POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

VOLUME I
Based on the outline of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
April 1996 Revised Edition _______________
Compiled by Jose Salvador Y. Mirasol

Updated by UP Law Batch 1995

Updated and Enlarged by Rodell A. Molina UP Law Batch 1996
This revised edition is intended to further improve a previous edition of this work. Important points taken from Justice Isagani Cruz's book in Political Law have been summarized in this work. Special thanks to Lianne Tan for lending me her diskette in Political Law Review as updated by UP Law Batch 1995, Ma. Rosario Bernardo for digesting some of the cases in volume I, Shirley Alinea for lending me her notes in Political Law, Non Lerrer, Buddy Carale and TJ Matta for patiently printing this work. This work is dedicated to UP Law Batch 1996, to which I belong, most specially to Section A. May this work help us in passing Political Law this coming bar exams in September 1996. Let us all pray for a one hundred per cent passing rate.

"To Him be the glory and honor forever." _______________ GENERAL INTRODUCTION I. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS IN PUBLIC LAW A. Political Law defined

-- RAM

That branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the government organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory. (Sinco, Philippine Political Law 1, 11th ed., 1962)

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Scope of Political Law.-- The entire field of political law may be subdivided into (a) the law of public administration, (b) constitutional law, (c) administrative law, and (d) the law of public corporations. These four subdivisions may be briefly described for the time being, as follows: The first deals with the organization and management of the different branches of the government; the second, with the guaranties of the constitution to individual rights and the limitations on governmental action; the third, with the exercise of executive power in the making of rules and the decision of questions affecting private rights; and the last, with governmental agencies for local government or for other special purposes. (Sinco 1) Macariola v Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982) Spanish Code of Commerce Provision Disqualifying Judges from Engaging in Commerce is Part of Spanish Political Law Abrogated by Change of Sovereignty F:
The complainant alleged that respondent judge of the CFI violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce (w/c prohibited judges, among others, from engaging in commerce, either in person or in proxy or in the financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies w/in the limits of the districts) when he associated himself w/ the Traders Mftg. & Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and pres., said corp. having been organized to engage in business.

HELD: Although this provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce w/c is part of the commercial laws of the Phils, it partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges. Political law has been defined as that branch of public law w/c deals w/ the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the state w/ the inhabitants of its territory. Specifically, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law bec. it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees w/ respect to engaging in business; hence, political in essence. xxx Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to US, and later on from US to the Republic of the Phils., Art. 14 of the said Code must be deemed to have been abrogated bec. where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not w/ those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. There appears to be no enabling or affirmative act. Consequently, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to respondent Judge. VV. B. Constitutional Law Defined A constitution is both a legal document and a political plan. It, therefore, embodies legal rules as well as political principles. And so when we speak of constitutional law in the strict sense of the tern, we refer to the legal rules of the constitution. xxx xxx In the sense in w/c the concept is understood in American and Philippine Jurisprudence, constitutional law is a term used to designate the law embodied in the constitution and the legal principles growing out of the interpretation and application made by courts of the provisions of the constitution in specific cases. xxx

PAGE 2

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Constitutional law forms a distinct branch of jurisprudence dealing w/ the legal principles affecting the nature, adoption, amendment, and operation of the constitution. (Sinco 67.) Types of Constitutional Law.-- In general, there are three (3) different types of constitutional law, namely, (1) the English type, characterized by the absence of a written constitution (Sinco 67) An unwritten constitution, and the power of judicial review by the courts. Thus, the courts cannot invalidate the acts of the parliament as being unconstitutional because of "parliamentary supremacy." (Mirasol notes.) (2) the European continental type, where there is a written constitution w/c gives the courts no power to declare ineffective statutes contrary to it (Sinco 67.) A written constitution but no power of judicial review by the courts. The so-called Constitutional Courts of France do not exercise real judicial review but only render advisory opinions on constitutional questions upon the request of the government, not of parties in actual litigation. (Mirasol notes.) (3) the American type where the legal provisions of the written constitution are given effect through the power of the courts to declare ineffective or void ordinary statutes repugnant to it. (Sinco 67.) A written constitution and the exercise of judicial review by the courts, which is the power of the courts to determine the constitutional validity of the acts of legislature and other branches of government. (Mirasol notes.) C. Constitution Defined It is "a law for the government, safeguarding individual rights, set down in writing." (Hamilton.) Such a view found acceptance in the work of Tanada and Fernando: "It may be more specifically defined as a written instrument organizing the government, distributing its powers and safeguarding the rights of the People." From Malcolm and Laurel: "It is the written instrument by which the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic." According to Schwartz, "a constitution is seen as an organic instrument, under which governmental powers are both conferred and circumscribed. Such stress upon both grant and limitation of authority is fundamental in American theory. 'The office and purpose of the constitution is to shape and fix the limits of governmental activity.'" (Fernando, The Constitution of the Philippines, 20-21, 2nd ed., 1977.)

PAGE 3

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Types of Constitutions Classification of Constitutions: Constitutions are classified as follows: (1) written and unwritten, and (2) rigid and flexible. Written and Unwritten (Classification as to when it is adopted.) (a) A written constitution is one the provisions of w/c have been reduced to writing and embodied in one or more instruments at a particular time. The US Constitution is a classical example of a written constitution. Written constitutions have been also called conventional or enacted, bec. they are given definite form by a steadily constituted body, the constitutional convention, at a particular time. Written constitutions are either democratic or monarchical. Democratic constitutions essentially spring from the authority of the people. Monarchical constitutions are those granted by a monarch as an act of grace to his subjects. This class of constitutions are also called octroyed constitutions. They belong to the past age. (b) An unwritten constitution is one w/c has not been committed to writing at any specific time but is the accumulated product of gradual political and legal development. The English Constitution is the modern example of this class. Unwritten constitutions have been known also as cumulative or evolved, bec. they are not formulated at any definite time but are rather the outcome of a political evolutionary process. Flexible and Rigid Constitutions. (Classification according to amendment process.) The classification of constitutions into written and unwritten has been considered unscientific and inaccurate bec. no written constitution, after having been applied for a considerable period, can remain substantially unchanged in its original condition other than by formal amendments. xxx. To classify constitutions into rigid and flexible is to use a basis that has to do more w/ their nature rather than their mere form. Rigid.-- A constitution is classified as rigid when it may not be amended except through a special process distinct from and more involved than the method of changing ordinary laws. It is supposed that by such a special procedure, the constitution is rendered difficult to change and thereby acquires a greater degree of stability. Flexible.-- A constitution is classified as flexible when it may be changed in the same manner and through the same body that enacts ordinary legislation. The British Constitution is flexible. A constitution's stability depends upon other factors than the mere rigidity or flexibility of the amending process, such as (1) the general temperament of the people and their leaders and (2) the degree of a nation's political maturity and social homogenity. (Sinco 68-70.) The Philippine Constitution is both written and rigid (See Art. XVII on the Amendment process).

PAGE 4

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

II. THE BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION Historical Background of the 1987 Constitution The history of the 1987 Constitution began on 11 April 1899, the date when the Treaty of Paris between the United and Spain of 10 December 1898 became effective upon the exchange of instruments of ratification of both countries. But the sources of the 1987 Constitution are (i) McKinley's Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission; (ii) Spooner Amendment; (iii) Philippine Bill of 1902; (iv) Jones Law of 1916, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act; (v) 1935 Constitution; (vi) 1973 Constitution and (vi) Freedom Constitution of 1986 and its implementing orders. Treaty of Paris Under the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States. Spain relinquished its sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, and with this, all laws of a political nature were automatically abrogated. The Treaty provided that the civil and political status of all inhabitants of the islands was to be determined by the US Congress. The Philippines in turn, was not given the status of an "incorporated territory" (as to make it a candidate for statehood) and so ex proprio vigore, the US Constitution did not apply to the Philippines unless the US Congress expressly enacted its provisions. McKinley's Instructions President McKinley, legislating as Commander-in-Chief, issued on 7 April 1900 his "Letter of Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission " under Taft. It set up a "divided civil and military government" with the existing Military governor as the Executive, and a Philippine Commission, created on 1 September 1900, as the Legislative, both representing the US President as Commander-in-Chief. It also extended to the Philippines all the rights in the Bill of Rights of the US Federal Constitution, except the right to bear arms (because the country was in rebellion) and the right to a trial by jury (because the Americans distrusted the Filipinos capacity to be a just judge of his peers). The right to jury trial of an American charged with a crime in the Philippines was denied by the courts in US v Dorr, 2 Phil 332 (1903) by virtue of the Letter of Instruction. This was the first Organic Act (a law which establishes the structure and limitations of the government) of the Philippines. What it lacked, as a constitution, were the ratification by the people, and the right of amendment (which was reserved solely to the US President). The judiciary was subsequently established on 11 June 1901, with a Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance, and Justice of Peace Courts. Spooner Amendment
PAGE 5

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

On 4 July 1901, the Spooner Amendment, which was actually a rider to the "Army and Navy Appropriations Act," changed the then "divided, military and civil government" into a fully civil government, under the US Congress. All acts of the Philippine Commission would now begin: "Be it enacted by the authority of the US government," and no longer by authority of the US President. Philippine Bill of 1902 The US Congress now in control of the Philippines, ratified all the organic acts of the President, in order to prevent disruption of government, and on 1 July 1900, passed the Philippine Bill of 1902, which was to be organic act of the Philippines from 1902 to 1906. The organic act introduced significant provisions to constitutional history. The Philippine Commission was the upper house. It was under the Governor-General who retained all the executive power, including the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus upon recommendation of the Philippine Commission. It established an elective lower house called the Philippine Assembly, composed entirely of Filipinos. It called for the first election in the Philippines to fill up, the membership in the lower house, as soon as the Philippine insurrection stopped and there was a condition of general peace, except in the Moro and Non-Christian provinces. A census was taken and completed on 28 March 1903 and with a certification of peace and of Filipino acceptance of the US government made by the Philippine Commission on 29 March 1907, the election for the Philippine Assembly was conducted on 10 July 1907, with Osmena as speaker. The Bill also defined for the first time who the citizens of the Philippines were. They were all the inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of 11 April 1899, who continued to reside therein, and all the children born subsequent thereto. This definition is still good law today. Jones Law On 29 August 1916, the US Congress passed the Jones Law, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act. It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the prototype of our present set-up. The executive power was in the hands of an American Governor-General, who was independent of the Legislature, and who was given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law without the recommendation of the Legislature. The Legislature was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos. The judiciary continued to be made up of the Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts. Under this set-up, while the Filipinos has all the legislative power, the Americans had all the executive power and thus, also the control of the government. Thus, in the Board of Control
PAGE 6

and upon withdrawal of US sovereignty. Claro M. Vice-President and members of Congress taking effect upon ratification. the 1935 Constitution took effect. Recto was elected President of the Convention. but with re-election and (c) the establishment of an independent constitutional body known as the Commission on Elections. The law. the US Supreme Court ruled. the PAGE 7 . of the Republic. with the provisions on the qualifications of the President. the draft was certified by the President. War ensued. said the court. and the Philippines was so devastated that the declaration of its independence. and a separation of church and state.President. an election was held to choose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution provides for a tripartite government.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (National Coal Corporation) cases. it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite. Tydings-McDuffie Law Although this was not an organic act. and (iv) its ratification by the people in a plebiscite. On 23 March 1935. On 14 May 1935. the legislative in a unicameral National Assembly. on 23 April 1946. due 15 November 1945 had to be postponed. Complete independence was to take place ten (10) years after its effectivity. Only the Governor-General could vote the government shares. on 30 July 1934. (b) a term of four years for the President. Franklin Delano Roosevelt as conforming to the Tydings-McDuffie Law. 1935 Constitution Accordingly. In 1940. with a Bill of Rights. On 8 February 1935. the Concon approved the draft. At any rate. In September 1935. despite the dissent of Holmes and Brandeis. (iii) the submission of the draft to the US President for certification that the Constitution was in conformity with the conditions set by the Tydings-McDuffie Law. This Constitution was to serve as the charter of the Commonwealth. and the judiciary in a Supreme Court. provided for (i) the calling of a Constitutional Convention to draft a Constitution for the Philippines. that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House could not vote the stocks of the NCC and elect its directors because this was a political function. upon the inauguration of the Commonwealth. On 15 November 1935. CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts as before. with the executive lodged in the President who had a six-year term. was carried over by the Jones Law. the first election under the 1935 Constitution was conducted with Manuel Luis Quezon as President and Sergio Osmena as Vice. it was amended to provide for (a) a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives. The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines first enunciated in the Philippine Bill of 1902. (ii) the adoption of a Constitution that established a republican government. it is important in the constitutional history of the Philippines because it was to be the enabling statute. upon its acceptance by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines. providing the mechanism whereby the constitution of an independent Philippines could be adopted.

With the balance of power offset. and reflected as an amendment in the Constitution. When this was raised in court. So with the amendment proposed. the second and third were rejected. acting as constituent body. But with the three Senators still suspended. and a gradual increase in duties from 1954 to 1974 (LaurelLangley agreement). because of the unfulfilled promise that the Senate would not carry out the suspension. the SC had to dismiss the petition on the ground that the principle of separation of powers. The third time the Constitution was amended (1940. The Senate approval of this bill gave rise to the case of Vera v Avelino. which gave rise to the case of Mabanag v Lopez Vito. Three Nacionalista Senatorselect (Vera. the eve of the declaration of Philippine Independence. needed 3/4 vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution. in what is known as "exclusion proceedings. the Republic was inaugurated and the Philippines became "politically" independent of the US. (b) the increase of seats in the House of Representatives to make the Concon sufficiently representative. On 30 April 1946. But not "economically". it was subsequently ratified on 5 March 1947. Under the Amendatory Provisions of the 1935 Constitution. The political motivation was clear but the SC was conned into lifting the injunction it issued for the withholding of the suspension. the US Congress passed the Bell Trade Act which would grant Philippine prime exports entry to the US free of customs duties from 1946 to 1954. it begged off from ruling on the ground that it was a political question. This must be accepted by Congress. 78 Phil 1 (1947). 1947) was in 1967. Diokno and Romero). provided that the Philippines would grant US citizens and corporations the same privileges. known to be against the Bell Trade Act. Subsequently. and in addition. This became the subject matter of Gonzales v COMELEC. it was the day when the US withdrew its sovereignty over the Philippines." on grounds that their elections were marred with fraud. Theoretically. only the 21 remaining were used as the basis for computing the 3/4 requirement. Congress. embodied in an Executive Agreement. and on 4 July 1946. thus giving the Filipino people an occasion to assert their own independence. 77 Phil 192 (1946). to an extent that sovereignty is never granted to a people but is earned by them as they assert their political will.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition election of the first officials of the Philippine Republic was held. then it is a misnomer to say that 4 July 1946 was the day US granted independence to the Philippines. Then came the amendment of the Constitution in order to include the Parity Rights Agreement. and (c) allowing members of the House as delegates without forfeiting their seats. which he did on 3 July 1946. More appropriately. were prevented by the rest of the Senate. the right to explore natural resources of the Philippines in parity with the Filipinos. PAGE 8 . The Senate authorized President Roxas to enter into an Executive Agreement. It also used the Enrolled Bill Theory. The first was approved. it could not order a co-equal branch to reinstate a member. the Bell Trade Act was passed. and to operate public utilities. The Senate then had 11 Nacionalistas and 13 Liberals. A Resolution of both houses provided for (a) the amendment of the Constitution by a Convention. one week after the election.

This was questioned in the case of Planas v COMELEC. But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. it came up with a resolution calling for an amendment to the 1935 Constitution reducing the voting age from 21 to 18. It merely raised the retirement of justices of the SC from 65 to 70 as to keep Fernando for five more years. A plebiscite was set by the COMELEC for 8 November 1971 but this was enjoined by the SC in the case of Tolentino v COMELEC. in 1984. The issue was raised because of the conditional letter of resignation sent by Mr. The second. in 1976." The 1973 Constitution was amended four times. Marcos to the Batasan. the court ruling that a piece-meal amendment was not allowed by the 1935 Constitution since it provided that the amendments were to be ratified at "an election" which meant only one election. making PAGE 9 . who called on a plebiscite to ratify the Constitution. Before it finished its work. The third. On 30 November 1972. The validity of the "Snap Election Law" called by the Batasang Pambansa was raised in the case of Philippine Bar Association v COMELEC. 50 SCRA 30 (1973) but the failure of the SC to come up with the necessary votes to declare the act as unconstitutional forced it into the conclusion that "there are no further obstacles to considering the constitution in force and effect. the President came up with a proclamation that the Constitution had come to full force and effect after its overwhelming ratification by the people in a viva voce vote. 1973. On 17 January 1973. 1973 Constitution The validity of the ratification process was questioned in the case of Javellana v Executive Secretary. legislative powers even if the Interim Batasang Pambansa was already operating. so that a wider base could vote in the ratification of the Constitution then being drafted. 49 SCRA 105 (1973) on the ground that there can be no freedom of expression under Martial Law. it was thus limited by the Constitution. The first. 140 SCRA 455 (1985). the Convention submitted its "draft" to the President. in 1980 changed the form of government from Parliamentary to Presidential. But its immediate precursor was the Snap Election which the President was forced to call and set on 7 February 1986 to respond to the clamor for popular mandate. of course. in 1980 was not significant. The Court upheld its jurisdiction over the ConCon by arguing that since the Concon derived its power from the Constitution. responded to the succession problem by providing for a VicePresident. The start of the end of the Marcos years. But the case was rendered moot and academic when the President cancelled the plebiscite and instead held a citizens' assembly on 10 to 15 January. The fourth. could be treated as early as 21 August 1983. gave the President. Then the ConCon met on 1 June 1971.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Election of delegates to the Concon took place on 10 November 1970.

But Proclamation No. 1986. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. "For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. The rest is history. On 25 February. But the SC failed to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from preparing for the election. A. May 22. seemed to suggest that it was a revolutionary government. Lawyers League v Aquino (GR Nos.-.and the candidate Batasan proclaimed was Marcos. for it did not create a vacancy. 1. 73972 & 73990.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition his resignation effective only upon (i) the holding of a Presidential election. The better view is the latter view. they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government.-. 73748. the political parties have started campaigning and the people were so involved in the election that to stop it on legal grounds would frustrate their very will. (iii) the assumption into office by the winning candidate. 3 which announced the Provisional Constitution. while Aquino was proclaimed in Club Filipino by Teehankee. Marcos was proclaimed in Malacanang by Makasiar. the SC could not issue the injunction prayed for. The SC ruled that petitioners had no personality to sue and their petition states no cause of action. Marcos fled to Hawaii. And the people have made the judgment. thus making "the initially legal question into a political one. But the February 2 to 25. Later that evening." referring to the EDSA revolution. Freedom Constitution What was the basis of the Aquino government? Did it assume power pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. and without a vacancy. And so. the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. EDSA revolution took place. failing to come up with the majority to hold the Snap Election Law unconstitutional. (ii) the proclamation of a winner.This view was affirmed in Lawyers League v Aquino where the legitimacy of the Aquino government is questioned on the ground that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. 1986). there was no reason to call for an election. since in one of its whereases it announced that the "new government was installed.proclamation by the Batasan --." In the meantime. naming Marcos and Tolentino as the winners. Moreover. a procedure was given for the election of the President --. 25 February 1986 (Provisional government). The election went ahead. have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. The Aquino government was not an offshoot of the 1973 Constitution for under that Constitution. The February 1986 Revolution and the Proclamation of Provisional Constitution. through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces. The results of the election were proclaimed by the Batasan." PAGE 10 . or was it a revolutionary government? Proclamation No. It was contended that a conditional resignation was not allowed under the 1973 Constitution.

modified the provisions regarding the executive department. Moreover.were drafted by elected delegates. The nature of a Constitution is to set-up a government and provide for an orderly way to change this government. ARTICLE V ADOPTION OF A NEW CONSTITUTION Section 1. 58. In Re: Saturnino Bermudez (145 SCRA 160)(1960). have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. 1986 (Provisional Constitution). that: [T]he legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. is always lawful since a State can never go wrong. March 25. 1971 --. it had come into force and effect. all major constitutions --. V.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Aquino government was a result of a "direct state action. But this right of revolution. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. from the point of view of a State." It was not as if a small group revolted and succeeded in wresting power in the end. A revolution contradicts this nature. cannot be recognized in a Constitution. Proclamation No.-. 3.) Then it provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission. the SC held. (Its use of the 1973 Constitution. a Commission shall be appointed by the President to draft a New Constitution. The draft was submitted to the people in a referendum on 2 February 1987.Malolos. the entire state revolted and overthrew the government. 1935. It abrogated the legislative provisions of the 1973 Constitution. composed of 30 to 50 members appointed by the President within 60 days. Rather.) The President appointed 48 Commissioners. for this would be self-destructive. inherent in sovereignty. A revolution. In this regard. is not be to construed that it was a continuation thereof.-. the President. Art. (In our history. who worked on the Constitution from 1 June to 15 October 1986. and totally reorganized the government. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized. On 11 February 1987. And the people have made the judgment. so that right from the beginning. announced its overwhelming ratification by the people and that. therefore. through Proclamation No.At any rate. Within sixty days from the date of this Proclamation. B. it must be noted that there is no such thing as a constitutional right of revolution. the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. however. the Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution was adopted on 25 March 1986 through Proclamation No. it can change its government in whatever way the sovereign sees fit. The Commission shall be composed of not PAGE 11 . Adoption and Effectivity of the present Constitution Provisional Constitution. quoting the previous case of Lawyers League v Aquino. 3.In the case of In Re: Saturnino Bermudez . the installation was already lawful and the government was at all times de jure.

3 would have been superseded. III. Section 4. known for their independence. sec. of recognized probity.) The 1987 Constitution took effect on 2 February 1987. Sec. F: The case arose due to Art. 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 the all previous Constitutions. But if it took effect on 11 February (the date of proclamation). by the Commissioners whose signatures are hereunder affixed. XVIII. The foregoing proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the twelfth day of October 1986. the replacement was no longer valid. February 11. 1987 Constitution. Proclamation No. ruled that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to make it effective on the date of its ratification. the replacement would have been valid. Section 5. National Government Center. XVIII. 58 (Proclaiming the Ratification of the 1987 Constitution). Quezon City. XVIII. Sec. which provided that: "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. 1987 De Leon v Esguerra. The New Constitution shall be presented by the Commission to the President who shall fix the date for the holding of a plebiscite. Art. Rizal. 27. 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 60 days following its submission to the President. 3. 27. if such appointment is made within a period of one year from 25 February 1986. and accordingly signed on the fifteenth day of October 1986 at the Plenary Hall. nationalism and patriotism. he was replaced by the MLG (DLG). 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 drat a document truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people. So the question arose as to when the 1987 Constitution took effect. On 9 February 1987. The Commission shall conduct public hearings to insure that the people will have adequate participation in the formulation of the New Constitution. If it took effect on 2 February. Art." De Leon was a barrio captain in Taytay. Section 3. Section 2. Art. The plenary sessions of the Commission shall be public and recorded. 27 clearly provided that "this Constitution shall take effect immediately upon PAGE 12 . They shall be chosen by the President after consultation with various sectors of society.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition less than thirty nor more than fifty natural born citizens of the Philippines. Sec. 2 of Proclamation No. since Proclamation No. 153 SCRA 602 (1987. The SC. consulting the proceedings of the Concom.

there is no way to determine if it has been ratified or not? Should the Director of Prison continue the scheduled electrocution of a death row convict on 3 February in view of the abolition of capital punishment in the 1987 Constitution. Consequently. because a public officer. and yet it took effect on the day of the proclamation. One. respondent OIC Governor could not designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. 16. 2. Sec. does not assume office on the day of his election. and Davide's comment that he was giving up due to tyranny of numbers. 1987. if the effectivity was 2 February. III. the National Assembly PAGE 13 . the 1973 Constitution had a similar provision as the present one in issue (Art." The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on Feb. Furthermore. after that date. in case the constitution is not ratified. The dissenting opinion pointed out that by contemporaneous construction. A concurring opinion noted the debate between Davide (date of proclamation) and Bernas (date of ratification). how can one can be expected to comply with the provisions of the Constitution when. Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure. he would technically be violating the constitution under the above holding. no analogy can be made between the election to office of a public officer who is deemed elected on the day of election). then the appointments made by the President to CA posts after that date would be invalid for they were not submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council. however. if he does. though deemed elected. The 1981 and 1984 amendments contained similar provisions (valid when approved). and yet the practice has always been to make the date of proclamation. prior to its proclamation. Theory of Judicial Review Angara v Electoral Commission. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite). and the effectivity of the constitution. The ones to be blamed are the framers themselves.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite. superseding the Provisional Constitution. he would be in dereliction of duty. 63 Phil 139 (1936). VV: The SC was correct for that was the clear intent of the framers. If he does not. the date of effectivity. Two. not even on the day of his proclamation. Effectivity should really be the date of proclamation. XVII. Teehankee noted that the President issued the appointments in the end of January. On this point. THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS A. In 1935.

