14. including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. The Congress may. Arabic. ii. other than those established by religious groups and mission boards. unless otherwise provided by law. Spanish and Arabic shall be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis. including those cooperatively owned. • Article 14. Filipino. and (3) to make quality education available to students. the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system. as distinguished from Pilipino. Language Article 14. Proprietary educational institutions. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and. or contributions used actually. and Spanish. may likewise be entitled to such exemptions. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. directly. the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and. There are tax exemptions to help educational institutions maintain quality education. (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock. Section 8: This Constitution shall be promulgated in Filipino and English and shall be translated into major regional languages. • Official language means the prescribed medium of communication for all acts of or transactions with various departments and agencies of government. However. non-profit educational institutions used actually. (2) to enable educational institutions to improve their quality. Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate. was seen as the language yet to be developed as the common national language. require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. until otherwise provided by law. shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens.

• These are expressions of national policy and concern which direct the attention to the lagging state of science and technology in the country. and to science and technology education. and institutions. training. Section 18: (1) The State shall ensure equal access to cultural opportunities through the educational system. Section 16: All the country's artistic and historic wealth constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and shall be under the protection of the State which may regulate its disposition. iv. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups. v. and their utilization. innovation. iii. • The Commission is silent about what text should prevail in case the Pilipino (not Filipino) text is in conflict with the English one. respect. and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures. and services.Article 14. inventors. and promote researches for the development. Section 17: The State shall recognize. to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. artists. Article 14. propagation. and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology. scientists. Section 14: The State shall foster the preservation. and community cultural centers. Scholarships. The State shall give priority to research and development. Article 14. invention. as well as artistic creations. and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations. Article 14. Article 14. and other public venues. Section 11: The Congress may provide for incentives. appropriate. Article 14. traditions. coordinate. Arts and culture Article 14. and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities. Section 9: The Congress shall establish a national language commission composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines which shall undertake. local governments. and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression. including tax deductions. scholarships. technologists. • Evidence of a nation seeking to understand and articulate its own cultural identity after many years of colonial rule. The State shall conserve. Article 14. Science and technology Article 14. Section 12: The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all sources for the national benefit. promote. particularly when beneficial to the people. and preservation of Filipino and other languages. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Section 15: Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the State. It shall support indigenous. and specially gifted citizens. grants and other incentives. and popularize the nation's historical and cultural heritage and resources. researchers. and their application to the country's productive systems and national life. inventors. grants-in-aid. enrichment. or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students. Section 10: Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. public or private cultural entities. (2) The State shall encourage and support researches and studies on the arts and culture. Section 13: The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists. Sports !)$" " . for such period as may be provided by law. Article 14.

(2) The right of children to assistance. II. intellectual. and amateur sports. Oposa v. and special protection from all forms of neglect. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. 16. The petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of their own as well as the future generations’ behalf can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the said right is concerned. cruelty. 1987 Constitution) and the protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Accordingly. !)%" " . Promotion of health and ecology Article 2. Ratio: EO 192 and Admin Code of 1987 define the powers and functions of DENR. to foster self-discipline. Section 13: The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical. and social well-being. (3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income. Section 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. d.The family as basic autonomous social institution (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. Article 2. as an inviolable social institution. The family is understood as a stable heterosexual relationship whether formalized by civilly recognized marriage or not. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism. Sec. Section 2: Marriage. teamwork. Article 15. moral. Section 1: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Section 12: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. including proper care and nutrition.Article 14. it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. • • The source of the presumption of validity of marriage. and excellence for the development of a healthy and alert citizenry. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. Section 16. Section 4: The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security. Article 2. under whose authority and office the complaint falls. (2) All educational institutions shall undertake regular sports activities throughout the country in cooperation with athletic clubs and other sectors. league competitions. • Same as discussion on Health in Article 13. and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. abuse. exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. spiritual. including training for international competitions. Section 3: The State shall defend: Article 2. The petitioners’ right to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR’s duty to protect and advance the said right. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Section 19: The State shall promote physical education and encourage sports programs. Factoran FACTS: Minor petitioners contend that continued granting of timber license constitutes a misappropriation or impairment of the natural resource property and violates their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. 3.

the GATT has provided built-in protection from unfair foreign competition and trade practices. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods.the government authority possessed by the state expressed in the concept of sovereignty 2. it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. in fact.” the fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.” “national treatment. !)&" " . CARINO v INSULAR GOVERNMENT % If a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered. The WTO reliance on “most favored nation. The weaker situations of the developing nations like the Philippines have been taken into account. Wade or abortion in the within the first six months. ONLY AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY BE ALIENATED. The provision intends to prevent the State from adopting Roe v. Where local business are jeopardized by unfair foreign competition. The provision on marriage is not a blanket prohibition of divorce. 2 PUBLIC LAW: 1. services and investments into the country. 4. Imperium. services. ALL OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES MAY NOT BE. the person’s ownership of such land is does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the state which owns the minerals. it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity. 19 – commands an independent and nationalist approach to economic development Sec. the Philippines can avail of these measures. colonizers did not intend to strip the natives of their ownership of lands already belonging to them.• • • • The family is anterior to the state and not its creation. XII Sec. The protection extends from the time of conception but such time was not exactly defined. XII Sec. II Sec. NATURAL RESOURCES ART. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity. ownership is vested in the State % Any person claiming ownership of a portion of the public domain must be able to show title from the state according to any of the recognized modes of acquisition of title % When regalia doctrine was introduced in the Philippines. A SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ORDER ART. 2. at the same time.capacity of the state to own or acquire property -foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all lands were held from the Crown % Under Republican system jura regalia stripped of royal overtones. but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets.protective of things Filipino TANADA vs ANGARA While the constitution indeed mandates a bias on favor of Filipino goods.seeks complementarity between industrialization and agricultural development 3rd.” and “trade without discrimination” cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members. Dominium. it does not prohibit them either. Moreover. frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. labor and enterprises. The State has the inherent duty to acts a parens patriae. 1 – three basic directions that can be gleaned from this section: 1st. 20 – affirms that private sector is an indispensable engine of development ART.” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment .sets the dual goal of dynamic productivity and a more equitable distribution of what is produced 2nd.

The use and enjoyment of the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters.Who may participate in the exploration. development. only in relation to “large-scale exploration. Agricultural % Agricultural Lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted 2. which evidences ownership is precisely that. 3. territorial sea. Provision made in favor of subsistence fishermen and fish workers-in harmony with the provision on Social justice. or production-sharing agreements” with the State and all “under the full control and supervision of the State. had fully complied with all his obligations under the Public Land Act in order to entitle him !)'" " . • Lauson Ayog vs. 141 % Classification is descriptive of the legal nature of the land and not what it looks like % Classification must be categorical: that is. or utilized? 1987 Constitution no longer speaks of “grant. petroleum. Agreements for the exploitation of natural resources – only 25 years 2.” LIMITATIONS: 1.” that is Filipino natural persons. Mineral Lands 4. development. be it patent or Torrens title. evidence of ownership. President must report to Congress every contract he enters into. National Parks Who classifies lands? The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive department of the government and the not of the Courts. based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country”. 3: 1. Judge Cusi – where the applicant. except agricultural land. Forty percent FOREIGN capitalization still considered Filipino corporation on the ground of the need for capital in an area of high risk. before the constitution took effect. Forest or Timber 3. If natural resources. and utilization of natural resources other than agricultural land? Only Filipinos and Filipino corporation may engage in the development and utilization of these natural resources. land is either COMPLETELY agricultural or COMPLETELY mineral or COMPLETELY forest or park. developed. cannot be alienated.“accdg. Court of Appeals) The Executive’s power is exclusive BUT not inherent. When land ceases to be of the public domain and commences to be private? • MERALCO vs. to the general terms and conditions prescribed by law. antedates the issuance of ownership. from the tenor of jurisprudence. Dan – the document. Only public corporations and qualified individuals may acquire alienable lands of the pubic domain. and utilization of minerals. Limitation on service contracts. Private Corporations can hold alienable lands of the public domain only by lease. Only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated 2. Judge Bartolome – act which segregates the lot from the public domain is the actual grant of title. smallscale=single proprietorships 4. The acquisition of ownership. lease. It is a delegated power given to him by CA No. • Herico vs. how may they be explored. it does not grant ownership. and exclusive economic zone are reserved for the exclusive use and enjoyment of “Filipino citizens. or concession” but of either direct undertaking of activities by the State or “coproduction. RULES ESTABLISHED IN SEC. 3 Classification of Lands of Public Domain 1. agreements only for “technical and financial assistance”. and other mineral oils” Sec. (Director of Lands vs. joint venture.