A complaint made by one who fails to show injury as to its operation. 66 Phil 56 (1937). Possibility of a construction of the statute which can avoid the resolution of the constitutional question. J. (premature case) 3. Instance of one who has availed himself of its benefit. non-adversary proceedings. Laurel pointed out that when the court allocated constitutional boundaries. i. 4. (no vital conflict) 2. it neither asserts supremacy.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition adopted a resolution that "all members. It simply carries out the obligations imposed upon it by the constitution to determine conflicting claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the constitution grants to them. This means (1) a party with a personal and substantial interest. the court must refrain from passing on the issue of constitutionality or from exercising judicial review: 1. nor annuls the acts of the legislature. who lost to Angara.e.elect. 7. Angara contended that the deadline set by the National Assembly was controlling. In justifying the power of judicial review. on the other hand set the 9 December 1935 as the deadline for the filing of election protest. with no election protest filed on or before 3 December 1935 are deemed elected. Policy of strict necessity (Rescue Army case) PAGE 14 . Brandeis) : In the following cases. in view of the constitutional provision granting the Electoral Commission jurisdiction over election protests. Laurel. and (4) a constitutional question that is the very lis mota of the case. This was entertained by the Electoral Commission. Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review In People v Vera. (3) a constitutional question raised at the earliest possible time." The Electoral Commission. through J. ruled for Ynsua. Existence of other grounds upon which the case may be disposed of (not the very lis mota) 5. Anticipation of a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. a constitutional body. filed a motion of protest (complaint) on 8 December 1935. an unavoidable question. (2) an appropriate case. Ynsua. Laurel laid down the doctrine that judicial review can only be exercised in an actual case and controversy. Who prevailed? The SC. Friendly. thereby upholding the authority of the Electoral Commission. (no standing) 6. Formulation of a rule broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is applied. Seven (7) rules of avoidance of constitutional questions (J. J.

and its limited resources for enforcement. 3. When a judge attempts to resolve a political question. Consideration due to the judgment of the other repositories of constitutional power concerning the scope of their authorities. in view of possible consequences for others stemming also from constitutional roots. It is not wise for the court to engage in an advisory opinion because: a) This only leads to dialectics. as much possible. Thus. 4. The danger of exercising the function. Baker v. Political Question An issue is a political question when it does not deal with the interpretation of a law and its application to a case.its largely negative character.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The court must. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a political department. refrain from exercising judicial review unless all the requirements for its exercise are fulfilled because of : 1. 6. the following must be avoided: (i) political questions. 5. Inherent limitations of the judicial process . Withal in paramount importance of constitutional adjudication. This may take the form of declaratory relief. Comparative finality of those consequences. PAGE 15 . but is rather supplanting his conscience to that of the political branch of the government. 2. or the potentiality of embarrassment from multafarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Necessity for each to keep within its own power. and (iv) no standing. but with the very wisdom of the law itself. to abstract legal arguments and sterile conclusions (Laurel quoting Frankfurter) b) The judicial function is impoverished since it thrives on facts that draw out the meaning of the law. (ii) advisory opinions. Advisory Opinion A case becomes an advisory opinion when there is no actual case and controversy that demands constitutional construction for its resolution. (iii) moot and academic issues. Carr. or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. 369 US 186 (1962) has attempted to formulate some guidelines for determining whether a question is political or not. or an unusual need for unequestioning adherence to a political decision already made. or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government. he is not exercising a judicial function. or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.

Pres. or will sustain. injuries and heated arguments but for some reason the legal problem has become stale. infra. Aquino referred to the "direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by the units of the new AFP" as the cause for the PAGE 16 . Standing is established by two nexuses: the party's status and the type of legislative act being questioned. Exceptions to mootness: 1) If the question is capable of repetition and evasive of review. The test of standing is whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure such concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions (Baker v Carr. and he stand to be really injured if it is decided against him. The court must resolve constitutional issues only when they come to it at the right time (ripeness). or too late. The question was who the "incumbent President" referred to in said provision was --whether Aquino (the one in office) or Marcos (the one proclaimed by the Batasan). XVIII.) 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. 1986) The action was for declaratory relief to interpret Section 5 of Art. so that it is still abstract (advisory opinion). so that the court's decision would no longer affect the parties (mootness). When a case is moot and academic. it ceases to be a case and controversy. which provides that: The six year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the 7 February 1986 election. or his status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement. is for purposes of synchronization of election. 3) Voluntary cessation from the wrongful act by the defendant.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Mootness A case becomes moot when there are facts. The confusion arose because in Proclamation No. (People v. Ripeness A constitutional question may come to the court either too early or prematurely. No Standing A party has a standing in a case if his interest is such that he stands to be benefited if the case is resolved in his favor. supra. direct injury as a result ot its enforcement. if he is free to return to his old ways. 2) If there exits a mere possibility of collateral legal consequences if the court does not act. 3.) Philippine Practice In re Saturnina Bermudez (145 SCRA 160. Vera. hereby extended to noon of 30 June 1991. Any decision reached by the court would not be conclusive on the parties.

Igot v COMELEC (95 SCRA 392) Sec. The SC held that he had no standing because (a) he had never been convicted nor charged of any these crimes. disregarding the limits of judicial review.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition installation of the new government. (b) he had not been disqualified from being a candidate. And yet. 4 of BP 52 also provided in part that any person convicted of subversion. claiming that this was directed at him as former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. no petition for his disqualification having been filed and (b) the action was a request for advisory opinion. insurrection or rebellion. the she would not be the "incumbent" who was elected in the February 7 election. declaring that the legislative purpose of infusing younger blood in local government was valid. since he had not been injured by the operation of the law. Dumlao filed for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the law. PAGE 17 . And yet. and (d) he could not sue as taxpayer since the statute did not directly involve the disbursement of public funds. (b) the SC had no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. Adapted. though that his case is the entitlement of an actual case and controversy. (c) he had no personal nor substantial interest at stake. The SC held that (a) he had no standing. d) the petitioner had no cause of action because. the SC held that the second part regarding the presumption of guilt was unconstitutional for violating the presumption of innocence. was not qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he had retired. although abstaining from ruling on the first part of the provision. and the filing of charges for such crimes before a civil or military court after preliminary investigation was prima facie evidence of such fact. the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but is a political question. felt compelled to render a decision on the legitimacy of the Aquino government so as to avoid any doubt as to its very own legitimacy. And yet. or similar offenses was disqualified from running for any local position. the SC upheld the validity "because of paramount public interest". (The Court. The SC ruled that (a) the petitioner had no standing. If President Aquino was not elected but came into office as a result of the EDSA Revolution. reiterating the decision in Lawyer's League for a Better Philippines v Aquino. Igot sought to question the validity of this provision. referred to in the provision. c) the suit was against the President who cannot be sued.) Dumlao v COMELEC (95 SCRA 392) Section 4 of BP 52 provided that any retired elective local official who had received retirement pay to which he was entitled under the law and who have been 65 years old at the commencement of the term of office to which he sought to be elected. the SC ruled that the "incumbent" referred to was President Aquino who was in effective control of the country and had been recognized by the rest of the world. It must be noted.

) is really a political question when viewed in a broader context (i. Failure to issue an injunction is as much an exercise of judicial review. we see another trend of judicial review.upholding the validity of the law which results from a mere dismissal of a case challenging the validity of that law. so that a declaration to that effect by the court would not make it more constitutional. In Romulo v Yniguez. Declaring that the law is not unconstitutional is tantamount to saying that the challenger has not met the burden required.invalidating a law or an executive act that is found to be contrary to the Constitution.e. citing its delay in deciding the case and the sentiments of the people that developed in the meantime as reason for its inaction. proclamation and assumption into office by the elected President. infra. On the other hand. that is solely committed to that department. The Court cannot declare the law constitutional for it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. despite the really political nature of the question. anyone who challenges the validity of a law has the burden of proof to show its invalidity. The case was clearly a justiciable controversy. a matter.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Political Questions In PBA v COMELEC. Functions of Judicial Review 1. Is the resignation submitted by Marcos. This is no mere semantics. whether the rules of the Batasan enabling it to shelf a complaint for impeachment against the President is constitutional. it uses the double negative by declaring that the law is "not unconstitutional". PAGE 18 . When the Court exercises this function. we see a reversal of judicial review. 140 SCRA 455.. According to the court. But it did not. the SC passed on the validity of the rules to erase doubts that may still be entertained. What seems like a legal question when viewed in isolation (namely. C. Legitimating (legitimizing) . VV: A Court which does not issue an injunction to enjoin an official act when it could have issued one is actually deciding the case in favor of the validity of the act.) Yet. Checking . which was conditioned on the election. 2. that the case was filed against the Speaker of a co-equal branch to compel him by mandamus to recall the complaint from the archive. and that the ultimate result of the case was to question the decision of the Batasan to shelve the case. what at first was a legal question became a political question because it was overtaken by events. a valid resignation as to authorize the Batasan to pass a Snap Election Law? The Court could have validly issued an injunction to stop the COMELEC from proceeding with the preparations for the election.

104 SCRA 59 (1981). the SC held that the failure of the Court in the Javellana v Executive Secretary case to muster the votes required to declare the 1973 Constitution as being invalidly ratified." In Demeteria v Alba. which sought a mandamus to compel the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite to ratify the 1973 Constitution. Dismissal of Challenge to a Law's Validity Legitimizes it. 148 SCRA 208. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in the Javellana resolution. the issue has been settled and the decision is no longer possible according to the law. it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. The 2 are not always the same. the case is not entirely moot. In Salonga v Cruz-Pano. And yet. And yet the SC. the Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. though gone. which resulted in the dismissal of the suit questioning the validity of the ratification of the Constitution. the case was already mooted not only by the death of Evelio Javier. there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. the case against petitioner for subversion which was filed by the fiscal on the basis of flimsy testimony given by Victor Lovely was already dismissed without prejudice by the fiscal (upon anticipation of adverse ruling)." decided the case anyway "for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future. But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared. 144 SCRA 194 (1986). 104 SCRA 1 (1981). claiming to be "not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government. Since then. 44 of PD 1177. in effect legitimated the ratification. the SC noting that as the fiscal said the dismissal of the charges was without prejudice to the filing of new ones for the same acts because the petitioner has not been arraigned and double jeopardy does not apply. not only for the vindication of the outraged right. There are times when we cannot grant the latter bec. It thus. and how it could not be proved by a mere photograph. In the latter case. The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also give him justice." 3. Symbolic . In Occena v COMELEC. which sought an injunction to prohibit the COMELEC from proceeding with the plebiscite for the proposed 1981 amendments. both prayers based on the premise that the 1973 Constitution had not been ratified. authorizing the President to transfer funds from one department to another. and in Mitra v COMELEC. but also by the abolition of Batasan. decided to perform its duty to "formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future. Symbolic Function of Supreme Court to Give Guidelines to Bench and Bar in Cases which are Moot and Academic. Justice demands that we act then. the SC struck down Sec. as in this case. went on to lecture about its antiquated understanding of the inciting test. on the ground that it PAGE 19 . The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. In Javier v COMELEC. the Antique seat which he and Pacificador were contesting for. precepts and doctrines or rules" for the guidance of the bar and bench. In Occena.to educate the bench and bar as to the controlling principles and concepts on matters of great public importance.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Legitimating and Checking Aspects of Judicial Review. 134 SCRA 438 (1985). the Court ruled that: "The Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate.

RA 2616. This issue said the SC. Thus. If so. proclamation. could be resolved by the CFI in the ejectment case filed before it by the evictees of the estate. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. modify.M. their decision being always reviewable by the SC. 5(2). reverse." it lectured on how this law would open the floodgates for the enactment of unfunded appropriations. or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. then the lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. uncontrolled executive expenditures. impost. assessment. citing the Javier case on the need "not only for the vindication of an outraged right. 16(5) of the 1973 Constitution. which provided for the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. sec. though gone. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax. order. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. Then. revise. law. The 2/3 vote of the SC required by Sec. Tuason & Co. revise. v CA. final judgments and orders of lower courts in : (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. presidential decree. and on how this would create temptations for misappropriation and embezzlement. that since it has jurisdiction to review. for instance an RTC can rule on the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Law. All courts can exercise judicial review Art. diffusion of accountability for budgetary performance. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (2) Review. VIII. The review power of the SC implies that it has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of lower courts on cases with constitutional issues. was claimed to be unconstitutional. since the 1935 Constitution contemplated that inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality issues. and entrenchment of the pork barrel system. or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. banning the transporting of carabaos from one province to another. 10 of Art. reverse. 3 SCRA 696 (1961). or toll. The SC then struck down the law for being arbitrary and for unduly delegating legislative PAGE 20 . Sec. but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future. 148 SCRA 659. VII restricted the decisions of that Court only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. VIII.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition overextended the privilege granted under Art. or regulation is in question. modify or affirm final judgments of lower courts in constitutional cases. inferior courts have original jurisdiction over constitutional cases although they decide the case only at first instance. even if such provision was already abrogated by the Freedom Constitution. the SC reversed the RTC's holding that it had no authority to rule on the validity of EO 626-A. instruction. ordinance. international or executive agreement. In J. power. that it spoke of appellate review of "final judgment of inferior courts" in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. The Court pointed out. In Ynot v IAC.

But a law declared unconstitutional is only voidable if. creates no right or office. private and official. An example is BP 52 in Igot v COMELEC case. so that statements of principle of absolute retroactivity is not acceptable in all cases. is prima facie presumed to be disqualified from running for a local post. providing that anyone who has been charged of rebellion. it blatantly goes against the constitutional presumption of innocence. etc. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects with respect to particular relations. it produces no effect whatsoever. it enjoys the presumption of validity. As such. And even so. people would have entered into various transactions and relations. Thus. It is void if on its face. it imposes no duty. the past cannot always be erased. it becomes inoperative only upon the judicial declaration of its invalidity. As the court put it in Chicot County District v Baxter State Bank. PAGE 21 . according to Sullivan v Bantam Books. and particular conduct. and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. xxx The effect of a declaration that a law is unconstitutional is to make the law either void or voidable. the invalidation produces no retroactive effect. and US v New York Times. 38 SCRA 429 (1971) is in point. to now hold that the law never produced any effect would penalize those who in faith believed the laws passed by their representatives to be in accordance with their solemn duty under the Constitution. On its face. "[T]he actual existence of a statute. individual and corporate. xxx When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Art. since it would be unjust to hold that the law did not produce any effect at all prior to its nullification. Effect of a Declaration of Unconstitutionality Civil Code. is an operative fact. In this case. Another example is a law imposing prior restraint which is. Whatever penalty was paid during the period of its operation must be remitted. it does not enjoy any presumption of validity. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. presumptively unconstitutional. expecting and in fact compelled to presume that the law is valid. Said the court. 7. the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. From the time the law was promulgated to the time it was declared invalid. xxx " The case of Serrano de Agbayani v PNB. on its face. supra.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition C. prior to such determination. Article 7.

the action has prescribed. Has the action prescribed? If we take the orthodox view. in the case of Norton vs. 15 years had elapsed. Pres. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ________________ PART ONE THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE I.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition In 1939. the SC declared RA 342 as unconstitutional in the case of Rutter v Esteban. when PNB collected the loan. Between 1944 when the loan matured and 1959. it affords no protection. 1953-59). In effect. in legal contemplation. it would be unjust to punish the creditor who could not collect prior to 1953 because the Debt Moratorium Law was effective. In 1953. The period from 1945 when the law was promulgated. In 1948. suspending the payment of loans for four years due to the ravages of war. J. it is. only to be told later that his respect for an apparently valid law made him lose his right to collect. 7 of the Civil Code which provides that. RA 342 extended the Debt Moratorium Law for another eight years (up to 1956). State defined. [The orthodox view was announced by Mr. as the SC did. An unconstitutional act is not a law. Osmena issued the Debt Moratorium Law (EO #32). PAGE 22 . "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution. to 1953 when it was declared unconstitutional should not be counted for the purpose of prescription since the Debt Moratorium Law was operative during this time. Indeed. In 1945. only 7 years had elapsed (1944-45. Art." seems to be the orthodox view on the matter. inoperative.] But if we take the unorthodox view. however. Agbayani borrowed P450 from PNB secured by a realty mortgage. Shelby County where the court held that: "xxx. the loan matured but PNB could not collect because it was at this time of the war. since the declaration of RA 342 as unconstitutional retroacted to 1945 when EO 32 was first issued. In 1944. it creates no office. In 1959. it confers no rights. it imposes no duties. PNB filed a suit for payment of the loan. Field. as if it had not been passed. the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. the action could still prosper.

Introduction to Political Law. The 1935 Constitution needed to define Philippine territory in order to prevent its dismemberment by the US. independent of outside control. sovereignty. the draft of the Constitution was to be submitted to the US President for approval. this is useless since one's territory under International Law is defined not by one's self-serving claims as to what it covers. Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago. between. I. but by international treaties and customs. pursuant to the Tydings-McDuffie Act. with all the islands and waters embraced therein. and aerial domains. people. At first glance. A State is a politically organized sovereign community. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. fluvial. (Prof. In short. and acting through government functioning under a regime of law. expressed and realized.) The elements of a state are : territory. more or less numerous. and (2) all territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. and other submarine areas. Components of the Philippine State A. Historically. The waters around.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition CIR v Campos Rueda. State. Territory-.The Archipelago Concept Art. the seabed. A state is a community of persons. Of all the constitutions in the world. the Philippine territory consists of: (1) the Philippine archipelago. government. 42 SCRA 23 (1971). II. and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State is governed. defining the national territory was a way of making the US acknowledge its extent and (to) respect its integrity. People refers simply to the inhabitants of the State. including its territorial sea. Samilo Barlongay quoting Garner. permanently occupying a fixed territory and possessed of an independent government organized for political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. regardless of their breadth and dimensions. probably only the Philippines has a definition of its territory. 41. the subsoil. consisting of its terrestrial. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Since. bound by ties of nationhood. legally supreme within its territory. PAGE 23 . the insular shelves. this definition had a valid purpose. however.

Treaty of Washington of 7 November 1900 between the United States and Ceding Cagayan. Treaty limits 1. therefore. the Constitution being merely a municipal law which does not bind other states. Technical descriptions are made of the scope of the archipelago as this may be found on the surface of the earth. if the Philippines has the right over Sabah under International Law. Sibuto and Sulu. The claim was originally made by President Macapagal. Anyway. 3." In so changing. Treaty of 2 January 1930 between the United States and Great Britain. in 1977 on the occasion of an ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Singapore announced that the Philippines was willing to drop its claims over Sabah. nothing was done. Spain. Ceding the Turtle and Mangsee Islands. 1. however to amend the Constitution. 2. Removing such a definition would amount to dropping the claim altogether. RA 3046 (17 June 1961) PAGE 24 . the rationale was to remove any irritant to our relations with the Malaysia brought about by the 1973 formulation but without renouncing the claim at the same time. contains a definition of national territory so as not to give an impression that the Philippines is abandoning its claim over Sabah. The 1987 Constitution. The Philippine Archipelago a. Sabah was one of the territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right and legal title. it possesses that right with or without a Constitution. degrees and seconds. The 1987 Constitution changed the phraseology into: "all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. a fact not for the Commissioners to decide. President Marcos.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The 1973 Constitution needed a definition of national territory in order to lay claim to Sabah. Method of determining the baselines 1. Treaty of Paris of 10 December 1898. b. Article 3 defines the metes and bounds of the archipelago by longitude and latitude.

Bohol and Siquijor. 2 of the Act provides that the definition of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah. Archipelagic Doctrine The basic concept of an archipelago is that body of water studded with islands. According to the doctrine.) The archipelagic doctrine is the principle that it is an integrated unit. regardless of breadth. there may be high seas.g. whether or not more than 12 miles from the shore). b. situated in North Borneo. even these bodies of water within the baseline. foreign vessels may just enter anytime at will. c. If we follow the old rule of international law.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Determine appropriate points of the outermost Islands of the archipelago.) The Constitutional provisions embodying this doctrine are : 1.) 2. studded with islands. RA 5446 (8 September 1968). due to the more than 24 mile distance between the 2 islands.-. PAGE 25 . (2) national security. "The baselines from which the territorial sea of the Philippines is determined consist of straight lines joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago." (fifth whereas clause. form part of the archipelago and are thus considered as internal waters.Sec. Uses of the baseline: a. This is in contrast to a continent which is a single mass of land. it is possible that between islands. The archipelagic doctine has a two-fold purpose: (1) economic reasons. Thus. then connect them by means of a straight line until all islands are surrounded or enclosed by the imaginary straight lines. is viewed as a unity of islands and waters together forming one unit. posing danger to the security of the State. or the islands surrounded with water. "archipelago. everything within it comprises the archipelago. (ibid. e. Determine what is internal water (all waters inside the baseline. with all the island and waters embraced therein" An archipelago is a body of water. The main purpose of the archipelagic doctrine is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. (Barlongay. over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. Determine the 200 mile EEZ.

regardless of the breadth and dimensions. insular shelves. seabed. (Barlongay. Provided.) 2. the subsoil. The territorial sea. xxx" 3.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 2. "Insular shelf" means the land which is submerged under water which may extend beyond 12 miles as long as it is not more than 300 ft. between.) PAGE 26 . 1 thereof. The claim was made "by reason of history. where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined overlap the exclusive economic zone of an adjacent or neighboring state. and other internationally lawful uses of the sea relating to navigation and communications." (Sec.) Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone freedoms with respect to navigations and overflight. "territorial sea. form part of internal water" The following provisions are really superfluous: 1. and effective occupation and control established in accordance with international law. other submarine areas" "Territorial sea" means water outside the baseline extending up to 12 miles. It is also known as intercontinental shelf. That. 4 thereof. "terrestrial. fluvial and aerial domains" (because land. the common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with the state concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized principles or international law on delimitation. subsoil. and connecting the islands of the archipelago. the laying of submarine cables and pipelines. Exclusive Economic Zone PD 1599 (11 June 1978). (Sec. There is established an exclusive economic zone extending "to a distance of two hundred nautical miles beyond and from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured. the insular shelves and other submarine areas 4. the sea bed. "the waters around. indispensable need. water and air space already form part of an archipelago) 2. "Internal water" refers to water within the baseline. Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction PD 1596 (11 June 1978) Claims the Kalayaan Group of Islands as part of Philippine territory on the basis of historic rights and legal title. deep.

living or non-living. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (30 April 1982. Carry out any search. Perform any activity which is contrary to. off-shore terminals. the preservation of the marine environment. Its concept is that although it is not part of the territory. and superadjacent waters. is recognized in the UNCLOS. Laying of submarine cable and pipelines. Other states are prohibited from using the zone to: 1. Such other rights as are recognized by international law. currents and winds.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Purposes: 1. 5. 3. In case of overlapping of EEZs. Sovereign rights to explore. 2. 4. PAGE 27 . Navigation and overflight. excavation or drilling operations. including the prevention and control of pollution and scientific research. renewable or non-renewable of the seabed. Construct or operate any artificial island. exploit. installation. Other states are allowed to use the zone for: 1. or other structure. 3.) The exclusive economic zone which shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Economic exploitation and exploration of the resources of the zone such as the production of energy from the water. 2. of which the Philippines is a signatory. exclusive economic benefit is reserved for the country. 2. Other lawful uses related to navigation and communication. conserve and manage the natural resources. or in derogation of. the common boundaries are to be detemined by (i) agreement and (ii) international rules on delimitations. Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with repect to the establishment and utilization of artificial islands. 3. the sovereign rights and jurisdiction herein provided. Conduct any research. off-shore terminal. subsoil. installations and structures. Explore or exploit any resources.

People 1. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. II. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations. Three meanings of the word "People" The word "people" is used in at least three senses in the Constitution: a. II. houses. all "citizens" may be required to render personal military or civil service. We. the same is declared a popular right of the people and. Art. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. papers. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. economic. XIII. in the fulfillment thereof. reduce social. Art. "People" as Inhabitants Art. equality and peace. conserve and develop our patrimony. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. Section 16. II. of course. and political inequalities. love. the sovereign Filipino people imploring the aid of Almighty God. 4. III. justice. Section 15. promote the common good. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sec. Section 1. do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. freedom. and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. Section 2. infra.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition B. xxx Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board. 1. 9 SCRA 27 (1963). People as Citizens Preamble. Art. Art. indisputably applies to both citizens and foreigners in this country. Under our Constitution. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. 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. Sec. PAGE 28 . and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth. b. The right of the an individual to be secure in his person is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Who are citizens Art. VII. Sec. 7. IV. 1941. Sec. 1. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. Election of Philippine citizenship Com. or a national seal. Citizenship a. c. when Congress requires. and 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. troops. by law. and to documents. Art.) AN ACT PROVIDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY A PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A FILIPINO CITIZEN PAGE 29 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between Republic of the Philippines and United States of America concerning Military Bases. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. People as Electors Art. Sec. Act No. XVIII. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. transactions. history. 625 (June 7. b. 2. 4. The Congress may. a national anthem. III. adopt a new name for the country. 3) Those born before January 17. The following are citizens of the Philippines: 1) Those who are citizen of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. and 3) and (ii) naturalized citizens (covering #4). Art. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum. 1973. of Filipino mothers. 2. Access to official records. 2. These citizens are classifiable into (i) natural-born citizens (covering #'s 1. and traditions of the people. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting party. XVI. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people xxx. 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. foreign military bases. 25. or decisions. and papers pertinent to official acts. which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals. shall be afforded the citizens subject to limitations provided by law. Sec. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and. Sec.

Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the Phil. 2. Sec. Section 2. and he shall forward such statement together with his oath of allegiance. from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. HRET ruled in favor of Ong. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4). 199 SCRA 692 (1991) F: Petitioners Balingit and Co and private respondent Ong were among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar in the May 1987 election. would have been able to elect Philippine citizenship upon attaining majority age. Under the 1987 Constitution: "Sec. are citizens of the Phil. Those who elect Phil. citizenship in accordance with par. Ong is a natural born citizen. election is not necessary in the case of the child to a Filipino mother under the present constitution as she would be considered a Filipino citizen at birth. That right is retained for them under Article IV." PAGE 30 . ISSUE: W/N Ong is a natural born citizen as to entitle him to run as congressman. to the Civil Registry of Manila. upon reaching the age of majority. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. If the party concerned is absent from the Philippines. of Filipino mothers. Section 1 (3). Co v. Ong was proclaimed the winner. The ff.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Section 1. RULING: YES. Petitioners filed election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal against Ong on the ground that Ong is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and not a resident of the 2nd district of Samar. had that charter not been changed.: xxx 3) Those born before 17 January 1973. Article IV [1935 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and. and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. Sec. 1 hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives. Obviously. elect Philippine citizenship] shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths. 3. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines. he may make the statement herein authorized before any officer of the Government of the United States (now officials of Philippine Embassy or Consulate) authorized to administer oaths. section 1. Note : The right of election permitted under the 1987 Constitution is available only to those born to Filipino mothers under the 1935 Constitution who. 1. and 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

If one so elected. Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine years old. The petitioners contend that Ong's father was not validly naturalized because of his premature taking of the oath of citizenship. 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he was then a minor residing in the country. 1 par. citizenship after 2 February 1987 but also those who. has lived the life of a Filipino since birth. To expect Ong to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary for the court is of the opinion that Ong was already a citizen. it was the law itself that had already elected Phil. they have considered him a Filipino. citizenship.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Court interprets Sec. There are cases which define "election" as both a formal and an informal process. The HRET had an interesting view as to how Ong elected citizenship. under earlier laws. as in the case of Ong. citizenship. His profession (CPA) requires citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a license. Ong has worked in a sensitive position in a government agency. There is no doubt in this case about Ong's Filipino nationality when he turned 21. the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Phil. The petitioners question the citizenship of Ong's PAGE 31 . Crucial to this case is whether or not Ong elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen in order to come within the purview of the above quoted constitutional provision. Because of his acts since childhood. This ruling finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. In the case of In Re Mallare. Ong did not merely exercise his right of suffrage. Samar are fully aware of Ong's parentage. There is nothing to indicate any tinge of alien-ness. It observed that "when Ong was only nine years old. Ong was born in the rural town of Samar where there are no alien enclaves and no racial distinctions. They voted by overwhelming numbers to have him represent them in Congress. He has established his life here in the Phil. He has participated in political exercises as a Filipino and has always considered himself a Filipino. a Chinese who filed an application for naturalization and was granted one. having been born of Filipino mothers. The mass of voters of N. his father became a naturalized Filipino. The provision was framed to correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically granted the status of a natural born citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect Phil. He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987. An election of Philippine citizenship presupposes that the person electing is an alien or his status is doubtful because he is a national of two countries. the Constitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing citizenship inspite of his already having been a citizen since 1957. Concededly. elected citizenship before that date. There is no question that Ong's mother was a natural born Filipina at the time of her marriage with Jose Ong Chuan. he was not conferred the status of a natural born citizen. Sec. 3 as applying not only to those who elect Phil. citizenship for Ong by declaring him as such. In this case. The resp. His father applied for naturalization when the child was still a small boy.

MRM. c. an attack on a person's citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition father through a collateral approach. because the former already had a "vested right" to their citizenship which could not be diminished by the 1973 Constitution. this accidental anomaly no longer exists. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3). The provision granting natural-born status even to those who were born of Filipino mothers before 17 January 1973 but elected Philippine citizenship after that date is meant to correct the anomalous situation where one born under similar circumstances but made the election before 17 January 1973 is granted the status of natural-born citizen by the 1973 Constitution. there are acts of deliberate choice which cannot be less binding. Simply because there was no definition of a natural-born citizen under the 1935 Constitution. To illustrate: If X was born and elected before 17 January 1973. The remedy is to place the latter in the same footing as the former. Section 2. IV. however. his status under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions is that of a natural-born citizen. under the 1987 Constitution. In our jurisdiction. only those whose fathers were citizens of the Philippines were considered Filipino citizens. PAGE 32 . those who elected prior to 17 January 1973 could not be placed in the same footing as those who made the election after that date. Under the 1935 Constitution which was in force at the time of Ong's birth. Thus. Natural-born citizens Art. FOR THOSE ALREADY FILIPINOS when the time to elect came up. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those whose mothers were citizens of the Philippines had to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. because although he had to perform an act to perfect his citizenship. that one who made the election after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution was not conferred such status. he could not otherwise be classified since there was no definition of natural-born citizens in the 1935 Constitution. and resulted in two kinds of citizens made up of essentially the same members. he having been born a Chinese citizen by virtue of the Chinese citizenship of his father at the time of his birth. in order to be considered Filipino citizens. Any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of private respondent Ong would not only have been superfluous but would also have resulted in absurdity considering that it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for him. At the same time. This cannot be done. Dissenting: Ong is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. therefore made a child of Filipino mother and alien father's right depends on the fleeting accident of time. xxx The filing of a sworn statement or formal declaration is a requirement for those who still have to elect citizenship. The definition of a natural-born citizen under the 1973 Constitution.

If not for the proviso in the 1987 Constitution. C. Sec. IX. Secs. PAGE 33 . IX. XII. XII. 1(1) (7) Members of the Central Monetary Authority Art. XI. a) Political: Qualification to run for the following posts: Who must be natural born citizens: (1) President Art. under the 1935 Constitution. 3 and 6 (4) Justices of the SC and lower collegiate courts Art. et. D. he was not a natural-born citizen under the 1973 Constitution. 17(2) (Commission on Human Rights) Former natural-born citizens as transferees of private lands. was raised about the citizenship of Quezon. subject to limitations provided by law. Having the status of a natural-born citizen is important for the purpose of certain political and economic rights open only to such citizens. al. 7(1) (5) Ombudsman and his deputies Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition If X was born before and elected after 17 January 1973.. Sec. 20 (8) Members of the CHR Art. VII. whether before or after 2 February 1987. 1 (1) Art. 8 xxx [A]natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may still be a transferee of private lands. IX. Sec. b) Economic Art. 1(1) Art. VI. 9 of the Treaty of Paris. the civil and political status of the inhabitants of the Philippines was to be determined by the US Congress. XIII. Sec. In turn the definition of "natural-born citizen" as one who is such from (not at) birth (continuously up to the time his citizenship is questioned). he would not have been deemed natural-born citizen either. Sec. Sec. Sec. VIII. Sec. The following are natural-born citizens: 1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution (as of 2 February 1987). Sec. Sec. 8 (6) Constitutional Commissions Art. B. VII. 3 (3) Members of Congress Art. 2 (2) Vice-President Art. a) Those who are citizens under the Treaty of Paris Under Art.

In Tan Chong v Secretary of Labor and Lam Swee Sang v Secretary of Labor (1947). the mere fact of birth in the Philippines does not confer citizenship on a person. who was born in the Philippines in 1889 by a Chinese father and Filipino mother. a case decided during the regime of the Republic upon a motion for reconsideration of a pre-war decision. PAGE 34 . In Torres v Tan Chim (1940). The 1934 Concon was aware of the Roa ruling and did not intend to overrule it. the US Congress passed the Philippine Bill of 1 July 1902. who was in the Philippines in 1893 of Chinese father and Filipino mother. was declared by the court to be a citizen by jus soli. The SC held. According to J. b) Those declared citizens by judicial declaration applying the jus soli principle. This same provision was re-embodied in the Jones Law of 29 August 1916. This is the final word on the matter. and continuing to reside therein. by filing their election with the CFI. Finally. of Chinese father and Filipino mother. Section 4 of which defined who the citizens of the Philippines were: "The inhabitants of the Philippines residing therein who were subjects of Spain on 11 April 1899. Tan. considering his service during the war and his having been elected mayor in Misamis. was declared a citizen. who was born in 1900.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Pursuant to this provision in the treaty. In Roa v Commissioner of Customs (1912). the 1935 Constitution never adopted the jus soli principle." The cut-off date of 11 April 1899 was the date of "exchange of instruments of ratification" between the US Senate and Spain. that the jus soli was never adopted in the Philippines. without alluding to the Roa case. both in the Philippines. during the regime of the Philippine Bill of 1902. who was born in 1915. Padilla. before the 1957 case of Tio Tiam v Republic. in Tio Tam v Republic (1957). In Talaroc v Uy (1950). or the date of ratification of the Treaty of Paris. without mention of jus soli or jus sanguinis. According to J. Laurel. were not declared citizens. was not declared a citizen. In Paz Chua v Secretary of Labor (1939). The peninsulares were given a period of 18 months to indicate if they choose Filipino or Spanish citizenship. during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Tan. was declared by the SC a citizen "simply due to birth". the SC tried to resolve the flip-flop rulings by stating that we follow only jus sanguinis but that those who were judicially declared citizens on the basis of jus soli prior to this case would be considered citizens. the principle of jus soli still applied. as well as their children born subsequent thereto. and Lam. Paz Chua who was born in Tarlac in 1914 of Chinese father and Filipino mother. Roa.

elected to the 1934 Constitutional Convention. No. reaching the age of majority. Children born before this date of Filipino mother and alien fathers had an "inchoate citizenship" until they elected upon reaching 21 years. 5) Those naturalized in accordance with law. the date of the inauguration of the Commonwealth government). those born on or after 17 January 1973 of Filipino father or Filipino mother. his children would also be considered citizens. the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. but under the third category (those whose fathers are citizens) 3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. That is. Those born before 11 April 1899 were the ones to whom jus soli was applied. This is the so-called "Caram rule in honor of Caram. The rule only applies to elective positions. for they very well were citizens under the Treaty of Paris. (Act. 3) Those who elected Philippine citizenship pursuant to the 1935 Constitution PAGE 35 . 2927 of the Philippine Commission). 2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. c) Those who were naturalized in accordance with law. 1) Those who are citizens as of 17 January 1973. The rule was adopted to avoid the absurdity of the situation. d) Those who were citizens under the 1935 Constitution. In Chiongbian v de Leon. who before the adoption of the Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippines. upon. It was only beginning 17 January 1973 when children of Filipino mothers became citizens without need of election. not appointive ones. e) Those who are citizens under the 1973 Constitution. 1) Those who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution (15 November 1935.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition It would be worthy to note that the flip-flop in decision can be explained by the date of birth of the applicant in each case. 2) Those born in the Philippines of foreign parent. a Syrian. 4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and. elected Philippine citizenship. the SC held that if one is considered a citizen under the Caram rule.

PAGE 36 . reached the age of majority and elected Philippine citizenship before 17 January 1973.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition That is. begot C. an American in 1961. They had an "inchoate citizenship" during their minority. if one was born. 3. In 1983. this provision would have no application anymore. children of Filipino mothers automatically became citizens. Case A: A Filipino woman married B. it is enough that (1) the person's mother was a Filipino at the time of her marriage to the alien father. who was automatically an American citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis. even if she subsequently lose her citizenship by virtue of the marriage and (2) the person be a child of that marriage. the child would not even be a Filipino. and became full-pledged citizens only upon election at the age of majority. those born before 17 January 1973 of Filipino mothers but reached the age of majority and elected Philippine citizenship on or after 17 January 1973. 4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. is he considered a natural born Filipino? Under the 1973 Constitution. when C turns 21. yes. If C wants to run for Congress. Note that if he were born after 17 January 1973. according to obiters in Cu v Republic and Villahermosa v CID. Beginning with the 1973 Constitution. before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. But under the 1987 Constitution. but did not or failed to elect before 17 January 1973. This provision then covers those children born. A and B lived in the US since then and in 1962. then he lost his citizenship then. in order to elect Philippine citizenship. 2. On the other hand. 1994. since the last of those born before 17 January 1973 would have reached the age of majority by then. no.) Those born of Filipino fathers or Filipino mothers (after 17 January 1973). reached 21 years. the marriage having been celebrated before 17 January 1973). then he would be a citizen under e-1 (those who are citizens at the adoption of the 1973 Constitution). The marriage made A an American citizen (which under CA 63. however. children of Filipino mothers did not automatically become citizens. This case arose under the 1935 Constitution.) Those born before 17 January 1973 of Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. stripped her of her Philippine citizenship. can he elect Philippine citizenship? Yes. Note that if one was born. at least for election purposes. for him to elect Philippine citizenship. By January 17.

XIV. but not when it uses the phrase "not less than 21 years old. Residence years. 2. a deaf and mute is disqualified. xxx PAGE 37 . Naturalized Citizens. Revised Naturalization Law (Com.) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law." use 18 years old.) Must be able to speak and write (not read and write) Filipino or English. until otherwise provided by law.) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5. Education 5. The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein. Revised Naturalization Law) (Art. Orestoff v Republic. and must have conducted himself in an irreproachable conduct 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. and a principal dialect (as pro tanto modified by the 1987 Constitution. Sec. since the law itself spoke of English or Spanish.000 or must have some known lucrative trade. CA 473) A. 7.1 (4)) Who are qualified to be naturalized Qualifications (Sec. Art. 2) He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten C. 1939. Thus. For purposes of communication and instruction.) 4. profession or lawful occupation. the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and. Act No. B. Barlongay: When the law uses the phase "age of majority. (namely CA 473. D.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition d. Property 4. IV. effective June 17. English. (Test: Can he support himself and his family?) E. Age 1) He must not be less than 21 years old at the date of hearing. and a principal dialect). Sec.) He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. Character 3. 473.

473. or believers in the practice of polygamy. (d) Persons convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Moral turpitude involves dishonesty. 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. she would only need an administrative proceeding for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration. A propensity to break the law. Who are disqualified. 4 The applicant must not only possess the qualifications. cities. municipalities. no distinction whether appointive or elective posts. she became a Filipino herself by marriage. (3) Being married to a Filipino woman If it were an alien woman who married a Filipino man. The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens: (a) Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments. Sec. PAGE 38 . (which was allowed before by the 1935 Constitution. sec. 3.) (e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease. (5) Having been born in the Philippines. or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas. he must not have any of the disqualifications set by law. These are the only requirements because ipso facto. (b) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence. Sec. (4) 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. where Philippine history. Special qualifications. (c) Polygamists. Section 4. or political subdivisions. . When is the ten-year residence requirement reduced to five (5) years? Com. personal assault.) (2) Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines. 3. Act No. government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum. constitute moral depravity. While murder being a crime of passion does not involve moral turpitude. 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) Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces. proof of non-disqualification. Who are disqualified to be naturalized? CA 473.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 6. in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years. upon proof of marriage and according to the holding in Moy Yam Lim.) He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines. depravity. even just traffic laws. theft and estafa do.

Act No. Declaration of Intention Com. and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application. age. the name. accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner. No. last foreign residence and allegiance. (h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Office of the Solicitor-General. the approximate date of PAGE 39 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (f) Persons who.Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court. The declarant must also state that he has enrolled his minor children.-.-. Sec. he can be denaturalized anytime through denaturalization proceedings. personal description. in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines. 473. during the period of their residence in the Philippines.One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship. 5. Declaration of intention. if any. traditions.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. 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. have not mingled socially with Filipinos. occupation.-. during the period of such war. and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. Each declarant must furnish two photographs for himself. 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. 473. where Philippine history. Act. (g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war. 7-12 Section 7. Section 6. the name of the vessel or aircraft. Such declaration shall set forth the name. his present and former places of residence. place. Secs. in which he came to the Philippines. setting forth his name and surname. or files an invalid declaration of intention. Procedure Com. birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children. sec. if any. Petition for citizenship. the date of arrival. the place and date of his birth. place of birth. age. or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs. and manner of his arrival has been issued. a petition in triplicate. and ideals of the Filipinos. 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. and dies before he is actually naturalized. may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate showing the date. 5. Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention. his occupation. If one who is not exempted. a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum. whether single or married and the father of children. fails to file.

Hearing of the petition. and other pertinent data to the Office of the President. Section 12. in view of the evidence taken. and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition. The clerk shall.-. or if. upon appeal.-. Competent court. the name of the ship on which he came.-. Section 9. Section 11. the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines.-. the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship.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. the Provincial Commander of the Philippine National Police of the province and the municipal judge of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides. the naturalization certificate. setting forth in such notice the name. Section. and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The hearing shall be public. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons. Section. that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act. 8. that the petitioner has all the qualifications required by.Immediately upon the filing of a petition. it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense. be appealed to the Supreme Court. forward copies of the petition. 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. at the instance of either of the parties. it shall order the proper naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of the said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as required in section ten of Act Numbered Theree thousand seven hundred fifty-three. 10. after the hearing. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.If. a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act. If.No petition shall be heard within the thirty (30) days preceding any election. once a week for three consecutive weeks. in the Official Gazette. 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. state the following: The file number of the petition. the number of the naturalization certificate. the court believes. the personal circumstances of the person PAGE 40 .The final sentence may. and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located. and none of the disqualifications specified in this Act and has complied with all requisites herein established. as soon as possible. after the lapse of thirty days from and after the date on which the parties were notified of the decision of the Court. and the said decision has become final. among other things. if he remembers it. the clerk of the court which heard the petition shall issue to the petitioner a naturalization certificate which shall. and the Solicitor-General. specifying the same. the name of the port of debarkation. the Office of the Solicitor-General.-. the sentence. which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. and.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition his or her arrival in the Philippines. and the date of the hearing of the petition. shall appear on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines at all the proceedings and at the hearing. Appeal. either himself or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned. and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act. and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides. birthplace and residence of the petitioner. Notification and appearance. no appeal has been filed. the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition. The certificate of arrival. the signature of the person naturalized affixed in the presence of the clerk of the court.

iv) He did not commit an act prejudicial to national interest or inimical to a government announced policy. So help me God. Summary hearing after two years. 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. PAGE 41 . pursuant to RA 530. Decision. to prove that: i) He did not leave RP during the 2-year period of probation. The State is represented by the Solicitor General or by the fiscal in his behalf. the dates on which his declaration of intention and petition were filed. g. d. in open court. b. It shall become executory only after the period of 2 years during which the petitioner shall continue to be under probation. The notice of the decision must be received by the OSG. which is really a continuation of the previous proceedings. Declaration of intention filed with the OSG one year before actual application. (Republic Act 530. must be affixed to the certificate. the date of the decision granting the petition. Oath before the RTC. A photograph of the petitioner with the dry seal affixed thereto of the court which granted the petition. c. Section 1) f. Filing of petition for naturalization with the RTC of the province in which the applicant is a resident for at least one year. and the name of the judge who rendered the decision. Decision becomes final but not executory. (Under BP 129. Appeal of the decision of the RTC may be made to SC. so the government can be doubly sure he is entitled to be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition naturalized. copy furnished to the fiscal is not sufficient to start the running of the 30-day period. Two witnesses to testify on the character of the applicant are presented. thirty (30) days after notice of the decision is received by the parties. Before the naturalization certificate is issued. iii) He was not convicted of any offense of violation of government rules. solemnly swear that I renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince. e. the petitioner shall. as it were. ii) He devoted himself to lawful calling. potentate." a. appeal is to the CA). legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. A favorable decision becomes executory only after 2 years from the finality of the decision. that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the laws. Hearing. except within 30 days before an election. state or sovereignty and particularly to the ___________________________ of which at this time I am a subject or citizen. amending Sec. take the following oath: "I_________________________________.

(4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof. unless within one year after reaching the age of majority.) i. in which case. is satisfied. Issuance of a Certificate of Naturalization issued by the Court. Moreover. he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age. no petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by the courts until after six months from the publication of the application required by law. "Derivative Naturalization" (Sec. 15. Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines. A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parents. Effect on wife and minor children Com. She is no longer required to prove that she possesses the qualifications for naturalization. 1. sec. with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative. the SC held that the clause "who might herself be lawfully naturalized" should be interpreted to mean only that the alien woman must not be laboring under any of the disqualifications prescribed by law. unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor. shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines. if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent. on proper hearing. Section 15. 473. A foreign born minor child. nor shall any decision granting the application become executory until after two years from its promulgation and after the court. The provisions of existing laws notwithstanding. and to take the necessary oath of allegiance. (Only a certification is given because the decision two years before has granted him his citizenship. sec. who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized. that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines. and who might herself be lawfully naturalized. she can establish her claim to Philippine citizenship in administrative proceedings before the immigration authorities only and will not have to file a judicial action for this purpose. Act No. he fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the Philippine Consulate of the country where he resides. 15) " xxx Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines. shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his minority. PAGE 42 . and so finds. When decision executory Republic Act No. (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules. 530. (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession. and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition h. 1 Sec. shall be considered a Philippine citizen. Cancellation of ACR before the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. shall automatically become a Philippine citizen and a foreign-born minor child." Note : In its latest pronouncement on this question.

4. the competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its registration in the Civil Registry: (a) If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally. Denaturalization Com. A.automatically becomes a citizen upon the B.Considered citizen on the condition that upon reaching the age of majority. II. and (ii) she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications in Sec. If before the naturalization of the father.-. she is entitled to be declared a citizen as well. he takes an oath of allegiance in the Philippine consulate of the place where he may be. 2. but only that she is not disqualified. she need not prove the qualifications.automatically becomes a naturalization of the b. If after the naturalization of the father --. Effect of Naturalization on the Children I. If born abroad 1. within the five years next following the issuance of said naturalization certificate. unless he takes permanent residence in RP before reaching majority age. If not residing in RP at the time of naturalization --. According to Moya Lim Yao (41 SCRA 292) ruling. he continues to be a Filipino after reaching 18 years old only if he decides to reside here permanently before reaching that age. If born in RP . The proceedings may even be with the Department of Natural Resources in relation to a grant of concession requiring citizenship.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Effect of Naturalization on the Wife If the wife is (i) legally married to the naturalized husband. or by the proper provincial fiscal. (b) If the person naturalized shall. If the child is of age. 18 Section 18. Act No. What is required is only an administrative proceeding before the CID for the cancellation of her ACR on the ground that her husband has been recently naturalized. no effect. a. return to his native country or to some foreign country and establish his PAGE 43 . If the child is a minor: father. 473. If residing in RP at the time of naturalization --.considered citizen only during his minority. In other words. he ceases to be a Filipino citizen. If he fails to register his intent to continue as Filipino within one (1) year upon reaching 21 years.Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his representative. Cancellation of naturalization certificate issued. where the wife proves that her husband has become a Filipino. Sec. citizen.

Moreover. use or enjoyment of a right. (d) 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 Bureau of Private Schools of the Philippines. cancelled his naturalization. or two years in any other foreign country. PAGE 44 . Procedure: Filed by the Solicitor General before the same RTC that granted his naturalization. Hence this appeal. government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school or schools. where Philippine history. that the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his native country or the country of his former nationality. ISSUE: W/n the cancellation of Li Yao's naturalization was valid. Not when they dropped out because of scholastic performance (e) If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the Constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship. the Republic sought the cancellation thereof on the grounds of: 1) not being of good moral character by having amorous relations with women. The trial court relying solely on the ground of evasion of the payment of lawful taxes by underdeclaration of income as reflected in his income tax return for 1946-51. as a requisite for the exercise. a naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding. by resorting to tax evasion and violating the Anti-Dummy Law.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition permanent residence there: Provided. franchise or privilege. The concealment of applicant's income to evade payment of lawful taxes shows that his moral character is not irreproachable. thus disqualifying him for naturalization. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. shall be considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up permanent residence in the same. RULING: Yes. regardless of where he may be residing at that time. 2) not having conducted himself in an irreproachable manner in dealing with the duly constituted authorities by using names other than that authorized. BARLONGAY CASE: Republic vs. A certified copy of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Office of the President and the Solicitor-General. the decision rendered therein not constituting res judicata as to any matter that would support a judgement cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof. Li Yao (214 SCRA 748) F: Fifteen (15) years after Li Yao was conferred with Filipino citizenship by naturalization. (c) If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions which arise subsequent to the granting of the certificate of naturalization.

Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship Article IV. Sec. 3. (4) By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country: Provided. however. to a foreigner if. upon her marriage. or the acceptance of such commission in. Commmonwealth Act 63 Section 1. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country. (7) In case of a woman. the armed forces of said foreign country. states that he does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And provided finally. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. Sec. and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto. 4. (6) By having been declared by competent authority.-. That the rendering of service to. That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Philippines is at war with any country. or is commissioned in. under the law. (2) By express renunciation of citizenship or expatriation.) Article IV. the acquisition of citizenship by a natural born Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any friendly democratic Ibero-American countries PAGE 45 . she acquires his nationality. Provided. at the time of rendering said service or acceptance of said commission. Provided that the Filipino citizen concerned. 4. (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon reaching the age of majority. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto. How citizenship may be lost. shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the ff. (referring to CA 63. the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) shall not be permitted to participate nor vote in any election of the Philippines during the period of his service to. MRM.] The provisions of this section notwithstanding. criminal or administrative liability insofar as his tax case is concerned. IV.A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country. (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country. unless subsequently. Sec. or (b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in the Philippine territory with the consent of the Philippines. 3. That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to. or commission in. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. under the law (CA 63) to have renounced it. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. the armed forces of a foreign country. circumstances is present: (a) The Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country. to have renounced it. a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition A tax amnesty only relieves him from any civil. a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted . he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen. [This is now qualified by Art. It does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization. with the consent of the Philippines.

such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. w/o more. At best. HELD: Frivaldo claims he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of a valid repatriation. The League of Municipalities filed a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo's election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. Repatriation requires an express and equivocal act. Such laws do not concern us. a. If the Special Committee had not yet been convened. or seek naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. what might have happened as a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual. It should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship. what it meant simply was that the petitioner had to wait until this was done. Phil. Additionally. Frivaldo countered that his oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural born citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation. It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken these categorical acts. he was not qualified to run for governor. The League argued that since Frivaldo was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election. as it were. his active participation in the 1987 elections had divested him of his US citizenship under the laws of the US. citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered. That is far-fetched if not specious. Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a sufficient act of repatriation.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition or from the United Kingdom shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his Philippine citizenship if the law of that country grants the same privilege to its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from which citizenship is acquired. already effectively recovered Phil. Such a conclusion would open the floodgates. But that is hardly the formal declaration the law envisions--surely. Such forfeiture is between him and the US as his adopted country. he automatically forfeited American citizenship under US laws. Loss of Citizenship Grounds: (1) Naturalization in a foreign country [CA 63. Frivaldo's claim that he could not have repatriated himself under LOI 270 bec. Adapted. It would allow all Filipinos who have renounced this country to claim back their abandoned citizenship w/o formally rejecting their adopted state and reaffirming their allegiance to the Phils. He claims that by actively participating in the elections. citizenship. the Special Committee provided for therein had not yet been constituted seems to suggest that the lack of that body rendered his repatriation unnecessary. having been naturalized in the US in 1983. He contends that by simply filing his certificate of candidacy he had. Labo vs COMELEC (176 SCRA 1) PAGE 46 . 1(1)] Frivaldo v COMELEC (174 SCRA 245) (1989) F: Frivaldo was elected as governor of Sorsogon. Sec. He admitted such but raised as a defense that he did so to protect himself from Marcos and that his naturalization as an American citizen was not impressed with voluntariness but was obtained only for reasons of convenience.

as petitioner asserts. citizenship filed before the Office of the Sol-Gen. What we must consider is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Phil. His Filipino citizenship was questioned on the ground that he had acquired Australian citizenship through his marriage to an Australian citizen and his taking an oath of allegiance to Australia where he renounced all other allegiance to other countries. questioned his citizenship before the Comelec. "dual allegiance of citizen is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. "xxx The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. Labo claimed that (1) his marriage did not automatically divest him of his Filipino citizenship and that (2) his naturalization in Australia made him at worst only a dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. 1989) which declared Labo not a citizen of the Philippines." xxx Even if it be assumed that. all of w/c are applicable to petitioner. his naturalization was annulled after it was found that his marriage was bigamous. The second argument is specious w/c cannot stand against the clear provisions of CA No. Labo v. To date. 63. COMELEC. (2) express renunciation of citizenship. He was granted Australian citizenship . etc. Ortega. that the candidate was qualified. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of another country. 1992 elections. He took an oath of allegiance renouncing all other allegiance. Adapted. relying on Labo v.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: Ramon Labo. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern us here. citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of congress. according to the records still an Australian citizen. HELD: 1. citizenship. or laws of a foreign country. however. not being a Filipino citizen. Under Article IV. The fact that he was elected by the majority of the electorate is of no moment. His opponent. Section 5. citizen Phil. Though the marriage was declared void for being bigamous. He became an Australian citizen by virtue of naturalization and not by marriage. Labo ran for mayor of Baguio. HELD: Labo's first contention is irrelevant. married an Australian citizen in the Phils. as in this case. As held in Fivaldo vs. and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Consti. Jr. that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Phil. lacks the fundamental qualification for the contested office. citizenship may be lost. especially if they mistakenly believed. w/c enumerates the modes by w/c Phil. In the 1988 local elections. citizenship by any of these methods. Labo. Comelec (179 SCRA 1. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a Phil. COMELEC (211 SCRA 297. the Special Committee on Naturalization had not yet PAGE 47 . xxx " xxx Petitioner claims that he has reacquired his Filipino citizenship by citing his application for reacquisition of Phil. pursuant to PD 725 and LOI 270. July 1992) F: Labo ran for mayor of Baguio in the May 11. It does not appear that petitioner has reacquired Phil. That is a matter between him and his adopted country. and among them are (1) naturalization in a foreign country. by naturalization or by repatriation. Labo was.

citizenship. with full knowledge and legal capacity. No one can be HELD: The foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. it must be ascertained in a court of law where a full trial is conducted instead of an administrative determination of a most summary nature (as in this case). amount to an automatic reacquistion of the applicant's Phil. in which case. "absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince. where the SC held that renunciation could be implied. 2." he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed. a mere application for repatriation does not. applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented himself as such in official documents even after he had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. In Board of Immigration Commissioner vs Go Gallano. While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced. In such case. compelled to remain a Filipino if he does not want to. In the absence of any official action or approval by proper authorities. Adapted. Whatever may be the reasons for doing so. the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected. after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen. The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority vote does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. (2) Express renunciation or Expatriation [CA 63. he applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport in 1981. 3. and cannot. Dissenting: The mere use of a foreign passport is not ipso facto express renunciation of Filipino citizenship. express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. upon his naturalization. PAGE 48 . valid for five years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes. Yu. The disqualification of Labo does not necessarily entitle Ortega as the candidate with the next highest number of votes to proclamation as mayor. Yu v Defensor-Santiago (169 SCRA 364) F: Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971. Adapted. The rule would have been different if the electorate fully aware in fact & in law of a candidate's disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen in 1978. Expatriation is a constitutional right (Go Gullian v Government). Sec 1(2)] This overrules Haw v Government.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition acted upon said application. state or sovereignty" and pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Philippines. potentate.

18. 1988 elections. the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. the pet failed to present direct proof that private resp had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for under CA #63. alleging that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Pet Aznar failed to positively establish this fact. the Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not STILL a Filipino. immigration certificate of clearance etc. The Comelec decided for Osmena. There is no express renunciation here of Phil citizenship. (4) Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of another country. (5) Denaturalization. In the proceedings before the COMELEC. From the evidence. PAGE 49 . When we consider that the renunciation needed to lose Phil citizenship must be EXPRESS. 185 SCRA 703 (May 1990) F: Emelito Osmena ran for Governor of Cebu in the Jan. that he is a holder of a valid Phil passport. that he has been continuously residing in the Phils since birth & has not gone out of the country for more than 6 months and that he has been a registered voter in the Phils since 1965. or its maintains armed forces in RP with RP's consent. Emilio Osmena. permit to re-enter the Phils. of both nationalities or citizenship. HELD: 1. (6) Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP. Osmena remains a Filipino & the loss of his Phil citizenship cannot be presumed. it is clear that private respondent Osmena did not lose his Phil citizenship by any of the 3 mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode of losing Phil citizenship. Adapted. 3. Aznar as Cebu Chairman of LDP-Laban filed with COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmena on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen. possessed as he is. The statement in the 1987 constitution that "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest & shall be dealt with by law" has no retroactive effect.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Aznar v Osmena. (3) Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon reaching the age of majority. (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. (2) by express renunciation of citizenship. as evidenced by Osmena's application for alien. There is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. being a US citizen. Considering the fact that admittedly Osmena was both a Filipino & an American. COMELEC. these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign country. By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father. his alien certificate of registration. Osmena on the other hand maintained that he is a Fil citizen. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that priv resp had lost his Phil citizenship. unless there is an offensive or defensive pact with the country. 4. it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Phil citizenship WHEN THERE IS NO RENUNCIATION. In the case of Osmena. 2. the presumption that private resp is a Filipino remains. Among others.

those children are now even natural-born. 2 of the 1973 Consti. she applied for naturalization. 721 (1947) PAGE 50 . if a Filipina marries an alien in 1974. so long as she does not categorically renounce her citizenship. and this time without the need of election. 7) only provides for express renunciation (i. act). C could no longer elect Philippine citizenship. But Sec. she is still a Filipina under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Expatriation is a constitutional right (Go Gullian v Government). and so in order to acquire his citizenship. Thus. the law (CA 63. does not pay her taxes. But if. It follows that her children are natural-born citizens. never returns to RP. At present. 74 Phil. Sec. If a Filipino married a Greek in 1972 and became a Greek citizen herself thereby. (carried over as Sec. and so there is no law at the moment on "renunciation by omission. As to her children. it is enough that she was a Filipina at the time of marriage to qualify them to elect Philippine citizenship when they reached the age of majority (Villahermosa ruling). People vs.) only has a prospective application. But for similar marriages celebrated after 17 January 1973. however. The ruling in Cu and Villahermosa applies only to mothers who lost their citizenship by operation of law and not by their own voluntary acts. the mere fact of marriage alone does not strip the Filipino woman of her Philippine citizenship. xxx [A] Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country. which mandate that Filipino citizens who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship.. CA 63 continues for marriages celebrated before 17 January 1973. in 1961. she becomes a citizen thereof. No. 1 par. This is deemed repealed by the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. a Filipino woman married an alien whose country did not make her an automatic citizen. Thus. he could still elect Philippine citizenship. unless by their "act" or "omission".POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (7) Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien. Sec. No one can be compelled to remain a Filipino if he does not want to. Manayao. they are deemed under the law to have renounced it. 63. lives abroad. being the children of Filipino mothers. If C was born after the application but before the approval of the naturalization of his mother. 4 of the 1987 Consti. if by the laws of her husband's country. then under the 1987 Constitution. then she lost her Filipino citizenship. 1(3). and after her naturalization she begot C.e. Act." But Congress may provide for such later. Exception: Com. even if she gains her husband's citizenship. But if the children were born after 1973.

Sec. is one of the qualifications that a candidate PAGE 51 .. VV. After the liberation." Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least 1 year at the time of the filing of his cert. HELD: Despite his vigorous disclaimer. he entered the US w/ the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant's (not a visitor's or tourist's) visa. Without such prior waiver. he has lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Phil. Pangasinan. HELD: Appellant's contention is repugnant to the most fundamental and elementary principles governing the duties of a citizen toward his country under the Consti. they have the same objective: the disqualification under Sec. for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao. by the very fact of committing the treasonous acts charged against him. hence. Merito Miguel. XI. For he did not go to the US merely to visit his children or his doctor there." Therefore. did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the US. among others.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: Manayao was one of the Makapilis who took part in the killing of the residents in barrio Banaban. under a Consti enshrining such tenets. For if this were so. Based on his application. he was issued by the US Govt the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently. he was "disqualified to run for any elective office. his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Phils. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code) requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. In his defense. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 229) F: These 2 cases were consolidated bec. to w/c he was elected in the local elections of 1/18/88. the law (Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private resp. law on treason. divested himself of his Phil. and any public officer or 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. on the ground that he is a green card holder. the citizen cannot be considered free to cast off his loyalty and obligations toward his Fatherland. The defense of the State is a prime duty of government and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal.. among others. 18. Miguel's immigration to the US in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Phils. It would shock the conscience of any enlightened citizenry to say that this appellant. During a period of stress. xxx To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Phils. his very crime would be the shield that would protect him from punishment. military or civil service. he. he argues. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act of acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times. BARLONGAY CASE: Caasi vs. citizenship and thereby placed himself beyond the arm of our treason law. was charged w/ treason and w/ multiple murder in the People's court. municipality of Angat. Art. Bulacan.. not of Bolinao. of candidacy. a permanent resident of the US.

(1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization. PAGE 52 . he was a permanent resident of the US and he resided in Bolinao for a period of only 3 mos. Sec. Resident for 6 months. in his relations with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living. Navy or Air Corp: Provided. That a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status. b. after his return to the Phils. Naturalization blanks and other blanks required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be prepared and furnished by the Solicitor General.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition for elective public office must possess. Reacquisition of Citizenship Secs. An applicant must only possess the following: a.The procedure prescribed for naturalization under Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred twenty-seven (now CA 473) shall apply to the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by naturalization provided for in the next preceding section: Provided. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry. Sec. xxx (1) Naturalization (CA 63 and CA 473) But this is now an abbreviated process. and (3) By direct act of the National Assembly (now Congress. 3. The Secretary of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of this Act. How citizenship may be reacquired. That the applicant possess none of the disqualifications prescribed in section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred twenty-seven (now Sec. 21 years of age. 2. 4. 5. Miguel did no possess that qualification bec. subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice. in Nov. 1987. (2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines. Commonwealth Act 63 Sec. and (3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority.-. state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject.Citizenship may be reacquired: (1) By naturalization: Provided.) (2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army. 4 of CA 473.-. further. Procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. 2. RAM.5.) Sec. and two years for the judgment to become executory). with no need to wait for three years (one year for declaration of intent. b. That the qualifications and special qualifications prescribed in sections 3 and 4 of said Act shall not be required: And Provided.

prove that she was Filipino citizen prior to the marriage. her husband died on 9/6/62. must first judicially. were accused of violation of CA 108. her parents were not legally married. of reacquiring that citizenship) involves a purely administrative proceeding. Go Cham. Thus. Republic. In Jao v Republic. a Chinese. the court declared the petitioner judicially repatriated. The trial court ruled that Anselma had reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband. 121 SCRA 358 (1983). Def. It was charged that Go Gam and Anselma A. Good moral character. Pending trial. But re. 119 SCRA 119 (1982) F: Go Cham. it was held that a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to a Chinese husband and her gaining his citizenship. if the loss was due only to marriage.. d.) In People v Avengoza. and upon complying w/ CA 63. citizenship when she married a Chinese national. this question must be judicially determined before she can be legally repatriated. and the latter's mother. HELD: Def.acquisition of such citizenship by repatriation is a purely administrative procedure. People v. Gavina A. 119 SCRA 119 (1982). 4 by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic and filing the oath w/ the Civil Registrar. as dummy in order to acquire lands in Camarines Sur w/c the couple were not qualified to acquire under the 1935 Consti. it was held that although her citizenship prior to her marriage to a Chinese husband needed judicial confirmation. Gavina A. The prosecution appealed. She claimed that while her father was a Chinese and her mother a Filipinio. used Gavina A. Avengoza's sole evidence on record to support her repatriation is her oath of allegiance to the Republic. On her motion the trial court allowed Anselma A. 121 SCRA 358 (1983) F: Petitioner filed in the CFI-Davao a petition for repatriation. (2) Repatriation (i) Woman who by her marriage lost her citizenship. she should first prove her citizenship previous to her marriage and as there is no conclusive proof of this matter on record.. Avengoza became an alien by reason of her lawful marriage to a Chinese citizen. (This is no longer true under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. and that although she lost her Phil. the process of repatriation itself (i. however this does not necessarily mean that she was a Filipino citizen previous to such marriage.e. After trial. and Go Cham died.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition c. before she can be repatriated by virtue of the death of her husband. Avengoza. Jao v. sec. Thus: Filipino citizenship prior to its loss by virtue of marriage to an alien and gaining his citizenship needs judicial declaration. The govt appealed. his wife Anselma Avengoza. to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty and to file a motion to quash w/c the court later granted. No disqualification. PAGE 53 . VV.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: The proceedings taken in the trial court are a complete nullity. citizenship upon the termination of her marital status "is for her to take the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Phils. There is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be effected by a judicial proceeding. Moreover. 232 SCRA 785 F: Three (3) petitions involving the same issues and parties were consolidated. Frivaldo became a US citizen allegedly due to the pressure from the Marcos regime. A former citizen who opts to reacquire Phil. the petitioner's claim of Phil." Moreover.) (3) Legislative Act Which is both a mode of acquiring and reacquiring citizenship. (Barlongay: This statement is inaccurate because there are indeed differences. and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry.) Failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements under the law rendered null and void the proceedings conducted. (3) that he is able to speak and write English and any one of the principal dialects. who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Phil. 2 and 6 of the law: (1) that petitioner is of good moral character. He came back here. and it is not for him to decide and select the requirements which he believes are inconvenient. Said cases questioned the readmission of Juan Frivaldo as a Filipino citizen under CA 63 or the Revised Naturalization Law as amended by CA 473. (ii) Those declared by authorities to be deserters of the Armed Forces. citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother may not be established in an action where the other or her heirs are not parties. such as an action for declaratory relief or a petition for judicial repatriation as an alien. citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such declaration are not parties. for at least ten years. Under the law. BARLONGAY CASE: Republic vs. citizenship through naturalization under CA 63 is duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed by said law. The TC never acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturalization of Frivaldo. both the petition for naturalization and the order setting it for hearing must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the OG or in a newspaper of general circulation. ran for Governor of Sorsogon and won. The petition for naturalization lacks several allegations under Secs. Dela Rosa. the publication and the posting must be in its full text for the Court to acquire jurisdiction. All that is required for a female citizen of the Phils. (2) he resided continuously in the Phil. the decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken. It is consistent rule that Phil. The law does not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and one who was never a citizen. RULING: DISQUALIFIED. (4) PAGE 54 . (Only this is applicable to the present. Frivaldo must vacate his office and surrender the same to the ViceGovernor. VV.

of his copy of the decision. What Sec. Mixed Marriages Cruz. Dual allegiance is not contradictory to the double nationality of a Filipina who married an alien. 5. (2) dedicated himself continuously to lawful calling. A decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only after 30 days from promulgation. XI. Sec. Sec. Art. while serving the government. 18. Gen. and any public officer or 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. as well a public officers who. The proceedings in the TC were marred by irregularities. from date of filing of petition until his admission to Phil citizenship. (3) not been convicted of any offense or for violation of government promulgated rules. MRM. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times. Constitutional Law. 5 Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. the petition was heard within 6 months from last publication. The hearing was set ahead of the scheduled date upon request of Frivaldo so he could catch up with the last day for filing his certificate of candidacy. The absence of such allegations is fatal to the petition. 1991 ed. 1 of RA 530 provides that no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after 2 years from its promulgation in order to be able to observe if the applicant has: (1) not left the country. IV. (5) that he has filed a declaration of intention or if he is excused from said filing. Frivaldo was allowed to take his oath of allegiance even before the finality of judgment and without waiting for the 2 year waiting period. seek citizenship in another country. Sec. (4) not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the country or contrary to government announced policies.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition he will reside continuously in the Phil. counted from the date of receipt by the Sol. Dual Allegiance Art. 5 contemplates is the case of aliens who are naturalized as Filipinos but remain loyal to their country of origin (specifically former Chinese nationals who even ran in the legislative Yuan of China). Note : Under Sec 40(d) of the Local Government Code. the justification therefor. those with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position. without publication. 4. It is not the business of Philippine law to determine if its citizen is also a citizen of another country by virtue of marriage. (hereinafter Cruz): PAGE 55 .

xxx" (Cruz. to wit. Sovereignty Sovereignty "Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which the State is governed. Legal sovereignty is the authority w/c has the power to issue final commands whereas political sovereignty is the power behind the legal sovereign. This rule has been reversed by Art. It was provided under the old rule that a Filipino woman who married an alien forfeited her Phil. and who might herself be naturalized. Sovereignty may also be internal or external. citizenship in administrative proceedings before the immigration authorities only and will not have to file a judicial action for this purpose. citizenship if under the laws of her husband's State she was required to follow his citizenship. under the law. becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Phils. native-born or naturalized. External sovereignty. 15 of CA 473. 15 of CA 473 provides that "any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Phils. 4 of the Consti. shall be deemed a citizen of the Phils. There are two kinds of sovereignty. IV. Comm." In its latest pronouncement on this question. citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen. Sec. J. Moreover. PAGE 56 . Recapitulating. of Immigration. UPDATED 11/24/95 RAM C. under Sec. w/c is the power of the State to direct its relations w/ other States.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 1. is also known as independence. Likewise. she can establish her claim to Phil. provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Sec. 4 of the same law. Internal sovereignty refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs..) "The supreme power of the State to govern persons and things within its territory. Barredo declared in Moya Lim Yao v." 2. an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Phil. legal and political. to have renounced it. But what of the reverse of the situation? Suppose it is the alien woman who marries a Filipino? Sec. an alien woman marrying a Filipino. unless by their act or omission they are deemed. the clause "who might herself be lawfully naturalized" was interpreted to mean only that the alien woman must not be laboring under any of the disqualifications prescribed by law for naturalization in her own right as a Filipino citizen. 41 SCRA 292: xxx We now hold xxx that under Sec. 4. or the sum total of the influences that operate upon it. w/c provides that: "Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 'Theory of Auto-Limitation' is the property of the State-force due to which a State has exclusive legal competence of self-limitation and self-restriction (Jellinek). the governmental authority possessed by the state w/c is appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty. it is not inappropriate to pursue the matter further. and Extraterritoral Jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the manifestation of sovereignty. it was held that the provision in the military bases agreement giving the US criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed even by Filipinos inside the bases is not a derogation of Philippine sovereignty. (Sinco 26." (Mirasol notes. comes within this concept. Homes in Carino v. In this capacity jure gestium. the State descends to the status of ordinary persons and thus becomes liable as such. except as limited by the Consti.) 1. of the well-known distinction in public law bet. (Mirasol notes. ownership however being vested in the state as such rather than the head thereof. Dean Pound did speak of the confusion that existed during the medieval era bet. The former comes under the heading of imperium and the latter of dominium. two such concepts. The use of this term is appropriate w/ reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. Personal. The Philippines has the power to limit the exercise of its sovereignty. It covers such activities as passing laws governing a territory. The Regalian doctrine whereby all lands of the public domain belong to the State.) a. it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other natural resources. (Fernando 56. and disposition or sale of the same. including their disposition. maintaining peace and order over it.. In Reagan v CIR.. exploitation and use of it. Territorial jurisdiction is the authority of the State to have all persons and things within its territorial limits to be completely subject to its control and protection. When the State act in this capacity jure imperii. xxx [T]here was a recognition by J. and its capacity to own or acquire prop. Dominium and Imperium "Imperium refers to the State's authority to govern. (Mirasol notes. and defending it against foreign invasion. if not of outright rejection. When it allows a foreign State to use part of its territory and waives jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. and anyone claiming title has the burden to show ownership. Dominium refers to the capacity of the State to own property.) PAGE 57 . It covers such rights as title to land.) The jurisdiction of the state is understood as both its authority and the sphere of the exercise of that authority. xxx "As there are overtones indicative of skepticism.' That was a concept of jus regalia. that 'Spain in its earlier decrees embodied the universal theory that all lands were held from the Crown***. it generally enjoys sovereign immunity." (Mirasol notes. Territorial. it does not give up part of its sovereignty but only limits the exercise of its sovereignty. Insular Gov't. but did note the existence of res publicae as a corallary to dominium. In such capacity.) A state as a juridical person may act in the capacity of sovereign as well as owner.) 2. w/c was adopted by the 1973 Consti.

and things found in the territory of other states or on the high seas under certain conditions. Thus if a state does not have sufficient confidence in the administration of justice and the system of law obtaining in a particular country. and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power w/c would impose such restriction. All exceptions. The authority of the state to w/c they owe permanent allegiance follows them at all times wherever they might reside and as long as their membership of the state subsists. unless this state gives its consent thereto. (Mirasol notes. Its scope and effect are expressed in this classic statement of Chief Justice Marshall on the subject: "The jurisdiction of the nation w/in its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. therefore. (Sinco 26. The territorial jurisdiction of a state is sovereignty operating or applied w/in its territory. Thus. Of course. 2 of the Revised Penal Code: "Art. we have Art. xxx Regardless of treaty or agreement. It affects their person. outside its territorial limits by reason of their effects to its territory. Personal jurisdiction is the authority of the state over its nationals. and even some of their acts performed abroad. 2 of the RPC is a classic example of this. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the authority of the State over persons.) c. however. a state has full authority to adopt rules intended to apply to persons. (Mirasol notes. whether citizens or aliens.) b. their persons. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application. This consent may be either express or implied.) When jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of the status of the persons affected. prop.. would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition When exercised in reference to persons or things found w/in the territory of the state. deriving validity from an external source. (Sinco 28.) The personal jurisdiction of the state is exercised over all its citizens w/in or w/o its territory. 2. things or acts. All persons w/in that area. it is known as personal jurisdiction. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. independent of their presence or absence in the territory of the state. are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the state. whether within or outside its territory. To enforce them in the territorial limits of another state would be to violate the sovereignty of the latter. to the full and complete power of a nation w/in its own territories. the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the PAGE 58 . The Civil Code provision that prohibitory and mandatory laws follow citizens wherever they go is an example. Any restriction upon it. it may enter into a treaty for the establishment of its own courts in the latter country where its citizens or nationals may be tried. regardless of nationality. a state may establish its legal institutions outside its territorial limits." (Sinco 26-27. property. it is known as territorial jurisdiction.) By agreement w/ other states. must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. and acts. Art. the actual enforcement of rules intended to have extraterritorial effect may be accomplished only when the persons concerned are found w/in the territorial jurisdiction of the state.

the sheriff served notices of garnishment w/ several banks. On 6/24/69. Hence. A corresponding alias writ of execution was then issued.) Republic v. specially on the 'monies due the AFP in the form of deposits. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. resp.J. Jurisprudence Positivist theory: There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. et. and against petitioner herein. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines. 2. all its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing its other functions. XVI. sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the writ. While being public officers or employees. al. On the strength of said writ. Sovereign Immunity (a) Basis i. 54 SCRA 83 (1973. Veterans Bank received the same notice of garnishment. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations. ii. but also outside of its jurisdiction. against those who: 1.) F: On 7/3/61. a decision was rendered in SP in favor of resps. 3. under w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. Ltd. directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province. including its atmosphere. confirming the arbitration award in the amount of 1.. To do so would "unduly vex the peace of nations. P. Sec. Kiener Co. or 5. 3. (Republic v Villasor. Judge issued an Order declaring the aforestated decision final and executory. 54 SCRA 83) (Mirasol notes.' the Phil. The added basis in this case is the principle of the sovereign equality of States." xxx. Constitutional Art. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.) 3. (Sinco 28-29. PAGE 59 .) The doctrine is also available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State." (Cruz. should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions. defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. this original action for certiorari and prohibition w/ the SC.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Philippine Archipelago. The State may not be sued without its consent. its interior waters and maritime zone. Villasor. subject of SP.7 M. (Holmes in Kawananakoa v Polyblank) Sociological theory: If the State is amenable to suits. QC as well as Manila to execute the said decision. 4.