and development. burial grounds.000 hectares Individuals – allowed to: a. openly. bodies of water and other natural resources. Intermediate Appellate Courtalienable land held by a possessor.any land of private ownership.refers to those held under the same conditions as ancestral domain but limited to lands that are not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by cultural communities under the claim of individuals or traditional group ownership % For the purpose of protecting indigenous cultural communities. Limits the discretion of Congress to open public lands for lease or acquisition The discretion to determine how much of alienable public land may be opened to private acquisition or lease is given to Congress – but subject to the “requirements of conservation.” its pertinent provisions actually treat these agreements as !)(" 3. The said law is invalid insofar as said act authorizes service contracts. the provision in effect authorizes Congress to prescribe how priorities are to be determined in case of conflict between civil and customary law. Size of the land which may be acquired by individuals or leased by individuals or corporations Private Corporations – allowed to lease no more than 1. it meant that the validity of RA 8371 (IPRA) Sec. inland waters. Secretary.” Sec. and other lands individually owned whether alienable or not. agricultural. 5 Ancestral Domain – an all-embracing concept which refers to lands. acquire up to 12 hectares 4. and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform. continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30yrs) is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said period. 7 PRIVATE LAND. % CRUZ vs.• to a sales patent. residential. there would seem to be no legal or equitable justification for refusing to issue or release the sales patent Director of Lands vs. ecology. % The time to determine whether the person acquiring land is qualified is the time the right to own it is acquired and not the time to register ownership % EXCEPTION: ALIENS MAY ACQUIRE PRIVATE LAND “IN CASES OF HEREDITARY SUCCESSION” % FILIPINO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS CAN ACQUIRE PRIVATE LANDS.with a vote of 7-7. " . lease up to 500 hectares b. includes both lands owned by private individuals and lands which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal corporations % The capacity to acquire private land is made dependent upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. logging may no longer be permitted in the area % Reclaimed land is public land Sec. Ancestral Land. coastal areas. RAMOS RA 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act) is UNCONSITUTIONAL for permitting fully foreign-owned corporations to exploit Philippine Natural Resources. hunting grounds. personally or through his predecessors-in-interest. 4 (Forest land and parks) % Discretion is given to Congress about what should be done in terms of delimiting areas and time limits for exploitation % Once forest lands are converted into parks. and natural resources therein and includes ancestral lands. pasture. ipso jure. Although the statute employs the phrase “financial and technical agreements. THE CONTROLLING MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF FILIPINOS. forests. IN THE ABSENCE OF CAPITAL STOCK. LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION vs. worship areas.

come under the principle of agrarian reform in one way or another Sec. 7 % Subsistence fishermen are given PREFERENTIAL. XII Sec. and management of an agrarian reform program Sec. Citizenship requirement 1973 CONSTI ART. organization. The FTAA between WMCP and the Philippine government is likewise UNCONSTITUTIONAL since the agreement itself is a device contract. % Subsistence fishermen shall also have the right to expect support from government by way of appropriate !))" " . Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land. and residential lands % JUST COMPENSATION. 2. The matters of both purpose and area were left for the discretion of Congress to determine. Exception a) Acquisition by legal succession RAMIREZ vs VDA DE RAMIREZ The constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be meaningless. 5 % Farmers and regular farm workers are given the right to participate. Agrarian Reform ART. 6 % Mineral and forest resources. b) Acquisition by former natural born citizen ART. In this case. XVII Sec. but not EXCLUSIVE right of the use of communal marine fishing resources.service contracts that grant beneficial ownership to foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental law. more than just the right to be consulted in the planning. although covered by existing valid contractual and vested rights. the strict requirement that the exception be only for residential purpose and up to an area not exceeding 1. 4 % Land-to-the-tiller program % Lands not devoted to agricultural activities are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law % Agricultural lands-lands which are arable and suitable agricultural lands and do not include commercial. including timber concessions. 8 (EXCEPTION FOR FORMER PHILIPPINE CITIZENS) % As a response to clamor from former Filipinos who were living abroad and who expressed a wish not only to own residential land but also to participate in the development of the country. industrial. XIII Sec.fair or market value of the property as between one who receives. These contractual stipulations and related provisions in the FTAA taken together.000 hectares was deleted. 3. and one who desires to sell % The extent that it sets retention limits-POLICE POWER % Taking of private lands for redistribution-EMINENT DOMAIN Sec. grant WMCP beneficial ownership over natural resources that properly belong to the State and are intended for the benefit of its citizens 3. 11 LEE vs REPUBLIC The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. however there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of non-Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. PRIVATE LANDS 1. both inland and offshore.

Sec. 11 (PUBLIC UTILITITES) PUBLIC UTILITY . and marketing assistance. vs REGISTER OF DEEDS(in Spanish) Those who are disqualified to buy land are also disqualified to lease.12 (FILIPINO FIRST POLICY) This provision enshrines in the Constitution the Filipino-first policy enunciated in: % CA No. and other support services. 10 % Urban or poor rural dwellers refers principally to squatters % Evictions are not prohibited but must be conducted in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner % Due process must be observed 4. 138 . XII Sec. 912 -Prescribing the use of Philippine-made materials % RA No. XII Sec.Giving native products and domestic entities preference in government purchases % RA No.Governing procurement contracts of government % Flag Law . 5183. safety.a utility corporation which renders service to the general public for compensation -the public or private character of a utility does not depend on the number of persons who avail of its services but on whether or not it is open to serve all members of the public who may require it % Congress has the authority to grant franchises but it can also delegate the authority to government agencies !)*" " . economic viability-not just financial viability but also capability to make profit and generate benefits not quantifiable in financial terms 3. Rationale ART. BELL & CO. XII Sec. Regulation of economic activities 1. Sec. security.13 (FORMS AND ARRANGEMENTS IN ECONOMIC EXCHANGE) % Must serve the general welfare – health. Lease to foreigners of private lands valid SMITH. 5. Organization and regulation of private corporations ART.9 % Social housing program addresses those who can not afford even low cost housing and therefore need some form of subsidy % Urban land reform and housing are to be undertaken in cooperation with the private sector % Important elements of the program should be “basic services” and “adequate employment opportunities” Sec. adequate financial. idea of protection of local enterprises % Must be characterized not only by reciprocity but also by equality which imports mutual benefit 2.they must show capacity to function efficiently in business and that they should not go into activities which the private sector can do better.technology and research.16 (PRIVATE CORPORATIONS) % Creation of GOCCs. Urban Land Reform and Housing ART XIII Sec. 8 4.giving Filipino contractors a 15% advantage in government contracts. Operation of Public Utilities ART. production. 6 % Rejection of laissez faire and adopts the principle of solidarity Sec.