For in this case. The State may not be sued without its consent. of any formal conception or obsolete theory. not bec.) 2. (J. (b) When a suit is against the State and when it is not. the suit is intended to compel performance of a ministerial duty. Holmes. the suit is not really against the State. as appropriated by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. When from the allegations in the complaint. PAGE 60 . both dictated by logic and sound sense from such a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. 51 SCRA 340 both involving the War Widow Benefits Law due the veterans. however. Rather. the State having acknowledged its liability to the plaintiff through the enactment of an appropriation law. Polyblank. if it produces adverse consequences to the public treasury in terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of government property. but an action in rem that does not name the government in particular. This is based on considerations of public policy. When a suit is against the State. the suit is not really against the State. it cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent. but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on w/c the right depends. A corollary. Kawananakoa v. 205 US 349.) Sociological jurisprudence supplies an answer not dissimilar. 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. When the action is not in personam with the government as the named defendant. (Begoso v PVA. In the following cases. regardless of who is named as the defendant. [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. In Republic v Feliciano (148 SCRA 424). RAM. It is readily understandable why it must be so.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of sovereignty that the state as well as its govt is immune from suit unless it gives its consent. 1. When the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged with the duty of making payments pursuant to an appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make such payment. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. it is clear that the respondent is a public officer sued in a private capacity. 32 SCRA 466 and Del Mar v PVA. 3. a suit against the government for the recovery of possession and ownership of land based on a possessory information was disallowed by the SC on the ground that a suit for the recovery of property is an action "in personam" which seeks to bring the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to usurp a piece of property. A suit is against the State. A sovereign is exempt from suit.

bringing the State to court just like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece of property. There is no such showing of consent in the instant case. Philippine Veterans Adm. The plaintiff has impleaded the RP as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The CFI granted the motion to dismiss. Feliciano. Camarines Sur. principally on the ground that the RP cannot be sued without its consent and hence the action cannot prosper. a tract of land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma. which under settled jurisprudence is not permitted." 2. Adapted. and not the government in particular. (Proc. Camarines Sur. WON the doctrine of non-suability of the state can be invoked in this case. The failure of the petitioner to assert the defense of immunity from suit when the case was tried before the court a quo. Waiver of immunity. Moreover..e. (NO) The exclusion of existing private rights from the reservation established by Proc. now the Land Authority. He alleged that the lot in question should be excluded from the NARRA settlement reservation program of the government under Proc. 90 cannot be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. which was then reversed by the IAC on appeal. as alleged by private respondent. (YES) The doctrine of non-suability of the State has proper application in this case. will not be inferred lightly. which is an "action in rem". No.) Feliciano prayed that he be declared the rightful owner of the property in question. Hence this petition by the RP. since it's his private property being covered by a possessory information title in the name of his predecessor-in. no. i. By its caption and its allegation and prayer. Worse. was to apply for a judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Sec. A motion to dismiss. either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Tinambac. Begosa v. was filed by 86 settlers (as intervenors) of the land in question. 148 SCRA 424 F: Respondent Pablo Feliciano filed a complaint in the CFI of Camarines Sur against the Republic of the Philippines. A suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem. the complaint itself fails to allege the existence of such consent. under the administration of the NARRA. WON the consent of the RP may be read from Proc. Republic v. represented by the land authority. This is a fatal defect. No.. but an action in personam. No. the complaint is clearly a suit against the State. the complaint should have been dismissed. the Proclamation is not a legislative act. 90 itself.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition What the plaintiff should have done. 48(b) of CA 141. 90 reserves for settlement purposes. the Court continued.interest. and on this basis alone. It is now settled that such defense "may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. Chairman. 90. is not fatal. being in derogation of sovereignty. Waiver of State Immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. but must be construed in strictissimi juris. 32 SCRA 466 (1970) PAGE 61 . one directed against the whole world. ISSUES: 1.

The appeal assigns as one error what it considers to be the failing of the LC in not holding that the complaint in this case is in effect a suit against the State w/c has not given its consent thereto. in effect. Commonwealth Army.. constitute PAGE 62 . then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked. but it was erroneously disapproved on 6/21/55. so the latter was valid and meritorious even as of the date of its filing on 3/4/55. the Phil. filed his claim for disability pension as far back as 3/4/55. discontinued payment of monthly life pension on the ground that his receipt of similar pension from the US Govt. And petition for mandamus was filed w/ CFI-Cebu w/c rendered judgment upholding Del Mar's claim. may in reality be the govt. HELD: It does not admit of doubt that if the suit were in fact against the State.a mere agency of the Govt performing governmental functions w/ no juridical personality of its own. xxx However. w/c he continued to follow up. Veterans Admin. Needless to say. The PVA argues that the court a quo was w/o jurisdiction to try the civil case bec. HELD: As a general proposition.) w/ the rank of major. the def.would be greatly unfair and prejudicial to pltff. Nor is it to be doubted that while ostensibly an action may be against a public official. in reality. the said Bd. w/c. 51 SCRA 340 (1973) F: Del Mar averred that he served during WW II as chief judge advocate of the Cebu Area Command (a duly recognized guerrilla org. by reason of military service rendered in the US in the Far East during the war. whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of prop. it is equally well-settled that where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury. hence to make the same effective only as of the date of its approval on 9/2/64-. whether in the disbursement of funds or loss of prop. then the suit should be regarded as one against the govt itself. that in 3/50. where the judgement in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the prop.. the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity. of permanent total physical disability. of his failure to comply w/ the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of pltff. Philippine Veterans Adm (PVA). of the Govt. at the rate of P30/mo." Pltff. where the suit against such a functionary had to be instituted bec. Del Mar v. thru the US Veterans Admin. Govt. Such is the present case. Veterans Bd granted him a monthly life pension of P50 effective 1/28/47. demanding the continued payment of his monthly pension but his demands went unheeded. that he subsequently obtained an honorable discharge from the service on 10/20/46 on a cert. that he wrote the said Bd. the Board of Administrators. or petitioner. however. precluded him from receiving any further monthly life pension from the Phil. and that on reconsideration asked for by him on 11/1/57.and.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: Gaudencio Begosa.according to def's stand-. partakes of an action against the Phil. in such actions. bec. and consequently. it appears that there was no good ground to deny the said claim. inducted in the service of the USAFFE" having taken "active participation in the battle of Bataan" as well as the "liberation drive against the enemy" thereafter became "permanently incapacitated from work due to injuries he sustained in line of duty xxx. plaintiff-appellee. As a result. that upon proper claim presented and after hearing and adjudication. his dishonorable discharge from the Army was not a good or proper ground for the said disapproval. the LC should have dismissed the complaint. Govt w/c is immune from suit w/o its consent. It has no application. Judge Soriano noted that: "had it not been for the said error. the rule on the immunity of the Govt from suit w/o its consent holds true in all actions resulting in "adverse consequences on the public treasury. finally approved his claim on 9/2/64. was an "enlisted men of the Phil. in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liab. RAM. twice. it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except w/ the consent of said Govt. it involves a money claim against PVA. Phil.

Respondents filed a MTD on the ground that as officers of the US Armed Forces performing official functions in accordance with the powers vested in them. for the protection of his rights. the officers are liable for damages. such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them. the court has no option but to dismiss them. it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. Nonetheless. the suit must be regarded as against the state itself. HELD: 1. It is 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 plaintiff. Shauf contends that the officers are being sued in their private capacity for discriminatory acts performed beyond their authority. unauthorized acts of govt. While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent. officials or officers are not acts of the State. The cloak of immunity is removed from the moment the public official is sued in his individual capacity such as where he acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. The general rule is that a state may not be sued without its consent. In this case. 191 SCRA 713 (1990) Doctrine of immunity from suit 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. F: By reason of her non-selection to a position at Clark Air Base. which would require its consent. A public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith. 2. Republic v Sandoval.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition suits against the Govt. or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. they are immune from suit. Shauf filed an equal opportunity complaint against officers of Clark Air Base. She then filed a complaint for damages with the RTC. hence the instant action is not a suit against the US Govt. for alleged discrimination against the former by reason of her nationality and sex. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same. 220 SCRA 124 (1993) PAGE 63 . RAM. According to respondents. Shauf v CA. is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice. As clearly discernible from the circumstances. 3. the case at bar falls under the exception. Adapted. although it has not been formally impleaded. the complaint is barred by the immunity of the US since the acts sued upon are governmental activities of the US. It finds no application where a claimant institutes an action against a functionary who fails to comply w/ his statutory duty to release the amount claimed from the public funds already appropriated by statute for the benefit of the said claimant. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers. the rule admits of an exception. and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts.

officer but the case is such that the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the govt. Secondly. the group filed an action against the govt. while the Republic is sued by name. Resp. Such action was filed against the government. the recommendation made by the Mendiola Commission regarding indemnification of the heirs and the victims of the incident by the government does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. This is not a suit against the State with its consent. Still unheeded for almost a year. 3. The principle of immunity from suit is based on the very essence of sovereignty. 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 the proper administration of the government. PAGE 64 . and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. and the public endangered. The Commission was merely a fact-finding body and its recommendation was not final and executory. The Caylo Group (the group of marchers in the said incident) filed a formal letter of demand from the govt. such consent was not given in this case. their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. having been found to have acted beyond the scope of their authority. They are therefore liable for damages. Although consent to be sued may be given impliedly. Although the military officers were discharging their official functions when the incident occurred. In this case. no concrete form of compensation was received by the victims. (3) when the suit is on its face against a govt. as in this case. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are: (1) when the Republic is sued by name. Notwithstanding such recommendation. may be held liable for damages.) that the heirs and wounded victims of the incident be compensated by the Govt. agency. F: The heirs of the 12 rallyists who perished during the Mendiola massacre filed an action for damages. together w/ the military officers and personnel involved in the incident before the trial court. Firstly. the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. whatever acts or utterances that President Aquino may have done or said. HELD: 1. This was by virtue of a recommendation made by the Citizen's Mendiola Commission (created for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the disorder. the ultimate liability does not pertain to the govt. 2.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Herein public officials. The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply. Adapted. Judge dismissed the complaint as against the RP on the ground that there was no waiver by the Sate. Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic. It also rests on reasons of public policy -. (2) when the suit is against an unincorporated govt. even though the officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or act only by virtue of a title of the state and as its agents and servants.that public service would be hindered. 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 w/c belongs to the State in its political capacity. deaths and casualties that took place during the Mendiola incident.

the SC held that the Proclamation of the President of the Philippines (recognizing private rights to the land) cannot be the source of consent. action may be filed by the parties. Express consent: (1) Money claims arising from contracts. since the RCA had no authority to bind the government to be sued. The case was assigned to resp. RCA agreed to had no binding force in the govt. Waiver of state immunity can only be made by an act of legislative body. who denied a motion to dismiss filed by RCA relying on the stipulation in the contract of the parties. and therefore cannot be sued w/o the consent of the State. being in fact an office under the Office of the Pres. Thus.. Act No. supra. whatever counsel for def. In Republic v Feliciano. must come from the State. since the Proclamation is not a legislative act. In Republic v Purissima. 148 SCRa 424. The consent to be effective. cannot be the basis of a money claim against the RCA. express or implied. which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. Republic v Feliciano. Yellow filed a money claim against RCA. HELD: The RCA is part of the govt. 78 SCRA 470 (1977) Suability of the State. a government entity under the Office of the President. That was clearly beyond the scope of his authority. express or implied. Republic v. acting thru a duly enacted statute. Subject to the provisions of this Act. VV. the Government of the Philippines hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract. must come from the State. in order to be effective. action may be filed w/ the courts of Mla. 1. In 1972.. Purissima. An Act Defining the Conditions under which the Government of the Philippines may be Sued. 78 SCRA 470 (1977). PAGE 65 . the SC held that a contract entered into by the Rice and Corn Administration stipulating that in the event of breach. Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (c) Consent to be sued How consent is given The consent to be sued.. Judge. acting through a duly enacted statute.. 3083. Only a statute could. The Need for a Statute Giving Consent F: The Rice & Corn Administration (RCA) entered into a contract w/ the Yellow Ball Freight Lines in w/c they agreed that in the event of breach.

as if the litigants were private parties. The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General in the settlement of an account or claim may. A person desiring to avail himself of the privilege herein conferred must show that he has presented his claim to the Commission on Audit and that the latter did not decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation. The President of the Philippines. either himself or through delegates. Original actions brought pursuant to the authority conferred in this Act shall be instituted in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila or of the province where the claimant resides. 3. including the same in the appropriations for the ensuing year. In case of accounts or claims already submitted to but still pending decision by the Auditor General on or before the approval of this Act. 6. An Act Fixing the Time within which the Auditor General shall Render His Decisions and Prescribing the Manner of Appeal Therefrom. shall transmit to that body for appropriate action all decisions so received by him. within thirty days from receipt of the decision. both original and appellate. the period aforesaid shall be counted from the time the last comment necessary to a proper decision is received by him. Sec. or to a party interested. Sec. 1923. but a copy thereof duly certified by the clerk of the Court in which judgment is rendered shall be transmitted by such clerk to the President of the Philippines. March 16. 4. Sec. the periods provided in this section shall commence from the date of such approval. This Act shall take effect on its approval. 1. Sec. take an appeal in writing: (a) xxx PAGE 66 . upon which court exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred to hear and determine such actions. 7.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec. by way of set-off or counterclaim in a similar action between private parties. it shall appropriate the sum which the Government has been sentenced to pay. after their presentation. office or offices. Sec. Sec. the Auditor General shall act on the same within one hundred days after their submission. at the commencement of each regular session of the Legislature. other than those of accountable officers. the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days. 2. With respect to the accounts of accountable officers. Sec. at the option of the latter. 8. 2. When the Government of the Philippines is plaintiff in an action instituted in any court of original jurisdiction. Sec. Process in actions brought against the Government of the Philippines pursuant to the authority granted in this Act shall be served upon the Solicitor-General whose duty it shall be to appear and make defense. Com. In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims. Approved. No execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any court against the Government of the Philippines under the provisions of this Act. within five days after the same becomes final. Actions instituted as aforesaid shall be governed by the same rules of procedure. exclusive of Sundays and holidays. If said accounts or claims need reference to other persons. and if said body determine that payment should be made. Act 327. Sec. the defendant shall have the right to assert therein. Sundays and holidays excepted. 9. 5.

Title I. or (c) To the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The appeal shall specifically set forth the particular action of the Auditor General to which exception is taken with the reasons and authorities relied on for reversing such decision. 50. COA). Book V. All money claims are to be filed with COA. as follows: Sec. all appeals shall be taken to the same authority resorted to by the first appellant. the appeal may be taken by the proper head of the department or in case of local governments by the head of the office or branch of the Government immediately concerned. he has. if the appellant is a private person or entity. From a decision adversely affecting the interests of the Government. the claimant must wait anyway. 35. 54 SCRA 282 (1973) PAGE 67 .) Before the 1987 Constitution. (Subtitle B. If it fails to so act. Title I. the claim must be filed with the Auditor General (now. the law in force was Act 3038 and CA 327 which. Sec. Art. If the Auditor did not act within 60 days. Appeal from Decision of the Commission. order or ruling adversely affects the interest of any government agency. or ruling adversely affects the interests of any government agency. When the decision.The party aggrieved by any decision. 1938. within 30 days to appeal by certiorari to the SC. then the appeal could be made to the SC. unless the claimant was a public official in which case appeal was to the President. Subtitle B. Sec. according to Sayson v Singson (a suit to compel payment of electrical supplies delivered to CAA). Administrative Code of the Philippines. 35. allowed suit only for money claims arising from contract. Administrative Code of the Philippines. 3. order or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof in the manner provided by law and the Rules of Court. and providing a special procedure. order.Any decision. Singson. 50 of PD 1445 and by Sec. then the claimant could file his claim with the RTC. order. Sayson v. Once a decision has been made.-. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.) Sec. which has 60 days within which to act.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (b) To the President of the Philippines. Book V.-. Approved. When the decision. (PD 1445. IX of the 1987 Constitution now gives a different procedure. Under this procedure. 2 of CA 327 has been amended by Sec. the appeal may be taken by the proper head of that agency. the appeal may be taken by the proper head of that agency. or ruling of the Commission may within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof appeal on certiorari to the Supreme Court in the manner provided by law and the Rules of Court. If there are more than one appellant. Appeal from decisions of the Commission. June 18. But if the Auditor rendered a decision. Chapter 5.

if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. for the payment of the alleged balance of the cost of spare parts supplied by him to the Bureau of Public Highways. xxx It is true that once consent is secured. Such fault or negligence. involved. is obliged to pay for the damage done. After making a canvass. Adapted. 2176. to require that certain administrative proceedings be had and be exhausted. the approval of the Sec. xxx The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. w/c sought to compel petitioner government auditors to approve the payment of the voucher covering the balance. Actually. the resp. mandamus is not the remedy to enforce the collection of such claim against the State ***.706 in order to submit the documents covering the transaction to the Supervising Auditor for review. The LC decided in favor of resp. xxx (Civil Code. Singson's cause of action is a money claim against the Govt. in such statutory grant. Engr. HELD: It is apparent that resp. and civil engr. Singson. In due course.000. the Office of the District Engr. Hence this appeal by certiorari. but an ordinary action for specific performance***. Singson.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: In 1/67.) PAGE 68 . After finding the price reasonable (as was evidenced by the indorsements of the Div. there being fault or negligence. There is nothing to prevent the State. an action may be filed. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. of Public Works and Comm. Here. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. who then directed the immediate delivery of the parts. A public bidding for the said items was conducted wherein the awards committee accepted the winning bid of P43. 2176 shall be applicable. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. of Public Highways. A mandamus suit was filed by the resp. the voucher w/c covered the transaction reached the hands of petitioner Highway Auditor Sayson who then made inquiries about the reasonableness of the price. should have filed his claim w/ the General Auditing Office. the LC could not legally act on the matter.530 given by Singkier Motor Service owned by resp. however. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. under the provisions of CA 327*** w/c prescribe the conditions under w/c money claim against the government may be filed. in the proper forum in the judicial hierarchy can be specified if thereafter an appeal would be taken by the party aggrieved. and the verification of the representative of the Bureau of Supply Coordination). Assuming momentarily the validity of such claim. In other words. petitioner approved and effected payment of the voucher and withheld the 20% equivalent of P8. in which case what is provided in Art. Also. the court to w/c the matter should have been elevated is this Tribunal. the suit disguised as one for mandamus to compel the Auditors to approve the vouchers for payment. Even had there been such . and the Comm. there was no ruling of the Auditor Gen.) Art. (ibid. (2) Quasi-delicts committed by special agents Art. is a suit against the State. 2180. Malversation charges were failed against the district engr. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. the General Auditing Office determined the transaction to be overpriced by at least P40. of PW & C. requisitioned various spare parts for the repair of a D-8 Bulldozer. Said award was approved by the Sec. w/c cannot prosper or be entertained by the Court except w/ the consent of the State***.

The special agent acts in representation of the state and executes the trust confided to him. Merritt to bring suit for the purpose of fixing the responsibility for the collision and determining the amount of damages. that in Merritt vs Govt. 34 Phil 311 F: Merritt. the SC said that it is therefore evident that the State is only liable for acts of its agents. if any. or create any cause of action in his favor. and not a special agent. to which E. ISSUE: Did the defendant in enacting Act No. liable since the injuries were caused by a regular driver of the govt. subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. 2457 authorizes E. It should be noted in this connection. or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. A suit was then filed before the CFI of Manila which fixed the responsibility for the collision solely on the ambulance driver and determined the amount of damages to be awarded to Merritt. 2457 simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also concede its liability to the plaintiff? HELD: By consenting to be sued. 6. 2457 was enacted by the Philippine Legislature authorizing E. officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of A1903. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the active administration PAGE 69 . did not yet have separate legal personality from the Philippine Govt. The Government of the Philippine Islands is only liable. the agency involved. Both parties appealed from the decision. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit. of the Philippine Islands. It was driven by a driver employed by the hospital. NCC). In order for Merritt to sue the Philippine government. A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. Merritt v Government of the Philippine Islands. Merritt is entitled on account of said collision. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official. 1903 (now Art. 2180 of the Civil Code allows a suit against the government for quasi-delicts committed by the government when acting through special agents (those performing non-regular functions) But if the tortious act was committed by a regular employee. OCC (par. while riding his motorcycle was hit by an ambulance owned by the Philippine General Hospital. Art. a state simply waives its immunity from suit. the injured party could only bring a suit for damages against the employee in his personal capacity. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court. The government did not assume any liability under the Act. Act No. Act No. In this case. 2180) and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such agent. 34 Phil 311. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff. 2180. plaintiff Merritt as to the amount of damages and defendant in rendering the amount against the government.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. officers and EEs when they act as special agents within the meaning of Art. the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). It should further be noted that the plaintiff was allowed to sue by virtue of a special law but was unable to hold the defendant govt. for the acts of its agents.

was employed as barracks boy in Camp O'Donnel. Liability. There seems to be a failure to distinguish bet. is liable. the agent performing his regular functions is not a special agent even if he is so denominated. 182 SCRA 644 F: Resp. The argument. the said provision appears to regulate only the relations of the local state w/ its inhabitants and. Pvt resp. US v. establishes a rule of liability. duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged w/ some definite purpose w/c gives rise to the claim. Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued. for violation of RA 6425 and testified against him at the trial. The govt may be held liable under this art. The responsibility of the State is limited to that w/c it contracts through a special agent. HELD: Petitioners cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal w/c has not given its consent to be sued. Ceballos. Resp. hence. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. liability on the applicable law and the established facts. is premised on the ground that since the officers are designated as "special agents. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent. Resp was dismissed from employment as a result of the filing of the charge. NCC w/c holds the govt liable if it acts through a special agent. it can." the US govt should be liable for their torts. it would seem. The said art. filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for his removal. as in the case at bar. not suability. Neither does such answer come under the implied forms of consent. applies only to the Phil. and not were the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged w/ some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable. 2180. it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. who are officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators. Defendants (petitioners herein) filed the affirmative defense that they had only done their duty in the enforcement of Phil. Adapted. laws inside the American bases pursuant to the RP-US MBA. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity. Petitioners filed charges against resp. Express waiver of immunity cannot be made by a mere counsel of the govt but must be effected through a duly-enacted statute. their counsel filed a motion to withdraw answer and moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that defendants were acting in their official capacity and that the complaint against t hem was in effect a suit against the US w/o its consent. govt and not to foreign govts impleaded in our courts. PAGE 70 . that the def. Moreover. suability and liability. Later. Suability v. only if it first allows itself to be sued through any of the accepted forms of consent. on the other hand. We reject the conclusion of the trial court that the answer filed by the special counsel of the Office of the Sheriff Judge Advocate of Clark Air Base was a submission by the US govt to its jurisdiction. Petitioners were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation. No less important. invoke Art. it is only giving the pltff the chance to prove. and was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by petitioners.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition and who on his own responsibility performs the functions w/c are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and w/c are regulated by law and the regulations.

. The final PAGE 71 . In SSS v CA. The doctrine of state immunity is sometimes derisively called the "royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. it seems. it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition NOTES on the consolidated cases US v. it invariably provides this corporation a separate entity and with the capacity to sue and be sued. by entering into an employment contract [a proprietary function] with the respondents. In this case. et al. [Note: Consent to be sued includes actions based on quasi-delict even though committed by regular agents and not by special agents. suability will result only where the govt.] So the rule. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. There is no question that the US will be deemed to have impliedly waived its nonsuability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. The separate opinion of Makasiar enunciated this. the suit encompasses any kind of action. As for the filing of a complaint by the govt. Consent is implied when the state enters into a contract or it itself commences litigation. is claiming afffirmative relief from the defendant. 4. Guinto. 81 SCRA 314 (1978) Since the PHHC had the capacity to be sued. F: The United Homesite Employees and Laborers Association of the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) in a case filed before the Court of Industrial Relations prevailed over PHHC. which it did not. When the government creates a corporation. seemed to be saying that SSS could have invoked the defense of Art. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. The state could therefore be sued since such contracts are commercial in nature. which was in arrears. the US impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity. 120 SCRA 707 (1983). However. enters into a contract.: 1. Adapted. in granting nominal damages to the claimant. When the govt. 3. and its funds could even be garnished. PNB vs CIR. but if it is. 2. If the government entity is given the capacity to be sued. distinctions must be made between sovereign and proprietary acts. which was updated. 2180. any judgment against it could be enforced by a writ of execution. not special agents. with that of another Socorro Cruz. it can invoke the defense that it acted through its regular employees. Express consent is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly enacted statute. the property of one Socorro Cruz was foreclosed due to the negligence of the regular employees of SSS in mistaking her account. including one from tort. (3) Incorporation of government-owned or controlled corps. The SC. This implies however that the State may be sued with its consent. The state may only be liable for proprietary acts. is that a government entity can be sued for tort.

Rayo vs CFI of Bulacan. Pateros. Garnishment is a proper remedy for a prevailing party to proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government. HELD: The government has organized a private corporation. By engaging in business through the instrumentality of a corp. The spouses sued SSS for damages. put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter [RA 6395. It has all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law. distinct and separate from that of the Government (NASSCO v CIR). Sec. CA. Its attention was called to the error but it refused to acknowledge its mistake. As a government owned and controlled corporation. so as to render the corp. mortgaged and notice of the sale was published. it has a personality of its own. It turned out that while the couple failed to pay some of the amortizations on time.) VV. hence. Adapted. Rosario. Cruz. accordingly it may sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation. (The case was based primarily on NASSCO v CIR. PNB sought to quash the writ alleging that the funds were "public in character. the SSS applied for the foreclosure of the mortgage. HELD: PHHC was a government-owned entity. 110 SCRA 456 F: Petitioners are among the many victims of the flooding caused by the simultaneous opening of the three floodgates of Angat Dam during the height of typhoon "Kading".' thus it `can not be sued without the express consent of the State. 118 Phil 782. Moreover. it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated just like any other corporation. PAGE 72 ." The motion was denied. 120 SCRA 707 (1983) F: The Spouses David and Socorro Cruz obtained a loan from SSS on the security of a lot located in Sto. hence this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion. 3(d)]. The SSS mistook the couple's account for that of another one bearing the same name Socorro Cruz. although w/ different middle name. It is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business. subject to the rules governing private corporations. There was negligence on the part of the SSS when it mistook the loan account of Socorro J. the SSS could not suddenly and w/o prior notice to the couple apply for the extrajudicial foreclosure of their mortgage. at the time of the application for foreclosure.. their account was up to date. SSS V.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition and executory judgment was sought to be enforced via a writ of garnishment against PHHC's funds deposited with PNB. It has personality distinct and separate from the government. be held liable for nominal damages. the govt divests itself of its sovereign character. SSS should. The complaints they filed before the CFI of Bulacan were dismissed for the reason that the NPC in the operation of the Angat Dam is `performing a purely governmental function. Claiming that the couple had defaulted in the payment of the monthly amortizations. the charter provision that the NPC can "sue and be sued in any court" is without qualification on the cause of action and accordingly it can include a tort claim such as the one instituted by petitioners. As a result the sheriff scheduled the sale of the prop. this petition. Rizal. Cruz for that of Socorro C.' Respondent CFI denied MRecon. HELD: (1) Having accepted the late payments of the monthly installments. thus.

EG & Co. Hence the petition for review. a contract for the repair of wharves and piers at the naval base in Subic was held to be in line with the governmental function of the US Government and so the immunity existed. it can be sued. 2180. NCC the State is liable for tort only when it acts through special agents but not when it acts through officials to whom the task done properly pertains and who alone are liable for their torts. it can be sued like any other person. but its motion was denied. brought suit in the CFI to compel the US govt to allow it to perform the work on the projects. In Malong v PNR. Implied consent: (1) When the government enters into business contracts When the government is in the performance of governmental function (jure imperii)..) The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis. It also asked for a writ of prel. However. Makasiar. even if it enters into a contract with private persons. Since under Art. F: In 5/72. the resp. The government must be deemed to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS. sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private. The US govt moved to dismiss the complaint. dissenting: xxx. VV. EG & Co. Ruiz. was informed that its proposals had been rejected and the projects had been awarded to 3rd parties. HELD: It has been necessary to distinguish bet. But when the government enters into commercial contracts and descends to the status of ordinary persons (jure gestioni). in 6/82. sec. Judge held that by entering into a contract for the repair of wharves or shorelines the State did not act in its governmental capacity. inj. the US advertised for bid projects involving the repair of wharves and certain works on the shorelines at its naval base in Subic. even assuming that the SSS enjoys immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental functions by virtue of the explicit provision of the enabling law. although it does not thereby concede its liability. However. Thus in United States v Ruiz. (EG & Co. the SSS cannot be held liable for damages in this case. United States of America v. 138 SCRA 63 (1985). 136 SCRA 487 (1985). and so became liable for damages that arose from the death of one who fell from an overloaded train. The provision that it can be sued and be sued merely allows a private citizen a remedy for the enforcement of his rights but always subject to the defense of the govt. it was held that when the state organized the Philippine National Railway. PAGE 73 .) submitted proposals in connection w/ w/c it received 2 telegrams from the US govt asking it to confirm its price proposals and the name of its bonding co. it divested itself of its sovereign capacity. So. Eligio de Guzman & Co. Inc. 4(k)] the SSS can sue and be sued. it cannot be sued without its consent. Zambales. 136 SCRA 487 (1985) State Immunity from Suits Extends to contracts Relating to Sovereign Functions.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (2) Under its charter [RA 1161. to restrain the US govt from entering into contract w/ 3rd parties for work on the projects.

said the court. 43 SCRA 360. In Santiago v Republic. or when it takes private property for public use or purpose. 87 SCRA 294 (1978). for the government to invoke its immunity after gratuitously receiving property and not fulfilling its conditions. The case of Commissioner of Public Highways vs Burgos. it said that it would be unjust for the government to invoke immunity after it has itself violated the rights of the parties-claimant by taking over the possession of the lands. In so holding. However. In Amigable v Cuenca. HELD: The correct rule is that "not all government entities. 96 SCRA 831. the PNR had been made a government instrumentality. under its charter as amended by PD 741. VV. and that as such it is immune from suit. In this case. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base w/c is devoted to the defense of both the US and the Phils. the Manila Railroad Co. (2) When it would be inequitable for the state to invoke its immunity. they are not utilized for. whether corporate or noncorporate. the SC allowed the revocation of a deed of donation made to the Bureau of Plant Industry for its failure to comply with the condition that it should install a lightning and water system on the property and build an office building with parking lot before a certain date. nor dedicated to. w/c is no different from its predecessor. commercial or business purpose. Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for w/c the entity is organized. Malong v PNR." When the govt enters into a commercial transaction it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corp. the state divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR. the question PAGE 74 . 138 SCRA 63 (1985) PNR not Immune from Suit F: The petitioners sued the Philippine National Railway (PNR) for damages for the death of their son who fell from an overloaded PNR train on 10/30/77. indisputably a function of the govt of the highest order. the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that. It would be unfair.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.. simply implemented the ruling in Amigable vs Cuenca. VV. Alfonso v Pasay and Ministerio v CFI. In the earlier case. The rule does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. 40 SCRA 464. (43 SCRA 360). are immune from suits. the SC allowed suit for the recovery of possession of titled lands previously (decades) taken over by the government for expansion of roads without just compensation and the proper expropriation proceedings.

96 SCRA 831 (1980) F: Priv. be manifestly unfair for the govt. VV. The SC held that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. 87 SCRA 284 (1978) Consent to be Sued Presumed where Allowance of Immunity Would be Inequitable F: Petitioner filed an action in the CFI of Zamboanga City for the revocation of a deed of donation w/c he and his wife had made to the Bureau of Plant Industry. a suit of this nature cannot prosper. and build an office building w/ parking lot thereon not later than 12/7/74. respondent Victoria Amigable was the owner of a parcel of land in Cebu City. independent of contract. PAGE 75 . Respondent judge. His basis was Article 1250 of the Civil Code. Adapted. directing that to determine just compensation for the land. The taking of private property by the Government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual obligation. the SC fixed just compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of the taking. HELD: Art. not the increased value resulting from the passage of time. sometime in 1924 the Government took this land for road-right-of-way purpose.. 1250 applies only to cases where a contract or agreement is involved. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground of sovereign immunity. the basis should be the price or value thereof at the time of the taking. The SC on appeal reversed the CFI and remanded the case for the purpose of determining the compensation to be paid Amigable. The Sol-Gen appealed the decision. she filed in the CFI of Cebu a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession plus damages. represents the value to be paid as just compensation for the prop. w/c invariably brings unearned increment to real estate. w/c is alleged to have violated the condition under w/c it received gratuitously certain prop. the SC decided in her favor. Santiago v. Although it was shown that she had not previously filed her claim with the Auditor General as normally required. for recovery of the value of her property which had been converted into public streets without payment to her of just compensation.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition raised was the right of the plaintiff to sue the govt. however did not heed the directive but instead took into account supervening inflation of the currency and adjusted the value in accordance with the prevailing peso-dollar exchange rate. to invoke its immunity. In this instant case. This complaint was dismissed on the grounds of estoppel and the statute of limitations and also on the ground of non-suability of the Government. The value of the property at the time the govt took possession of the land in question. taken. It would. Since it would be against equity and justice to allow such a defense in this case. as donee. HELD: Ordinarily. Republic. however. Commissioner of Public Highways v Burgos. It does not apply where the obligation to pay arises from law. In 1959. He claimed that the donee failed to comply w/ the condition of the donation that the donee should install a lighting and water system on the prop. consent to be sued could be presumed.

the ordinary rule for execution would not apply. the Commission took possession of the vessel and considered the contract of sale cancelled. Froilan appealed from the action of the Commission and he was restored to all the rights under the original contract. RP raised. the SC held that when the State itself files a complaint. recovery of a vessel. 30. If it does not pay.3083 Sec. impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for the purpose of asserting a claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff. the State's immunity from suit. Pan Oriental answered the complaint in intervention praying that if RP succeeded in obtaining the possession of the vessel. HELD: By filing its complaint in intervention. Hence. the right to set up whatever claims and other defenses he might have against the State. For various reasons including non-payment of installments. 30. However. express or implied. the govt in effect waived its right of nonsuability. 1950). xxx When a money judgment is given against the government. This is based on equitable grounds. A writ of replevin was issued. 1950) F: Froilan purchased from Shipping Commission a vessel for P200. The Commission chartered and delivered said vessel to Pan Oriental. The SC ruled that the govt. Froilan vs Oriental Pan Shipping. The latter automatically acquires. as ground for the dismissal of Pan O's counterclaim. by taking the initiative in an action against a private party.000 paying P50 T downpayment. (d) Scope of consent (1) Under Act No. Counterclaim of Pan O. this appeal. files a complaint. for the consent of the government to be sued is only up to the point of judgment. Froilan filed a complaint to recover possession of the vessel. among others. it cannot be compelled to pay by attachment or otherwise (how does one attach the Quezon bridge?) PAGE 76 . w/in certain limits. to comply w/ its obligation of delivering it to Pan Oriental pursuant to their contract of bareboat charter w/ option to purchase. The Govt intervened alleging that Froilan failed to pay the balance to the Commission. Adapted. that the intervenor was entitled to the possession of said vessel under the terms of the original contract or in order for it to effect the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Pan Oriental retained the possession of the vessel. which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. the Government of the Philippines hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract. the defendant is entitled to file a counterclaim against it. RP filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim w/c Pan Oriental had filed against it in view of the court's order dismissing the complaint in intervention. defendant may file a counterclaim against it In Froilan vs Oriental Pan Shipping. Subject to the provisions of this Act. 12 SCRA 276. the State surrendered its privileged position and came down to the level of the def. Complaint in intervention was dismissed upon Froilan's payment of his account to the RP. to wit. Stated otherwise. A CM was executed to secure the payment of the balance. 1.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (3) If the Govt. against RP was dismissed. GR L-6060 (Sept. GR L-6060 (Sept.

The estate filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Tomas Hashim. as appropriated by law. xxx [It] is incumbent upon the legislature to appropriate any additional amount. A notice of garnishment. together w/ a writ of execution was served on PNB. in question. the estate filed a complaint for the recovery of the FMV against the Bureau of Public Highways (BPH. Nothing having come out of the claim. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriations as required by law. the judgement that is thus rendered requiring its payment of the award determined as just compensation for the condemned prop. the estate of Hashim. In 1958. notifying it that levy was thereby made upon the funds of petitioner Bureau and the Auditor General on deposit. If the judge nonetheless issues a writ of execution against government funds or property. no ordinary civil action can be filed against the judge.) Commissioner of Public Highways v San Diego. Hashim needed to construct EDSA. But. (Commissioner of Public Highways v San Diego. Resp. Petitioners contend that PNB acted precipitately in having delivered the amount w/o affording petitioner Bureau a reasonable time to contest the validity of the garnishment. since the Govt cannot keep the land and dishonor the judgment. is based on obvious considerations of public policy. in expropriation proceedings. authorized the issuance of a cashier's check of the bank in the amount of the judgment/ compromise agreement. the Govt filed a complaint for eminent domain (ED) in the CFI for the expropriation of land belonging to N. filed a money claim w/ the QC Engr's Office. cannot be realized upon execution. that may be necessary to pay the award determined in the judgment. in his capacity as Chief. On 11/25/40. (2) Under a charter PAGE 77 . a reinstatement of the funds to government accounts and refund by the private party can be ordered. Documentation Staff of PNB's Legal Dept.T. xxx The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law. upon deposit w/ the city treasurer of the sum fixed by the court as the provisional value of all the lots needed to construct the road.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The procedure is for one to furnish the Office of the President with the decision so it could include the amount in the budget for the next year as the basis for appropriation (since there can be no disbursement of public funds except in pursuance of law). 31 SCRA 616 (1970) F: On 11/20/40. 31 SCRA 616 (1970). RAM.) The parties entered into a compromise agreement w/c was approved by the CFI. it may limit claimant's claim "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts end when the judgment is rendered. through its Judicial Administrator. as a condition precedent to the transfer to the title thereto in its favor. unless there is a showing of malice.. over and above the provisional deposit. the Govt took possession of the prop. as pltff. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. w/c was alleged to be the FMV of the prop. HELD: Although the govt. Coruna. It demands that the bank credit the petitioner's account w/ the amount garnished. w/c the court granted. reiterating the case of Alsua v Johnson. since govt funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments. submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and thereby waives its immunity from suit.

or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots. or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. the consent does not stop with the rendition. or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office. or which tend to stir up the people against the unlawful authorities x x x". Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. V. any judgment against it could be enforced by a writ of execution. or circulate scurrilous libels against the U. 8 of Act No. Government 1. The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the "Manila Freedom". publish. U. write. No. Government or the Insular Goverment of the Phil. Ultimately. 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 or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. 339). (e) Measure of recovery When property has been unlawfully taken by the government so that it is now compelled to make payment. For Art 1250 of the Civil Code concerning supervening inflation has no application in eminent domain cases. supra. the SC held that since the PHHC had the capacity to be sued. The value of the peso in relation to the dollar at the time of taking cannot be considered.S. being applicable only to contractual obligations [Commissioner of Public Highways v Burgos. vs. (not in V. 81 SCRA 314 (1978). the face value of the peso then is the amount to be paid now. The article mentioned about the "foolish work that the Civil Commission is doing all over the Islands" referring to the appointment by the latter of natives which were referred to as "insurgents" and "rogues" to important Government positions.S. 8 of ACT. Dorr (2 Phil 332) F: The defendants were convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense of writing. Islands. and its funds could even be garnished. 292 of the Commission which punishes any person who shall "utter seditious words or speeches. but goes up to the satisfaction of the judgment. 81 SCRA 314 (1978). the measure of recovery is the fair market value of the property at the time of taking (Ministerio v CFI. In PNB v CIR. ISSUE: Whether the publication constitutes an offense under Sec. D. The complaint is based upon Sec. 96 SCRA 831 (1980)].POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition When consent to be sued is provided by the charter. 2 Phil 332. and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. 40 SCRA 464). PNB v CIR. (US v Dorr. publishing. Mendoza's revised outline). 292 PAGE 78 .

however.) (not in VV's outline) a. public charity. and it is quite apparent that. it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority of the U. 292 of the U. In PVTA v. that such distinction has been blurred bec. such as public works. and regulation of trade and industry. Federation of Labor Unions.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: NO. Functions Cruz: The govt performs two kinds of functions. constituent and ministrant functions is not relevant in our jurisdiction. and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties. of the repudiation of the laissez faire policy in the Consti. xxx This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power every State. it reiterated the ruling in ACCFA v. though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its individual members.S. Doctrine of Parens Patriae Cruz: One of the important tasks of the govt is to act for the State as parens patriae. the constituent and the ministrant. The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the U. Adapted. De Jure and De Facto Governments Cruz: PAGE 79 . or guardian of the rights of the people. 30 SCRA 649. c. xxx b. CIR. These functions are merely optional. to wit. The term "government" as employed in ACT No. The form of Goverment by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is not assailed.S. the distinction bet.. is enforced in these islands. It is the character of the men who are instructed with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute. Note on the case: Administration means the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of the govt are for the time being (entrusted.S. xxx Ministrant functions are those undertaken to advance the general interests of society. Constituent functions constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore compulsory. 65 SCRA 416. xxx To our SC. whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature. Philippine Commission is used in the abstract sense of the existing political system as distinguished from the concrete organism of the Government.

or usurps. The characteristics of this kind of de facto govt are: (a) Its existence is maintained by active military power w/in the territories. this has been withdrawn from it or bec. "Government of the Philippines" defined Government of the Republic of the Philippines is defined as "the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines. municipal or barangay subdivisions or other form of local government. do not become responsible. In a litigation concerning NACOCO. city. including. save as the contrary appears from the context. the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines. But according to Confederation of Government Employees v Agrarian Reform. for those acts. it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who. A de facto govt. the government counsel appeared for it and obtained a transcript of stenographic notes." [Adinistrative Code of 1987. (3) That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemey in the course of war. is a govt of fact.no longer holds under the 1935 Constitution. the provincial. either bec. PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT (not in V. Sec. by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition A de jure govt has rightful title but no power or control. (2) That established as an independent govt by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state. (b) During its existence. it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.constituent and ministrant . by force or by the voice of the majority. Is NACOCO part of the government? The SC held that it is not because NACOCO was organized to perform ministrant functions.] Case: NACOCO is a government entity organized to promote the coconut industry. which imposed a greater role on the government. whether pertaining to the autonomous regions. as wrongdoers. like the Second Republic of the Phils. it actually exercises power or control but w/o legal title.V. though not warranted by the laws of the rightful govt. and w/c is denominated as a govt of paramount force. 2(1). that is. and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful govt. Under the Rules of Court. The three kinds of de facto govt are as follows: (1) The govt that gets possession and control of. the government is exempted from payment of the transcript. on the other hand. Mendoza's revised outline) Preamble PAGE 80 . the distinction between the two functions of the government . the rightful legal govt and maintans itself against the will of the latter. III. 2. established by the Japanese belligerent.

Until then. in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations. While the 1935 Constitution started with "The Filipino people . the 1987 Constitution refers Almighty God. 1. the sovereign Filipino people.. equality. which is more personal. or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. property. Sec. 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.) A.. While the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions referred to the Divine Providence. 2. 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. Sec. freedom. SUFFRAGE.. who are at least eighteen years of age. 1. and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth. Art. The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Sec. the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions begin the preamble with "We. do ordain and promulgate this Constitution." The change from third person point of view to a first person point of view emphasizes that the Filipinos themselves are the ones establishing the Constitution. V. The third person presupposes someone talking about the Filipino people. justice. II. imploring the aid of Almighty God. and (2) state the general principles upon which the Constitution is founded." . Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. 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. Principles It is a standard to be observed because it is required by justice or fairness or other dimensions of morality 1. promote the common good. (Sets the tone for the succeeding provisions. love. the sovereign Filipino people . Sovereignty of its People and Republicanism Art.. A preamble has two functions: (1) identify the authors of the Constitution. and peace. No literacy. conserve and develop our patrimony. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition We. and yet that someone is himself a Filipino. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. (not in VV's outline) PAGE 81 .

4) Recall (Under the Local Government Code. Sec. in order to build a just and humane society and establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations. and even abolition of local offices d) creating metropolitan authorities. approving any changes in boundaries. except to the extent reserved to the people by provision on initiative and referendum. Thus. divisions.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. and PAGE 82 . There is observance of principle of separation of powers and of checks and balances. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. conserve and develop our patrimony. 4. of. and by the people. 2. 2.enacting or proposing laws. It is a govt of laws and not of men. 1. it is equally the case that they cannot exercise the powers of government directly. imploring the aid of Almighty God. 2) Plebiscite a) ratifying the Constitution b) approving any amendment thereto c) with respect to local matters. Their participation in government consists of : 1) Suffrage .) [as added by Prof. 3. the sovereign Filipino people. Barlongay. but only through the medium of their duly elected representatives. mergers. while it is true that the people are the possessors of sovereign power. There is observance of the role that the legislature cannot pass or enact irrepealable laws. a government for. But it is not a pure democracy. the Philippines is a democratic state that is. and e) creating autonomous regions 3) Initiative and referendum . in a referendum. Adherence to International Law Preamble We. promote the common good.electing the officials to whom they delegate the right of government. Under this principle. local or national. There is periodic holding of elections. VI.] Barlongay: Features of Republicanism: 1.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES A Commentary. troops. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. consistent with the national interest. do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. "Adopts the generally accepted principles of international law" means the Philippines uses the incorporation theory.) Art. 4. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. and adheres to the policy of peace. justice. Sec. and amity with all nations. In its relations with other states. love." (Joaquin Bernas. cooperation. The Philippines. national interest. 8. as shown by the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. PAGE 83 . Art. freedom. Sec. II. adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. justice. II. and the right to self. the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty. One view holds that the Constitution itself has decided to have no nuclear interest as the policy of the State. The other view holds that. It is the intent and sense of the Constitutional Commission that the phrase "consistent with national interest" xxx also means "subject to the national interest. 1988 ed. 2. XVIII. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth. Art. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. II. vol. territorial integrity. II. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between Republic of the Philippines and United States of America concerning Military Bases. Art. foreign military bases. and peace. XVIII. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. equality. "Adherence to the principles of international law" was adopted from the Kellogg Brian Pact. equality. 25. the phrase should be read as "subject to national interest" which means that the issue of whether to allow the stock-piling of nuclear weapons depends on Congressional policy .determination. these principles of international law become part of the Philippine body of laws from the municipal point of view. 7. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting parties. "Consistent with national interest" admits of two interpretations. Without need of statute. Sec. when the Congress requires. Sec. Art. freedom. Sec.

18. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The President shall be the Commander-in. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State. the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. as may be provided by law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. in the same manner. VII. Sec. and whenever it becomes necessary. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days. nor authorise the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. when the public safety requires it.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The reason why the agreement must be recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state is so it is approved by its own Senate. II. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. XVI. if not in session. XVI. Civilian authority is at all times. Art. The Congress. Sec. and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. (2) The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. 4. The Congress. committing its legislature to honor the agreement and preventing it from refusing appropriations therefore. The Supreme Court may review. supreme over the military. 3. Sec. for a period not exceeding sixty days. 3. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. 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. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo military training and service. and not just by its President (executive agreement). the Congress may. The suspension of the privilege shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. invasion or rebellion. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of that national territory. PAGE 84 . 5. thus. Supremacy of Civilian Authority Art. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. Art. Sec. Upon the initiative of the President. may revoke such proclamation or suspension. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. In case of invasion or rebellion. Art. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. he may. (1) All members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend the Constitution. otherwise he shall be released. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. shall within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension.Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. voting jointly. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies.