it must respect “the freedom of speech and of the free press” Sec. Practice of Professions ART XII Sec.18 (NATIONALIZATION OF INDUSTRIES) Filipinization.14 (CARE FOR FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS AND SKILLED WORKERS) % The limitation on the practice of professions is subject to exceptions found in reciprocity laws. State operation of private enterprises ART XII Sec. and across the country” % whatever policy is formulated. 17 (TEMPORARY TAKE OVER OF BUSINESS AFFECTED WITH PUBLIC INTEREST) % Introduced as a product of the “martial law” thinking of the 1971 Con-Con % 1987 Constitutional Commission defined national emergency as encompassing threat from external aggression. The President acquires emergency powers when given to her by the Congress in a state of emergency declared by Congress. calamities. and the printed media % Does not include commercial telecommunications nor advertising agency % ONE HUNDRED PER CENT FILIPINO OWNERSHIP IS REQUIRED % Commands Congress to regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media % Advertising Industry -70% Filipino-owned 5.” Who is considered a Filipino Corporation: 1. or any other form of authorization for that purpose. % The duration of the emergency is the measure of the duration of the takeover % Obiter dictum in David vs Ermita says that Sec 17 gives the power to the State and not to the President. or natural disasters.) % Franchises granted by the government cannot be exclusive in character % Authority given to foreign investors to participate in the governing body of public utilities to the extent of their proportionate share in the capital. XVI Sec. whether it be public utility or other businesses which may partake of the characteristics of public utility but which is not yet considered public utility” or any business “ which concerns a mass-based consumer group” and especially among “the low-income groups.” 4. is a reversal of the Filipinization trend Sec.Filipino ownership !*+" % " . 10 (COMMUNICATION POLICY) % what the provision prescribes is a communication structure which allows for a national and international balance that is beneficial to the nation: “the balanced flow of information into. television. (Tatad vs Garcia Jr. certificate. out of. On mass media and advertising agency ART. but not strikes. 6. At least 60 per centum of its capital is owned by Filipino citizens % The moment for determining whether a corporation is entitled to operate as a public utility is when it applies for a franchise.11 % Mass media includes radio. It is organized under Philippine laws and 2. “business with public interest” means “business that has a lot of repercussion on the public.% Filipinization of public utilities.requires that any form of authorization for the operation of public utilities should be granted only to “citizens of the Philippines at least 60 per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens.

Monopolies are not per se prohibited by the Constitution but may be permitted to exist to aid the government in carrying on an enterprise or to aid in the performance of various services and functions in the interest of the public. integrity. 21 Cooperatives ART. XII Sec. 7. Banking and Credit ART. COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATION BUILDING ART. 8. but especially from the executive department % Under the current law. 24 % 1986 Constitutional Commission refused to impose a “social responsibility” in media on the reasoning that imposing such !*!" " . XII Sec. 20 (A CENTRAL MONETARY AUTHORITY) % The main concern in the formulation of this provision was to assure INDEPENDENCE of the central monetary authority from all sectors. whether permanent or temporary. 19 (MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS) % Espouses competition % Monopolies are not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. and unfair competition ART. The necessity of a public hearing is lost. The state must still decide whether PUBLIC INTEREST demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited NEA vs MENDOZA NEA can approve the increase in the electric rates of the cooperative without any notice of public hearing. Of known probity. an instrument toward Filipinization rather than as an expression of an option against private ownership % The decision to nationalize may be made by the State through Congress. combinations. Sec. Money. It is the welfare and interest of the public which is the paramount consideration in determining whether or not to temporarily take over a particular business. The temporary takeover by the government extends only to the OPERATION of the business and NOT to the OWNERSHIP thereof. 15 (DEVELOPMENT OF COOPERATIVES) % What was contemplated was a line of agency under the Office of the President and outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture % The purpose would be to promote the growth and viability of cooperatives in the private sector 5. and patriotism c. The consumers are members of the cooperative ORMECO I who are already represented by the Board of Directors whom they had elected. XII Sec. on the broad grounds of “interest of national welfare or defense. The temporary takeover is in exercise of the government’s POLICE POWER. Monopolies. It was no less the ORMECO I which solicited the approval of the NEA to adjust the rates upward and this the NEA granted as it was necessary for the continued financial viability of the ORMECO I. II Sec. As such the government is not required to compensate the private entity owner of the said business as there is no transfer of ownership. local or foreign. Natural-born Filipino citizen b. Majority of whom shall come from the private sector 9.” % Sec 18 is a textual acceptance of the equation of the concept of “public use” with the broader concept of “public welfare” or “national welfare” AGAN vs PIATCO The duration of the emergency itself is the determining factor as to how long the temporary takeover by the government would last. the board of directors of the BSP is the monetary board % Constitutional requirement: a.Nationalization – State ownership.

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures. ! What is given is priority right. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act o Distinguishes “ancestral domain” from “ancestral land” o Domain is a broader concept. II. all-embracing o 8. traditions. Sec. II. 22. o Cruz v. Insular Government: excludes native titles from the coverage of jura regalia Art. Secretary: ancestral domain and ancestral lands are not part of lands of the public domain. o Ancestral lands refer to both those outside and those inside autonomous regions. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic. 28. not self-executory ! Art. Sec. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Sec. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Access to official records. XII. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. o A constitutional confession of the prevalence of graft and corruption ! Art. Sec. 27. but nevertheless express national policy. and cultural well-being. respect. No. o Initial proposal: to ban and rectify erroneous allusions to ethnic minorities in books. 5. or decisions. Sec. o Subido v. other institutions and recors of government. not exclusive right. XII. subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs. Honest Public Service and Full Public Disclosure ! Art. social. since they are private and belong to indigenous people. o Of little significance as constitutional law. 17. XIV. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities.duty will open the door for the state to require media to follow a certain line ART XVIII Sec. 7. 8371 (1997). R. ! Limited right of management refers to utilization as expressly allowed in Sec. Art. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. 2. as provided by law. AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 7. ! Art. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. and institutions. o Recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. by selection or election from…indigenous cultural communities… o Sectoral representation for indigenous cultural communities was a later addition. the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. ! Right of ownership granted does not include natural resources. Sec.A. Ozaeta: press had a statutory right to examine the records of the Register of Deeds because the interest of the press was real and adequate o 1973 Constitution: right of access to public documents is selfexecutory !*#" " . shall be afforded the citizen. 12. ! ! ! Cariño v. VI. The State shall recognize. III. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities. ! Art. Art. museums. transactions. Sec. 5(2). II. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts. 23 % Advertising entities -70-30 Filipino-foreign equity ratio 6. XVI. The State. Sec. one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled. RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES ! Art.

an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government. XI. requesting for a list of names of the opposition members of the Batasang Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guarantee of Mrs. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision. within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. agencies. The Monetary Board shall. o Information on public foreign loans and government guaranteed loans must be made public o Reaction to the centrality of the foreign loans problem during the 1986 Constitutional Commission Valmonte v. and Mindanao. Art. Sec. XI. he is asking that they be allowed access to the documents certifying the said loans. In case of serious illness of the President. 20. Sec. including government-owned or controlled corporations. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman. PCGG: limitations include: 1) national security matters. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. 21. one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon. and instrumentalities. VII. XII. XI. Imelda Marcos. 12.! ! ! ! 1987 Constitution: amendment adds “government research data” because such was restricted during martial law o “Limitations”: question on determination of scope of official regulatory discretion o Chavez v. Sec. within the time fixed by law. 6. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress. o Vested with power of administrative control and supervision of Office. Deputy General Counsel !*$" " . Sec. A public officer or employee shall…submit a declaration under oath of his assets. 17. VII. Sec. submit to the Congress a complete report… o More effective way of checking the President o Pursuant to Art. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman. Sec. other than the Deputies. liabilities. o Nuñez v. cabinet members. 2) trade secrets and banking transactions. XII. Vice-President. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. 3) criminal matters. Sec. Belmonte (1989) FACTS: Valmonte wrote a letter to Belmonte (GSIS General Manager). If they could not access the loans. It shall submit such other reports as may be required by law. Sec. o Ombudsman is an independent body. according to the Civil Service Law. Sandiganbayan: Sandiganbayan is a constitutional recognition of the need to combat graft and corruption o Congress has the authority to fix the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan o ! ! ! ! ! ! Art. o Guarantees people’s right to know about the state of the President’s health Art. His request is premised on the provision in the Freedom Constitution on the right of people to information on matters of public concern. Visayas. 5. the public shall be informed of the state of his health. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public. XI. XII. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. 4. composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan. shall be appointed by the Ombudsman. shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. and net worth… o All public employees are required to file a declaration of assets and liabilities o President. Sec. Art. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed. its subdivisions. Art. 2(5). Art. and 4) other confidential matters Art. IX-D. Sec. 21 Art. and nongovernmental entities subject to its audit. congressmen and constitutional commissions are required to publicly disclose assets and liabilities in a manner provided by law Art. within thirty days from its execution. and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency.

military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters. which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals. o Design of the flag may be changed only by constitutional amendment ! Act. adopt a new name for the country. III. The right to information is consistent with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. the information sought by the petitioners is of public concern. 1265. a national anthem. Forcing a small religious group through the iron hand of the law to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly constituted authorities. a national anthem. Public Estates Authority (2002) FACTS: Public Estates Authority entered into a controversial Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI to develop the “freedom islands” in Parañaque.” To require the constitutional right to apply only to consummated contracts would be grossly disadvantageous. sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. From 1919 until the eve of World War II. The right to religious profession and worship has a twofold aspect—freedom to believe. anthem and seal ! Art. and Art. RULING/DOCTRINE: Art. with a sun and three stars. the latter is subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect public welfare. by law. ! Described "the construction of the Philippine Flag without the necessary specifications of the different elements of the flag o Provided for the adoption of the Philippine flag as the official flag for the Philippine Islands. They may be exempt as long as they do not disrupt. Flag Day would be celebrated on the 30th of October. and traditions of the people. Ebralinag v. It would not be proper for GSIS to breach this confidentiality unless ordered by he courts. 2. which penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony with-public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit on second offense. o Attempts to add a ray each for the Cordilleras and for Muslim Mindanao died in the Committee. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum. Division Supt. sec 7 of the 1987 Constitution. RULING/DOCTRINE: Constitutional right involves on going transactions before a final contract. and the freedom to act on one’s belief. o XV. the day the ban on the Philippine flag had been lifted in 1919. On the name.! for GSIS replied. 1. sec. In this case. IV. or a national seal. Sec. XVI. The commissioners of the 1987 ConCom understood the right to information “contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction. !*%" " . On the flag ! Art. as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law. 6 of the 1973 Constitution recognize the right of people to information on matters of public concern. No. but nothing came of it. The Congress may. white. saying that he cannot grant the petitioner’s request because there is a confidential relationship between the GSIS and those who borrow from it. 2928 B. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. history. of Schools (1993) FACTS: Jehova’s Witnesses schoolchildren were expelled from their classes by various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag. The flag of the Philippines shall be red. so long as they don’t contain privileged information. A Senate investigation later found out that 1) the lands to be transferred to AMARI were lands of public domain not yet classified as alienable 2) the certificates to the islands were void. 3) that the JVA was illegal. Chavez v. But the right to information is limited to matters of public concern and is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. and blue. XVI. o 1973 Constitution: authorized the interim National Assembly to choose a new name for the country. and a national seal. Sec. RULING/DOCTRINE: Religious freedom is a fundamental right which is entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among human rights for it involves the relationship of man to his Creator.

(2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military. directly or indirectly. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law. o Before the 1987 Constitution: there were two police forces. Sec. o This was set forth in Commonwealth Act No. to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. where appropriate. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. (3) Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. o Military must be insulated from partisan politics. However. (4) No member of the armed forces in the active service shall. Sec. converted into the regular force. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State. Private armies and other armed groups not recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. one consisting of the municipal and city police forces and a national police force which was the Philippine Constabulary (a national police force and a military force at the same time) o Day-to-day functions of police would be under the operational control of local executives. and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. Sec. 1 (National Defense Act) o Segment of the citizen armed force which is kept in active duty is the regular force o Commissioner de Castro: maintaining this force would be more economical than maintaining a large standing force and would also provide the nation with a force well trained in military matters as well as in respect for human rights ! Art. shall be dissolved or. XVI. 6. On the retirement and other benefits !*&" " . o National police comes in and takes control when local police could not cope with local situation o The PNP is civilian in character and as such is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission E. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. 4. 5. (1) All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution. 382. except to vote. An Act to adopt the original authentic form of the Philippine National Anthem and to appropriate funds C. the President may extend such tour of duty. No member of the military shall engage. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the armed forces shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. 24. XVI. All paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution. in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress. at any time. be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government. o Military positions cannot be held concurrently with civilian positions o Extension of service is prohibited to prevent the demoralization of junior officers who cannot go up in rank because of the extension of the service of senior officers Art. o “Armed groups” means private armies and fanatical groups. guards and watchmen of licensed government and security agencies are not covered by the provision o D. Sec. XVI. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. The State shall establish and maintain one police force. On the national police ! Art. On the Armed Forces of the Philippines ! Art.! CA No. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and serve as may be provided by law. XVIII. “paramilitary forces” includes CHDF (Civilian Home Defense Forces). in any partisan political activity. which shall be national in scope and civilian in character. ! Members of the armed forces should be imbued not only with a patriotic and nationalistic spirit but also with a deep respect for people’s rights. including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.

benefits. The State shall. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Article XV. 8. There could be further amendments to the election process. Sec. 1. When will the proposed amendments take effect? ! Art. 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. XVI. B. COMELEC (1967) FACTS: Joint Resolutions to amend the constitution—to increase House membership to 180 and to allow congressmen to become constitutional convention delegates without forfeiting their seats— were challenged as unconstitutional for a number of reasons: elections for con-con delegates must be held during special not general elections. See earlier pages. Sec. They approved Organic Resolution 1 (Lowering the voting age to 18). The requirement of a prima facie factual !*'" " . RULING/DOCTRINE: the resolutions are constitutional because the resolutions have different subject matters (and therefore both actions are warranted). There was a pending election involving 8 senators and local officials which is why the Concon sought to implement Organic Resolution 1 even though they weren’t done proposing the other amendments to the Constitution RULING/DOCTRINE: The plebiscite was unconstitutional. in appropriate cases. Funds shall be provided therefor and due consideration shall be given them in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain and. XVII. AMENDING PROCESS Review Amending and Revisionary process under popular sovereignty and constituent powers A. It means that all amendments are to be decided in one election. o Protection not only against traders but also against manufacturers who dump defective substandard or even hazardous products in the market. COMELEC (2004) ! ! FACTS: The Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being under RA 6132. Sec. states that there is to be “an election” for all amendments. review to increase the pensions and other benefits due to retirees of both the government and the private sectors. Any amendment to. 27 o Art. para. The State shall provide immediate and adequate care. 27. The Constitution shall take effect immediately. Sec. XVI. Art. " Art. and other forms of assistance to war veterans and veterans of military campaigns. 1. all amendments must be taken together and consequently. There can’t be a separate plebiscite for Organic Resolution 1 from all the other amendments the Concon will make. President Macapagal called upon COMELEC to implement the said resolution through a plebiscite. 7. It would be premature to decide now. in the utilization of natural resources. 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 o Art. Sec. Sec. ! Tolentino v. XVI.! ! Art. Executive Secretary (1973) Supra. or revision of. Sec. COMELEC agreed. Therefore. 4 versus XVIII. and congress cannot avail of both amending and calling for a convention at the same time. Each part of the Constitution is harmonious with the whole. 4. 9. XVI. ratified together. XV of the 1935 Constitution does not distinguish between “general” “special” elections. their surviving spouses and orphans. among other arguments. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from substandard or hazardous products. Javellana v. Voting now on the amendment could have unforeseen consequences that voters would not be able to see. from time to time. Sec. Judicial review of the amending process ! Gonzales v. On consumer protection ! Art. XVII. Art. XVIII. 1. o The determining factor should not be status but need F. Sec. VII. o Veterans covered are not just veterans of a declared war but also veterans of peace-keeping campaigns.

This was held under Batas Pambansa Blg. ! De Leon v. which stated that the term of the barangay captain and the barangay councilmen would last for 6 years or up to June 7. 22 or the Barangay Election Act of 1982. 1988.foundation for a sequestration order is based not only on Sec. !*(" " . there has been no executive order or proclamation terminating the term of barangay officials. 1. 1986. RULING/DOCTRINE: Since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution. 1987: The OIC Governor gave a memorandum stating that the petitioners are being removed from office and replaced by the respondents as the new barangay captain and councilmen. What will govern would be the provisions of the 1987 Constitution: Until the term of office of barangay officials have been determined by law. the term of 6 years from the Barangay Election Act will stand. XVIII…but likewise on some provisions of the Freedom Constitution which recognized the power and duty of the President to enact measures to achieve the mandate of the people to recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts…upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supercede all previous constitutions. 26 of Art. The memorandum was antedated Dec. Despite the memorandum being antedated on December 1. Petitioners pray that the Memorandum be considered null and void because pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act. the date of promulgation should be followed for the sake of justice. 1988. February 9. 1986. Esguerra (1987) FACTS: Petitioners were elected as barangay captain and barangay councilmen in the May 17. 1982 elections. their term only ends on June 7.