Art. The maintenance of peace and order. 5. (vii) a 3-year limitation on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff. including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries. so as to avoid propagation of power). military or civil service. II Sec. The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be insulated from partisan politics. be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government. (ii) the requirement that members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. (6) The officers and men of the regular force of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. The State shall establish and maintain one police force. II. (viii) requirement of professional recruitment. the President may extend such tour of duty.staying of officers).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (3) Professionalism in the Armed Forces of the Philippines and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law. are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessing of democracy. (v) prohibition against the appointment to a civil position. to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. all citizens may be required under conditions provided by law. so as to avoid any regional clique from forming within the AFP. (4) No members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the active service shall. the protection of life. (vi) compulsory retirement of officers (no over. which although extendible in case of emergency by the President. However. and respect for human rights. which shall be national in scope and civilian in character. (iv) insulation of the AFP from partisan politics. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity. (i) the installation of the President. at any time. Sec. PAGE 85 . as well as (ix) the establishment of a police force that is not only civilian character but also under the local executives. The supremacy of civilian rule over the military is ensured by. Government as Protector of the People and People as Defenders of the State Art. as the commander-in-chief of the military. (iii) the professionalization of the service and the strengthening of the patriotism and nationalism. depends on Congressional declaration of emergency. of the military. (7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall not exceed three years. (5) Laws on retirement of military officers shall not allow extension of their service. 4. the highest civilian authority. (not in VV's outline) Sec. and the promotion of the general welfare. 4. liberty. in the fulfillment thereof. to render personal. which is the fundamental law of the civil government. and property. 6.

and all lands. rather than vice-versa. No public money or property shall be appropriated. except when such priest. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. 5. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution. The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable. Sec. 2(5) xxx Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered (as a political party. churches.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Note the emphasis on the government as servant of the people. At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians. sectarian institution. 6. charitable. non-profit cemeteries. peasant. shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or PAGE 86 . or any penal institution. applied. parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto. or coalition by the COMELEC). Art. Sec. 5(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. 28(3). or system of religion. or support of any sect. Sec. church. VI. by selection or election from the labor. Art. Charitable institutions. IX. denomination. Sec. without discrimination or preference. women. and improvements. 5. or of any priest. urban poor. Separation of Church and State Art. Sec. or government orphanage or leprosarium. indigenous cultural communities. Sec. Sec. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. buildings. Art. Art. Educational institutions. minister. paid or employed directly or indirectly. preacher. other than those established by religious groups and mission boards. or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. or dignitary as such. organization. 3(3). youth. Sec. III. 29(2). without additional cost to the Government. actually. and exclusively used for religious. Note also that the people may by law are required to render "personal" (not proxy) military or civil service. 4(2). as provided by law. 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. for the use. or other religious teacher. minister. one-half of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled. Exceptions: Art. and such other sectors as may be provided by law. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. mosques. except the religious sector. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. C. shall forever be allowed. preacher. benefit. directly. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. VI. II. XIV.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition associations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. however. while generally prohibited from being spent for religious purposes as an aspect of the Non. pursuant to a closedshop agreement in the CBA. in Aglipay v Ruiz. If members of the AFP had to go out of the barracks to attend to their spiritual needs. it was likewise promoting the free exercise thereof. (2) Public funds. for if they were really so. that ecclesiastics are not prohibited from running for Congress). or a government orphanage or leprosarium. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines. the Church should be taxed by State like any other entity. if inmates were allowed to go out of jail to hear mass. for other foreign temporary residents. The Congress may. unless otherwise provided by law. not a chalice). In Elizalde v Victoriano. It is difficult to draw the line between separation of Church and State. The non-establishment clause is not violated. if the benefit derived by a religion from the expenditure of public funds is merely incidental to public purpose. may be applied to priest rendering religious service to the AFP. for instance. yet it allows exceptions to the rule. No educational institutions shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of aliens shall comprise more than 1/3 of the enrollment in any school. a penal institution. The reason is the exigency of the service. national security might be endangered. While the Constitution mandates separation of Church and State through (1) NonEstablishment. Not having been inspired by any sectarian feeling to favor a denomination nor to benefit the Roman Catholic Church. The classic case in separation of church and state is Pamil v Teleron. (note however. Free Exercise and No Religious Test clauses in the Bill of Rights. which invalidated the selection to a local post of Fr. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and. For although the law amounted to an establishment of religion. (1) The exemption of religious institutions from taxation is a recognition that the Church is not all separate from State. they might never return. because its main purpose was to promote Manila as seat of the congress and thus to attract tourists to its (the stamp showed the map of the Philippines. a law exempting members of Iglesia ni Kristo from the requirement that all employees must join a union as condition for continued employment. PAGE 87 . whatever religious character the stamp had was only incidental and uncontemplated. however. require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions. (ii) the disallowance of the religious sector from being registered as a political party and from being appointed as sectoral representatives of Congress.Establishment clause. on the ground that it is prohibited by their religion. Thus. was held valid. and if lepers were allowed out of the leprosarium. the SC held that the stamps printed by the government to commemorate the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress in Manila did not violate the separation of church and state. they might contaminate others. Gonzaga.

Under A359 of the Civil Code. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. consistent with the national interest. ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. Sec. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between Republic of the Philippines and United States of America concerning Military Bases. (3) The permission to have optimal religious instruction during regular class hours upon written request of the parent or guardian. so long as the parents ask for it. they cannot be established exclusively for aliens. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and. 25. including sectarian schools. and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting parties. II. Furthermore. national interest. Art. 8. must be in the hands of Filipinos. 4. The Philippines. 7. to be taught by a teacher approved by the authorities of the religion of which the child is a member.determination. In its relations with other states. and the right to self. territorial integrity. teaches Mathematics at UP. provided it is without cost to the government is a new provision in the Constitution. all schools must be owned by citizens or 60% Filipino corporations. generally an improvement in economic. the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. All existing treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed or extended without the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. the instruction could not be within regular class hours. for instance. A Just and Dynamic Social Order PAGE 88 . Independent foreign policy and a nuclear free Philippines Art. Under the old Administrative Code. XVIII. troops.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The general prohibition. foreign military bases. Sec. religious instruction would even be made part of the curriculum (with grades and failing marks). Sec. Art. The control and administration of all schools. 2. and the alien population in the school should not exceed 1/3. does not apply to a priest who. XVIII. for payment in this case is not for religious activities but for teaching of a secular subject. (4) With the exception of sectarian schools. Policies A policy is a standard which sets out a goal to be reached. Sec. Art. B. political or social feature of the community 1. II. however. when the Congress requires.

income. 1.. II. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. reduce social. Sec.' but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. contains the most expanded concept of Social Justice. economic and political inequalities. through the adoption of measures legally justifiable. through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community. Art. Sec.. a rising standard of living. 10. or extra-constitutionally. Art. use. and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy. the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society. nor despotism. Art. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people. the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.. Sec. promote the common good.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Preamble . where Justice Laurel declared as follows: "Social Justice is 'neither communism. and an improved quality of life for all. ownership. the State shall regulate the acquisition. Promotion of social justice Barlongay: The 1987 Constitution. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities." Art. especially the underprivileged. 1. preserve and develop our patrimony. 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. XII. To this end. and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all. a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people. constitutionally. Sec. promote full employment. nor atomism. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.. II. PAGE 89 . a. The classic definition of Social Justice is found in Calalang vs. and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. wealth. XIII. in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations. compared to the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution. 9. nor anarchy. and disposition of property and its increments. Williams. 70 P 726.

(not in VV's revised outline) Art. The prohibition however does not include positions held without additional compensation in ex officio capacities as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of the concerned official's office. Respect for human dignity and human rights Art. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. 17 PAGE 90 . 7. Sec. Art. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. agency or instrumentality thereof. 13. Sec. 2. However. EO 284 limits the number of government posts of cabinet members to not more than 2. Members of the cabinet (Secretaries and Undersecretaries): Some are of the view that the clause "unless otherwise provided by law" implies that when there is a law allowing so. or as Secretaries. XVI.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. XIII. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Member of the Constitutional Commissions. even if not affiliated to his cabinet position. Sec. XIII. and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Undersecretaries. see Executive Dept. Art. 11. and (2) Department Secretary (VV). VII. including government owned or controlled corporations or subsidiaries. (not in VV's outline) Art. no appointive official shall hold any other employment in the Government or any subdivision. Sec. 5(2). The President cannot hold any other post except those allowed by the Constitution. Sec. Sec. (1) Chairman of NEDA. he may be appointed to any other government post. B. The Vice-President can hold a cabinet seat without need of confirmation. Art. II. II. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military. IX.: Prohibitions. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position. and respect for people's rights in the performance of their duty. including government-owned or controlled corporations. or the Office of the Ombudsman. 2. viz. EO 284 has been declared unconstitutional by the SC in the case of Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary (194 S 317).] b. Sec.. par. [For further discussion.

Sec. (1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human PAGE 91 . and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights. bureau. prisons. office. education. (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of document or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission taking into account its recommendation. compensation to victims of violations of human rights. as well as Filipinos residing abroad. (7) Monitor the Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. II. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions: (1) Investigate on its own or on complaint by any party all forms of human rights violations involving civil or political rights. and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection. Sec. (4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails. (6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and provide for. Fundamental equality of women and men Art. or their families. 14.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines. c. (10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law. 18. or agency in the performance of its functions. (2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. (3) Until this Commission is constituted. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building. 19. the existing Presidential Commission on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members shall be provided by law. or detention facilities. and (11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law. (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all person within the Philippines. (5) Establish a continuing program of research. and shall ensure the fundamental equality of men and women before the law. (4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released. and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. (the following 2 provisions are not in VV's revised outline) Rights. Sec. (9) Request the assistance of any department.

IV. women. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. Sec. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged sick. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. 4. (not in VV's revised outline) Art. Sec. Sec. Sec. d. PAGE 92 . Chapter I of the Labor Code) granting women better treatment by virtue of their maternal function were valid. Promotion of health Art. and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation. the National Defense Act) One significant move to equalize men and women is in the area of citizenship. Sec. Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. whether born before or after 17 January 1973. XIII. 1(2) in relation with Sec. The 1973 Constitution removed this stigma and made such born after 17 January 1973 a Filipino without the need of election. unless by their act or omission they are deemed under the law. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods. The following are citizens of the Philippines: xxx (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. II. became citizens of their husband's country no longer lost her Philippine citizenship by that fact alone. Filipino women who by virtue of marriage to an alien husband. In the area of labor it has been consistently held. Under the 1935 Constitution. At the same time. XIII. elderly. beginning 17 January 1973. Title III. The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions. disabled. The 1987 Constitution improved the situation even more by granting to those children born before 17 January 1973 who elected citizenship. (See also CA No. to have renounced it. a child born of a Filipino mother became a Filipino only upon election when he reached the age of majority. 14. and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. 11. 1. 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. taking into account their maternal functions. the status of natural-born citizens. Sec. 4. beginning in the US with Sandy v Oregon ( the court requiring the company to provide stools for women workers in the factories). 16. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. 15. that statutes (Book 3.

while affirming the right of students to quality education. 17. XIII. and promote total human liberation and development. In Villar v Technological Institute of the Philippines. at the same time incurred scholastic deficiencies. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods. BARLONGAY CASE: PAGE 93 . women and children. science. culture and sports (ESTACS) Art. and to make education available only on the basis of merit. a case involving the denial of enrollment of student activists who took part in demonstrations and mass actions. elderly. Sec. accelerate social programs. e. culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism. arts. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged. disabled. and who. responsive to the country's health needs and problems. But this is subject to the right of the school to impose reasonable academic standards. the SC again upheld the right of schools of higher learning to choose the students which it thinks could best achieve their goal of excellence and truth. 135 SCRA 706 (1985). but that failure in academic subjects pursuant to school regulations was a valid ground. sick. 11. The Court held that participation in mass actions per se is not a valid ground for dismissal. Priority of education. The State shall give priority to education. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. 137 SCRA 245 (1985). technology. science. Sec. a case of a nursing student who was denied readmission after she failed a subject during her previous provisional admission (and her inability to take this subject in another school after she tried to bribe the Dean of that school). Art. Sec. 13. 12. Sec. Students have the constitutional right not only to education but to a quality education.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all." In Tagonan v Cruz Pano. XIV. and their integration to the mainstream of society. up to the secondary level. Sec. it is available only "on the basis of merit. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation. II. 1. self-development and self-reliance. for free. arts. For while the right to education is a social. economic and cultural right.e technology.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533 (1989) F: The private resp. is a graduate of UE w/ a degree of BS Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the
NMAT 3 times and flunked it as many times. When he applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of the rule allowing only 3 chances for a student to take the NMAT. He then went to the RTC-Valenzuela to compel his admission to the test. xxx By agreement of the parties, pvt. resp. was allowed to take the NMAT on 4/16/89 subject to the outcome of his petition. xxx After the hearing, the resp. judge rendered a decision declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition on the ground that the petitioner had been deprived of her right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.

HELD: We cannot sustain the resp. judge. Her decision must be reversed. In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education. xxx We see no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least initially by the admission test and, indeed w/ more reliability, by the 3-flunk rule. Exercise of Police Power.-- The power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject of the challenged regulation is w/in the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents. xxx The method employed by the regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The 3-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. The right to quality education is not absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. The challenged regulation does not violate the equal protection clause. A law does not have to operate w/ equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to the equal protection clause. There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists bet. medical students and other students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the 3-flunk rule. The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers w/c, for this reason, do not require more vigilant regulation.

PAGE 94

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

There would be unequal protection if some applicants who have passed the tests are admitted and others who have also qualified are denied entrance. In other words, what the equal protection requires is equality among equals. RAM. f. Urban land reform and housing Art. XIII, Sec. 9. The State shall by law, and for the common good, undertake in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program, the State shall respect the rights of small property owners. Sec. 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated. The limitations to the power of the State in this regard: 1. Respect for the rights of property owners. 2. In the case of resettlement, said program must be with the permission of the persons to be resettled, and the community to which they would be resettled. g. Reform in agriculture and other natural resources Art. II, Sec. 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. Art. XIII, Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress may presecribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculuture thourgh approrpriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.

PAGE 95

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agragian reform or stewarship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the p ublic domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. 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. Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, expecially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. Sec. 8. The State shall provde incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. The basic philosophy behind agrarian reform is "land to the tiller" if one is a regular farm worker and "profit sharing" in other cases. But "just compensation" and a "reasonable retention limit" are guaranteed the land owner. Common limitations to land reform (urban or agrarian): It must not impair the rights of small agricultural land owners, small homestead settlers, and small property owners; The idea of reform is to benefit the poor and other peasants and the landless. It would therefore, be self-defeating for the Constitution to make no reservation in favor of small property owners and homestead settlers. The basic philosophy behind other natural resources is the principle of "stewardship" --anyone who is given the chance to cultivate public land must use in trust for the succeeding generations, and so must exercise prudence in its use. h. Protection of labor Art. II. Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Art. XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

PAGE 96

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self- organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitle to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making process affecting the rights and benefits as may be provided by law. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth. The basic philosophy behind labor is shared responsibility and the preferential use of voluntary and peaceful for the settlement of disputes. The right of government workers to form unions Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Art. IX, B, Sec. 2(5). government employees. The right of self-organization shall not be denied to

(not in VV's revised outline) Sec. 2(1). The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. The right of government workers to form unions is undisputed under Art III(8) of the Constitution. (This provision is even misplaced since the Bill of Rights only covers civil and political rights.) The problem is whether they have the right to strike. Those who hold the negative view say that the right to self- organization is mentioned in Art III(8) separately from the right to strike in Art XIII(3). If it is included, there would be no need to explicate the two anymore. But those who hold the affirmative view say that although the Constitution does not explicitly grant it, Congress can always grant the right to government workers. The Constitution does not prohibit it in Art III(8) in the phrase "for purposes not contrary to law". Besides the right to self-organization is rendered nugatory without the coercive tool of strike (which is true because the strike at issue is only the economic strike, not the ULP strike). It must be noted that the SC ruled in Alliance of Government Workers v Minister of Labor, 124 SCRA 1, under the 1973 Constitution, that government workers cannot negotiate for

PAGE 97

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

terms and condition of employment, for these are a matter of law. Their remedy is to report to their own heads and to convince Congress to enact the desired law. Said the Court: Civil servants are entitled to form societies for purposes not contrary to law. But to form an association is one thing, and to use such association for the coercive measure of going on strike and bargaining with the government so as to pressure it into complying with their demands, is another. In NHA v Juco (134 SCRA 172), the SC held that those in the government service cannot bargain collectively as private workers because they are governed by the Civil Service Law. It also held that all govt-owned or controlled corporations regardless of their manner of creation, were covered by the Civil Service. In interpreting the ruling in the above cases, we have to distinguish between two kinds of government corporations in accordance with Art. IX, B, Sec. 2(1): a) those which were organized with special charters, in case the employees are governed by the Civil Service Law and arguably by the SC ruling in Alliance, and b) those which were organized pursuant to the general law (Corporation Code), in which case their employees can without doubt bargain collectively and go on strike. The grant of the right to form unions is a social economic right included for the first time in the Constitution. Previously, only political and civil rights were guaranteed government employees. Question : Does the right to self-organization given to govt. employees include the right to strike? SSS Employees Assn vs CA, 175 SCRA 686 (1989) F: SSS filed w/ the RTC-QC a complaint for damages w/ a prayer for a writ of prel inj. against petitioners
SSSEA, alleging that the officers and members of the latter staged an illegal strike and barricaded the entrances to the SSS building preventing non-striking employees from reporting to work and SSS members from transacting business w/ SSS. The Public Sector Labor-Management Council ordered the strikers to return to work but the strikers refused to do so. The SSSEA went on strike bec. SSS failed to act on the union's demands. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, w/c motion was denied. The restraining order w/c was previously issued was converted into an injunction after finding the strike illegal. Petitioners appealed the case to the CA. The latter held that since the employees of SSS are govt employees, they are not allowed to strike.

HELD: Employees in the Civil Service may not resort to strikes, walkouts and other temporary work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, in order to pressure the Govt. to accede to their demands. As now provided under Sec. 4, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Govt. EEs to Self-Organization which took effect after the initial dispute arose, the terms and conditions of employment in the Govt, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and govt. owned and controlled corporations with original charters, are governed by law and employees therein shall not strike for the purpose of securing changes thereof.

PAGE 98

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

The statement of the court in Alliance of Govt Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment (124 SCRA 1) is relevant as it furnishes the rationale for distinguishing bet. workers in the private sector and govt employees w/ regard to the right to strike?
Since the terms and conditions of govt. employment are fixed by law, govt. workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion of law. Relations bet. private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. In govt employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of govt w/c fix the terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through CBA's

EO 180, w/c provides guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of govt employees, while clinging to the same philosophy, has, however, relaxed the rule to allow negotiation where the terms and conditions of employment involved are not among those fixed by law. Govt employees may, therefore, through their unions or associations, either petition the Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment which are w/in the ambit of legislation or negotiate w/ the appropriate govt agencies for the improvement of those w/ are not fixed by law. If there be any unresolved grievances, the dispute may be referred to the Public Sector Labor-Management Council for appropriate action. RAM. BARLONGAY CASE: Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323 F:
On September 17, 1990, Monday, at least 800 public school teachers proceeded to the national office of the DECS and aired their grievances. The mass action continued into the week despite the DECS Secretary's RETURN TO WORK order. The Secretary filed administrative charges against the protesting teachers. The Secretary rendered the questioned decisions in the administrative proceeding. He dismissed some teachers and placed others in under suspension. Two separate petitions were filed to assail the validity of the return to work order and his decisions in the administrative proceeding.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MASS ACTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AS STRIKES? HELD: Yes. The mass actions constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of, or absence from work, which it was the teachers' duty to perform, undertaken for essentially economic reasons. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS CAN STRIKE?

PAGE 99

and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. This provision seems to be the basis of an argument that abortion is prohibited by the Constitution. political. is the determination of when life begins. aside from the provision on initiative and referendum. Adapted. recourse is with the RTC where there would be opportunity to prove relevant facts. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. It might also be the basis of a stand against family planning. Sec. The remedy is for the petitioners to participate in the administrative proceedings. It can not resolve the issue which requires the establishment of some facts. facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. Independent People's Organizations Art. The State shall encourage non. membership and structure. XIII. 23. II. The State. It resolves questions of law where there is no dispute of the facts or that the facts have been already determined by the lower tribunals. of course. 12. 15. The root of the problem. If they lost. II. It is not a trier of facts. within the democratic framework. Employees of the public service do not have the right to strike although they have the right to self organization and negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the improvement of working conditions. 16. This is in recognition of people's power. shall by law. community-based. Sec. PAGE 100 .governmental. immediate recourse to judicial authority was believed necessary. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect. or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. Sec. If pending said administrative proceedings. they may appeal to the Civil Service Commission.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: No. 3. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS WAS OBSERVED DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS? HELD: This court is a court of last resort. Art. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social. Family as a Basic Autonomous Social Institution Art. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. Sec. People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership. 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. i.

and special protection from all forms of neglect. (2) The right of children to assistance. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature. and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. consequence and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. moral.) 4. 2. 13. Sec. 1. intellectual and social well-being. Marriage. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. 4. abuse. as an inviolable social institution. consequences. Sec. Self-Reliant and Independent Economic Order PAGE 101 . Art. and under that Code. cruelty. 52.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The right of parents to rear their children is the only natural right recognized by the Constitution. (Civil Code. it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its development. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism. Art. Art. Sec. Sec. The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family according to their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood. is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Some cite this provision as the basis of a stand against divorce. The State recognizes the vital role of youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical. and encourage their involvement in public and civil affairs. And yet not really. The phrase " inviolable social institution. including proper care and nutrition. This is a declaration that the State does not espouse fascism which holds that the State owns the life of everyone. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security. Accordingly. Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution." was lifted from Art. 52 of the Civil code. except that the marriage settlements may be to a certain extent fix the property relations during the marriage. II. 1. divorce was part of the proposed draft submitted to Congress by the Code Commission and was almost approved if not for reasons other than compatibility with Art. Sec. 52. except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income. exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development. (Family Code.) Art. and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. spiritual. Its nature. XV. 3.

establish and operate economic enterprises. and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. These provisions reveal that the economic policy of the Philippines is one closer to socialism than capitalism.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. The State adopts a policy of balancing the private sector's pursuit for profit and the concern of the State to promote distributive justice. 6. shall have the right to own. expressed in numerous laws and the Constitution to run its own affairs the way it deems best for the national interest. The use of property bears a social function. the State's full control over the devt. it is the investor which has the final say as to the site and the feedstock to be used. According to the BOI. Sec. The petrochemical plant was to be a joint venture between the PNOC and the BPC which is a Taiwanese group. has been shown by this transfer. The non-alienation of natural resources. and utilization of scarce resources. Sec. 5. No cogent advantage to the govt. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. and not merely what he has contracted for. including corporations. cooperatives and similar collective organizations. Garcia vs BOI (191 SCRA 288) FACTS: The BOI approved the transfer of the site of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and shift of feedstock for that plant from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG. agreements with foreigners being based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country and the regulation of foreign investments in accordance with national goals and priorities are too explicit not to be noticed and understood. 19. and provides incentives to needed investments. HELD: Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimony is infused with the spirit of national interest. encourages private enterprise. Individuals and private groups. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector. The use of "distributive justice" is based on the Aristotelian notion of giving each one what is due him on the basis of personal worth and value. The petrochemical industry is essential to the national interst. Communication and Information in Nation-Building PAGE 102 . The BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion when it approved the transfer of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and authorized the change of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG. Art. XII. subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands. A petrochemical industry is not an ordinary investment opportunity. II. Sec. This is a repudiation of the independent policy of the govt. 20.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Art. II, Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building. Art. XVI, Sec. 10. The State shall the provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respect the freedom of speech and of the press. Sec. 11(1). The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly owned and managed by such citizens. The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed. (2) The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of general welfare. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per cent of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines. Art. XVIII, Sec. 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph 2, Section 11 of Article XVI of this Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a graduated and proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein. Both ownership and management of mass media must be in the hands of Filipinos,

100%.

While monopolies in mass media may be regulated or prohibited, combinations in restraint of and unfair competition in information matters are absolutely prohibited. Commercial advertising is now defined as being vested with public interest, and can thus be owned and managed only by 70% Filipino corporations. 6. Autonomy of Local Governments Art. II, Sec. 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. Art. X. Local Government. GENERAL PROVISIONS

PAGE 103

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. Sec. 3. 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, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, elections, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. Sec. 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. Sec. 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. Sec. 7. Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits. Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected. Sec. 9. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law. Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. Sec. 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities
PAGE 104

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination. Sec. 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials. Sec. 13. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law. Sec. 14. The President shall provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-governmental organizations with the regions for purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate the economic and social growth and development of the units in the region. AUTONOMOUS REGIONS Sec. 15. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics which the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines. Sec. 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. Sec. 17. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions shall be vested in the National Government. Sec. 18. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly, both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. The organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national laws. The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region.
PAGE 105

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Sec. 19. The first Congress elected under this Constitution shall, within eighteen months from the time of organization of both Houses, pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. Sec. 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: (1) Administrative organizations; (2) Creation of sources of revenues; (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources; (4) Personal, family, and property relations; (5) Regional urban and rural planning development; (6) Economic, social, and tourism development; (7) Educational policies; (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and (9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. Sec. 21. The preservation of peace and order within the region shall be the responsibility of the local police agencies which shall be organized, maintained, supervised, and utilized in accordance with applicable laws. The defense and security of the region shall be the responsibility of the National Government. 7. Recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities Art. II, Sec. 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. Art. VI, Sec. 5(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to the party list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. Art. XII, Sec. 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural wellbeing. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. Art. XIII, Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession
PAGE 106

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. Art. XIV, Sec. 17. The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Art. XVI, Sec. 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities. 8. Honest Public Service and Full Public Disclosure Art. II, Sec. 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Honesty of Public Officials Art. XI, Sec. 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, Vice- President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. Art. VI, Sec. 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of proposed legislation of which they are authors. Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. Art. IX, D, Sec. 4. The Commission (on Audit) shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities,
PAGE 107

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

including government-owned or controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit and recommend measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. Art. XI, 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. Sec. 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as the Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed. Sec. 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the Civil Service Law. Sec. 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution. Sec. 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution. Sec. 9. 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, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointment shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur. Sec. 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary, which shall not be decreased during their term of office. Sec. 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the govt., or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including govt. owned or controlled corporations and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

PAGE 108

and the Constitutional Commissions. 15. fraud 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. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. red tape. (4) Direct the officer concerned in any appropriate case. No loan. 20. and ensure compliance therewith. Sec. or transferees. and to examine. 13. the Ombudsman. (7) Determine the causes of inefficiency. 14. if necessary. Sec. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving disbursement or use of public funds or properties. censure. or prosecution. fine. agency or instrumentality thereof. pertinent records and documents. and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. or inefficient (2) Direct. guaranty. office or agency. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly release. Foreign Loans Art. owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities. 16. functions. mismanagement. (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault. the Supreme Court. during their tenure. VII. within thirty days form PAGE 109 . shall not be barred by prescription. or any subdivision. from them or their nominees. or to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest. Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. and recommend his removal. Sec. or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted. unjust. to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law. duties: (1) Investigate on its own or on complaint any act or omission of any public official. XI. the Members of the Cabinet. Sec. any public official or employee of the Government. demotion. (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers. upon complaint or at its own instance. and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. Vice President. suspension. directly or indirectly by any govt. prevent. (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence. or to stop. The Monetary Board shall. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. laches. employee. as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. improper. or estoppel. the Congress.

12. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. 1986 election. based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. Health of the President Art. 21. Valmonte v. XII. and utilization of minerals. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision. shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. Sec. the public shall be informed of the state of his health. submit to Congress a complete report of its decisions 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. Their request was refused on the ground of confidentiality. VII. They requested information from respondent General Manager of the GSIS regarding clean loans granted by the GSIS certain members of the defunct BP on the guaranty of Mrs. Sec. and containing other matters as may be provided by law. In this system. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public. 2. Sec. and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law. within thirty days from its execution. Sec. make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. 4 and 5 thereof. VI. XII. xxx The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition the end of every quarter of the calendar year. development. PAGE 110 .) Art. In such agreements. All members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall upon assumption of office. In case of serious illness of the President. HELD: (1) The cornerstone of the republican system of govt is the delegation of power by the people. petroleum. Executive Agreements on Natural Resources Art. They shall notify the House concerned of potential conflict of interest that may arise form the filing of proposed legislation of which they are authors. 7. Denied access to information on the inner workings of govt. 170 SCRA 256 (1989) F: Petitioners were media practitioners. They brought this suit for mandamus. Belmonte. (pars. Art. Imelda Marcos shortly before the Feb. governmental agencies and institutions operate w/in the limits of the authority conferred by the people. 12. the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information on matters of public concern. institutionalized in the Constitution to protect the people from abuse of governmental power. It is limited to "matters of public concern. would have no such ground for relief. considering the public offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged to have been granted. (5) But. xxx. a corp. the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. (3) The right to privacy cannot be invoked by a juridical entity like GSIS bec. although citizens are afforded the right to information. Neither can the GSIS invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. VV. in granting loans. the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest." (Legaspi v. would certainly be merely empty words if access to such information of public concern is denied. and. The concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their right to privacy. CSC. In sum.) Similarly. except under limitations prescribed by implementing legislation adopted pursuant to the Constitution. The postulate of public office as a public trust. (4) That GSIS." and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in govt. The right to information goes hand in hand w/ the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. Undeniably." The GSIS is a trustee of contributions from the govt and its employees and the administrator of various insurance programs for the benefit of the latter. pursuant thereto." and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Considering the nature of its funds. the GSIS is expected to manage its resources w/ utmost prudence and in strict compliance w/ the pertinent laws or rules and regulations. are entitled to "access to official records. its funds assume a public character. (2) The right to information is not absolute. The right is purely personal in nature. has no right or privacy in its name since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the party and a corp. UPDATED 12/1/95 RAM PAGE 111 . 150 SCRA 530." the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists. Far from it. was exercising a proprietary function would not justify the exclusion of the transactions from the coverage and scope of the right to information.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition the citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated. The right to information is not merely an adjunct of and therefore restricted in application by the exercise of the freedom of speech and of the press. abstracts.

e. the power of appointment." The powers of govt may not at all times be contained w/ mathematical precision in water-tight compartments bec. Laurel. the doctrine is intended to secure action. As a result of this blending of powers. More specifically.There are instances under the Consti. of their ambiguous nature.-. THE SEPARATION OF POWERS Cruz: Purpose. when powers are not confined exclusively w/in one dept but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments. xxx Blending of Powers.g. according to J. w/c can rightfully be exercised by each dept over its own administrative personnel. to forestall overaction.. xxx PAGE 112 . to prevent depotism and to obtain efficiency. As J.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition PART TWO STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT I. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to another.-.The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. Homes put it vividly when he remarked that "the great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. executive or judicial. there is some difficulty now in classifying some of them as definitely legislative.

Senate Art. 3.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition A. Sec. COMPOSITION 24 Senators elected at large by qualified voters QUALIFICATIONS Citizenship: Age on the day of election: Education: Registered voter: Residence: Natural-born citizen 35 Able to read and write In the Philippines 2 years (immediately preceding the election) TERM OF OFFICE Six (6) years To commence unless otherwise provided by law. 4. Sec. VI. Qualifications. unless otherwise provided by law. able to read and write. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected. 2. 2-4 Art. as may be provided by law. and. VI. a registered voter. Sec. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. at noon on June 30 next following the election. Secs. and Term of Office a. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. is at least thirty-five years of age. Sec. (Art. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence. 4) PAGE 113 . VI. Composition. Congress 1. on the day of the election.

women. peasant. regional. (Art. one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled. PAGE 114 . by selection or election from the labor. XVIII. even if he will have served for only 8 years. youth. no voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall be considered for the purpose of interrupting the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. he can no longer run for senator in the year 2001. 5-8 Art. (Art. and such other sectors as may be provided by law. he can still rerun in 2004. or after 1992) is 12 consecutive years. then runs again in 1995. unless otherwise fixed by law. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution. Sec. as provided by law. and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants. who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces. and sectoral parties or organizations. then reruns in 1995. gets the #12 slot. except the religious sector. ends up #13. the limit for regular senators (those elected after the transition. shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national. the senators elected on the 2nd Monday of May. In general. If X runs in 1992. 5 (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members. 2) No Senator shall serve for more than 2 consecutive terms. as provided by law. Secs. 2 of the Transitory provisions. But if X runs in 1992. to serve a term of 6 years. when his term expires at noon of 30 June 1995. since the Constitution talks of 2 consecutive terms. he can no longer run in the senatorial election of 2004.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition But under Sec. 4) A) Regular case: If X runs in 1992. cities. Thereafter. XVIII. he can still rerun in 2001. Sec. and those who. gets the #13 slot. and is re-elected in 1998. b. does not rerun in 1995. 12 senators will be elected every 3 years. Sec. 2) Of the senators elected in the election of 1992. House of Representatives Art. he can no longer run for re-election as senator. even if he will have served for only 9 years. and for this purpose. the first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for 6 years and the remaining 12 for 3 years. (Art. VI. Sec. urban poor. even if in the year 2000 he resigns from office. 1987 shall serve until noon of June 30. but reruns in 1998. and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. If Maceda does not re-run in 1992. 1992. B) Transition: If Maceda reruns in 1992 and ends up in #15. indigenous cultural communities. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number or representatives including those under the party list. VI. VI.

a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected. the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors the seats reserved for sectoral representatives in paragraph (2). and. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people. Art. XVIII. shall have at least one representative. Sec. 7. 8. Until a law is passed. and adjacent territory. 7. or other similar bodies. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and. IX-C. unless otherwise provided by law. as far as practicable. Sec. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand. the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this Section. board of canvassers. Art. contiguous. Sec. or each province. Sec. shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards. at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. 6-8 Art IX-C. on the day of the election. or organizations or coalitions registered under the partylist system. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin. Sec. organization. compact. they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. Unless otherwise provided by law. Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution. boards of election inspectors. able to read and write. 7.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (3) Each legislative district shall comprise. Sec. No votes cast in favor of a political party. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Political parties. Secs. 8. the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. is at least twenty-five years of age. Republic Act 7941 PAGE 115 . and a resident thereof for a period of not less then one year immediately preceding the day of the election. or coalition shall be valid. (4) Within three years following the return of every census. 6. subject to the provisions of this Article. However. Sec. 6. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. except the party-list representatives. except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.

(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of group of citizens who share similar physical attributes or characteristics. or coalition shall file with the Commission. Sec. 3. such party. 5. organizations and parties." Sec. list of officers. to become members of the House of Representatives. and professionals. organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national. component parties or organizations of coalition may participate independently provided the coalition of which they form part does not participate in the party-list system.-. overseas workers. AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. Towards this end. indigenous cultural communities. regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof. fisherfolk. (f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national. peasant.-. Definition of Terms. coalition agreement and other relevant information as the COMELEC may require: Provided. interests or concerns. It is a regional party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in congress assembled. by-laws. Sec. Sec. a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system.Any party. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. 2. regional. organization. (d) A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. youth.-. regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office. which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. urban poor. (c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform. handicapped. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. (b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. That the sector shall include labor. not later than ninety (90) days before the election. regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party.This Act shall be known as the "Party-List System Act. Registration.-. platform or program of government. as the most immediate means of securing their adoption.-.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM. women. organization. veterans. However.(a) The party list system is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives from national. The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. employment. Sec. 1. the State shall develop and guarantee a full. sectoral or group interest in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature.Any organized group of persons may register as a party. regional or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations. Title. 4. elderly. sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or election purposes. and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national. Declaration of Policy. attaching thereto its constitution. PAGE 116 . or coalition already registered with the Commission need not register anew. principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which.

No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed in the list. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies. Nomination of Party-List Representatives. 8. organization or coalition on any of the following grounds: (1) It is a religious sect or denomination. organizations or coalitions which have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precints for posting in the polling places on election day. regional. after due notice and hearing. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned. resolve the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty (60) days before the election. not later than sixty (60) days before election.Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district. (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. regional or sectoral party. a vote for the party. Sec. prepare a certified list of national. whether directly or though any of its officers or member or indirectly though third parties for partisan election purposes. organization or association organized for religious purposes. (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year. organization. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election.-. or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives: Provided. Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. not less than five (5). foreign political party. a registered voter. organization. organization. 9.Each registered party.-. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. Sec. able to read and write. refuse or cancel. or upon verified complaint of any interested party. after due notice and hearing. and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names. 6. 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. or (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two percentum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. rules or regulations relating to elections. or withdraws in writing his nomination. Manner of Voting. and the second.-. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.The COMELEC shall. motu proprio. from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes. Sec. or sectoral parties. 10.-. That a PAGE 117 . the registration of any national. Sec. (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government. In case of a nominee of the youth sector.-. Sec. foundation. he must be at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.The COMELEC may. (3) It is a foreign party or organization. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The COMELEC shall. (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal.

12. 17. unless otherwise provided by law.-. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided. Sec. 15. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system. How Party-List Representatives Are Chosen. Effect. Sec. organizations. or coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees. the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party. and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided. organization. Number of Party-List Representatives. Change of Affiliation. 13. Sec. Sec. For purposes of the May 1998 elections. 18.Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided. sectoral organization. Term of Office. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote. Rules and Regulations. or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: Provided finally. organization. organizations. rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party.Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall begin. the following procedure shall be observed: (a) The parties.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition vote cast for a party.-.The COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. organization. No party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. 14. Sec. or coalition. organizations. or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. organizations. organization. Vacancy. or coalitions on a nationwide basis. If the list is exhausted. Rights of Party-List Representatives. Sec. That the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998. he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization. the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party list system. and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.In case of vacancy in the seats reserved for party-list representatives.-. at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. or coalitions to the COMELEC according to their ranking in said list. 11.-. Sec. That if he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election. who shall serve for the unexpired term.-. 16.The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties. (b) The parties. PAGE 118 . or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.-.-.Party-list representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as regular members of the House of Representatives.Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the respective parties. That each party . the party.-.The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty percentum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. finally. Sec.

[Sec. 5(2)] The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the lower house. Starting 1995. executive orders. the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective. March 3. Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts. and sectoral parties or organizations. [Sec. even if these are not contiguous). cities. form the (i) labor. rules and regulations. the COMELEC is hereby authorized to utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its information campaign on the party-list system.-.-. The apportionment must be based on the number of inhabitants. Each city with a population of at least 250. [Sec. regardless of population must have at least one representative. Each legislative district must comprise as far as practicable. using a uniform and progressive ratio. Each province. Sec. COMPOSITION Not more than 250 Members (*unless otherwise fixed by law) elected from: a) Legislative districts (80% of the seats shall be allotted to district representatives.-. [Sec. based on the standards herein provided (to make it representative and more responsive to the people). or putting together of areas where a candidate is strong. 5(3)] 5. [Sec. 20.If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional. contiguous.All laws. Sec. Effectivity. regional. Appropriations. 1995. (ii) peasant. Approved. 19.-. 1995). or parts thereof.) The districts are to be determined according to the following rules: [200 districts or 80%] 1. 21. decrees. The districts are to be apportioned among the provinces. (iv) indigenous cultural PAGE 119 . and Metro Manila. and adjacent territory (to avoid gerrymandering. inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.The amount necessary for the implementation of this Act shall be provided in the regular appropriations for the Commission on Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the General Appropriations Act. compact. 1/2 of the seats allocated to the party-list representatives shall be filled by selection or election. 5(3)] b) Party-list system of registered national. (iii) urban poor. 5(1)] 2. Sec. 22. Separability Clause. Repealing Clause. 5 (4)] 3. 5 (3)] 4.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec. Within 3 years following the return of every census. [Sec.000 must have at least one representative. For 3 consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution (1987. as provided by law. 1992.This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

and (vii) such other sectors as may be provided by law. If he is re-elected in 1992 and 1995. He maintains that he did not lose his seat as congressman because Sec. pursuant to Sec. (v) women. XVIII. Upon being informed of such development by the COMELEC. 1987 shall serve until noon of June 30. Mitra 202 SCRA 779 (Oct. 15. 7). the members of the House elected on the second Monday of May. 67. QUALIFICATIONS Citizenship: Age on the day of election: Education: Registered voter: Residence: TERM OF OFFICE 3 years To commence (unless otherwise provided by law) at noon of June 30 next following the election. Until a law is passed. 7) Thus. and 1995. the seats reserved for sectoral representatives (Art. But if he does not run in 1992 or in 1995. and he resigns in 1997. he can run for another 3 straight terms. Sec. Sec. 1991) F: Petitioner Mohammad Ali Dimaporo was elected Representative for the 2nd Legislative District of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections. respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of Reps. (vi) youth. this petition. Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code (B. In Jan.(Art. 67. VI. 2 of the Transitory Provisions. Perez can still re-run in 1992. excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of Members of the House of Reps. the President may set up posts by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors. one can be a lifetime Congressman so long as he does not run on the third term. if district representative 1 year in the district (immediately preceding the election) PAGE 120 . No Member of the House shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. 881) Having lost in the elections. Hence. No voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall be considered an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected for the purpose of circumventing this 3-term limitation. 1992. except the religious sector. petitioner filed with the COMELEC a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Natural-born citizen 25 Able to read and write In the district. 1990.P. 7) But under Sec. but no longer in 1998. Dimaporo vs. (Art. because the continuity would be broken. Blg. VI..POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition communities. Sec. Thus. he can still no longer run in 1998. petitioner then tried but failed in his bid to regain his seat in Congress.

The fact that the ground cited in Sec. Blg.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. Gutierrez. it is not necessary that the other position be actually held. but the period during which an officer actually holds the office (tenure). Jr. 7. In theorizing that the provision under consideration cuts short the term of office of a Member of Congress. 881 is not operative under the present Constitution. is allowed to serve its unexpired portion. IX of B. Art. VI of the Constitution. RAM. he is deemed to have voluntarily cut short his tenure. of candidacy for another office. Moreover. IX of B.P. 881 is not mentioned in the Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the tenure of office of the members of Congress does not preclude its application to present members of Congress.P. if any. 13. The term remains and his successor." Under the questioned provision. These situations will not change the duration of the term of office." Such constitutional expression clearly recognizes that the 4 grounds found in Art. 2. petitioner seems to confuse "term" with "tenure" of office. Neither can Congress provide a different procedure for disciplining constitutional officers other than those provided in the Constitution. The ground for forfeiture in Sec. Blg. being contrary thereto.: Dissenting opinion Congress cannot add by statute or administrative act to the causes for disqualification or removal of constitutional officers. ISSUE: Whether Sec. 67. J.P. may be affected by circumstances within or beyond the power of said officer. they cannot go back to their former position. Blg. but not by impeachment. IX of B. 881. this statutory provision seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office and thereby cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy. Art. 881 is operative under the present Constitution HELD: YES. Sec. 2 of Art. IX of B. Art. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that all public officials must serve the people with utmost loyalty and not trifle with the mandate which they have received from their constituents. Art. 67.P. "The term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not be extended or shortened by the legislature. not his term. Blg. IX of the Constitution provides that "xxx All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. Blg. Art. 881 reads: "Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for President and Vice-President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. as the mere act of filing the certificate of candidacy for another office produces automatically the permanent forfeiture of the elective position being presently held.. IX of B. 67. c. Sec. which is actually a mode of voluntary renunciation of office under Sec.P. VI of the Constitution is different from the forfeiture decreed in Sec. Synchronized terms of office PAGE 121 . VI of the Constitution by which the tenure of a Congressman may be shortened are NOT exclusive. 67." Petitioner failed to discern that rather than cut short the term of office of elective public officials. par. and therefore not applicable to the present members of Congress. Art. when an elective official covered thereby files a cert.

every 3 years. The Senators. VI. a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law. 8) 2nd Monday of may. 1992. 2. 2. the first election was held on the 2nd Monday of May. VI. XVIII. Sec. the first twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years. 6645. Sec. Sec. the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. Sec. Election a. 9.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. Special election Art. Secs. Regular election Art VI. VI. Members of the House of Representatives. 1987 (Art. 1. and the local officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30. It shall include the election of all Members of the city or municipal councils in the Metropolitan Manila area. Sec. Regular (Art. XVIII. Sec. 8. 1-2 Art. but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. For the transitory period. Sec. starting 1992 (unless otherwise provided by law). The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May. Republic Act No. Dec.) b. Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992. VI. 8 Art. 1987. Unless otherwise provided by law. The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by the President. Sec. XVIII. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House or Representatives. 9 Art. The term of office begins on the following June 30. 28. 1987 PAGE 122 . which may be simultaneous with the election of the Members of the Congress. 1.

1987. 2. an official communication on the existence of the vacancy and call for a special election by the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. IX-C. That if within the said period a general election is scheduled to be held. shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and. in number sufficient for due distribution and publication." The law that governs and lays down the details concerning the special congressional elections is Rep. and in the municipal buildings. once approved. Sec. The Commission on Elections shall send copies of the resolution. Sec. and a copy in each of the polling places and public markets. Approved. This Act shall take effect upon its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two newspapers of general circulation. 6645 (December 28. shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission. 3. the special election shall be held simultaneously with such general election. and recalls. 4. PAGE 123 . Act No. certifying to the existence of such vacancy and calling for a special election. Sec. 6645 AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILLING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES. which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days nor later than ninety (90) days from the date of such resolution or communication. stating among other things the office or offices to be voted for: Provided. 11 Art. the Commission on Elections. Sec. initiatives. upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives. shall hold a special election to fill such vacancy. The Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the special election. Under the law. who in turn shall publish it in their respective localities by posting at least three copies thereof in as many conspicuous places in each of their election precints. 1987). Art. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least one (1) year before the next regular election for Members of Congress. If Congress is in recess. no special election will be called if the vacancy occurs (i) less than 18 months before the next regular election in the case of the Senate. In case of vacancy in the Senate or the House. plebiscites. as the case may be. Sec. shall be sufficient for such purpose. as the case may be. Sec. or (ii) less than 1 year before the next regular election in the case of the House. a special election may be called to fill up such vacancy "in the manner prescribed by law. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections. we will just have to wait for the next regular election.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition REPUBLIC ACT NO. however. December 28. 1. referenda. for practical reasons. The Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. to the Provincial or City Treasurer of each province or city concerned. 11. IX-C. in these cases.

(a) declaring the existence of the vacancy and (b) calling for a special election to be held within 45 to 90 days from the date of calling of the special election (that is. once approved. MM. to PAGE 124 . to compel the resp. shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and. the particular House of Congress must pass either a resolution by the House concerned. COMELEC to call a special election to fill up existing vacancies numbering 12 in the Interim BP. referenda. Sec. 120 SCRA 337.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition When the vacancy occurs during the period when special elections are allowed to be conducted (18 or 12 months or more before the next regular election)." Petitioner Lozada claims that he is a TP and a bona fide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of QC. 9) Funds certified by the COMELEC as necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections. xxx b. Art. from the date of the resolution or certification). b. There is total absence that COMELEC has unlawfully neglected the performance of a ministerial duty or has refused on being demanded. a. (Art. Mandamus does not lie. shall be released automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the COMELEC. is based on Sec. and recalls. w/c is held in common by all members of the public bec. he has standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a special election as mandated by the 1973 Consti. initiatives.(Art. IX-C. for mandamus filed by Lozada and Igot as representative suit for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election irrespective of party affiliation. order or ruling of the COMELEC w/c is sought to be reviewed by this Court under its certiorari jurisdiction xxx. neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain and prosecute the present petition. Lozada vs COMELEC. Sec. orders or rulings. The pet. 5 (2). II. The SC's jurisdiction over the COMELEC is only to review by certiorari the latter's decision. VIII of the 1973 Consti. a petition to compel the COMELEC to call special elections to fill twelve vacancies in the interim Batasang Pambansa was dismissed on the ground inter alia that the petitioners were not proper parties as they had only what the Supreme Court called a "generalized interest" shared with the rest of the people. who desires to run for the position in the BP. for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. or a certification by the Senate President or the Speaker of the House. as TP. As taxypayers. if Congress is not in session. a. petitioners may not file the instant petition. VI. As voters. while petitioner Igot alleges that. xxx There is in this case no decision. plebiscites. 11) In Lozada vs COMELEC. the COMELEC shall call a special election to be held w/in 60 days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term. w/c reads: "In case a vacancy arises in the BP 18 months or more before a regular election. of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all citizens. if Congress is in session. But the Senator or Member of the House thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the term. Petitioners' standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here. HELD: I. 120 SCRA 337 (1983) F: This is a pet.

as well as the then incumbent Pres. the Speaker of the House of Representatives xxx (shall receive an annual salary of) two hundred forty thousand pesos each. the Constitution mandates that no increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of the two houses approving such increase. 17. xxx two hundred four thousand pesos each. III. Art. LGUs may be compelled by mandamus to appropriate money for obligations already incurred or (when there is already) a right to w/c a private party is entitled. xxx The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. that determines the salary to be received by its members. 3. there was felt absolutely no need for filling up vacancies occurring in the Interim NA. xxx [T]he holding of special elections in several regional districts where vacancies exist.) While it is Congress. of Congress under the 1935 Consti. considering the uncertainty of the duration of its existence. the xxx President of the Senate. RAM. Until the Congress provides otherwise. Salaries. 17. Sec. No increase in said compensation 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 to mention the Senators. the Members of the House of Representatives. XVIII. the Interim NA was to be composed by the delegates to the Con Con. Privileges and Disqualifications a. 10. Perhaps the strongest reason why the said provision is not intended to apply to the Interim National Assembly is the fact that as passed by the Con Con. W/ such number of representatives representing each congressional district. and this power of the BP may neither be subject to mandamus by the courts much less may COMELEC compel BP to exercise its power of appropriation. Barlongay: Q: Can appropriation of money through a law be compelled by mandamus? A: No. through a salary law. while the Senators and the members of the House shall receive P 204. Sec. and VP. PAGE 125 . The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. the Senators.000 each. Salaries Art. XVIII. Sec. would entail huge expenditure of money.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition discharge such a duty. Q: Is the rule absolute? A: No. Only the BP can make the necessary appropriation for the purpose. (Art. There are exceptions (see Pasay case). or a province. and the members of the Senate and House of Rep. VI. Unless the Congress provides otherwise.000. the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House shall receive an annual salary of P 240.

000 each (thereby increasing their present compensation of P16T and P7. 1. that of the Senators and members of the HRep. Term of all the members of the Congress. Sec." This is a distinction w/o a difference. Purpose of the provision. The petitioners contend that such implementation is violative of Art VI.200 pa for the Presiding officers and members respectively. but with the length of time that has to elapse before an increase becomes effective. is to place a "legal bar to the legislators yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salaries.) The 1965-1966 Budget implemented the increase in salary of the Speaker and members of the HRep set by RA 4134. seeking to permanently enjoin the aforesaid officials from authorizing or passing in audit the payment of the increased salaries authorized by RA 4134 (approved 6/10/64) to the Speaker and members of the HRep before 12/30/69. and the Auditor of the Congress. as a single unit. them.The reason for the this rule. w/c provided that: "xxx No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increase. the constitutional provision refers to "all members of the Senate and of the House or Rep. 14 of the 1935 Consti. when combined w/ the following phrase "all the members of the Senate and of the House. par. 18 SCRA 300 (1966) F: PHILCONSA has filed in this Court a suit against the Auditor General of the Phils. The use of the phrase "of the Senate and of the House" when it could have employed the shorter expression "of the Senate and the House" is grammatically correct. w/o distinction or separation bet. and not the plural.000 each. will expire only on 12/30/69. that the annual salary of the Senate Pres. in establishing what might be termed a waiting period. The use of the word "term" in the singular. inter alia." in the same sentence. To speak of PAGE 126 .. This unitary treatment is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the "expiration of the full term" xxx using the singular form. Not that the power to provide for higher compensation is lacking. P32. and of the Speaker of the HRep shall be P40. when the full term of all members of the Senate and House that approved it will have expired.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Philconsa v Mathay. xxx thereby rendering more evident the intent to consider both houses for the purpose as indivisible components of one single Legislature. while the term of the members of the House who participated in the approval of the said Act expired on 12/30/65. and who took part in the approval of RA 4134." underscores that in the application of said provision. Sec. since the Senate and the House together constitute the Congress. HELD: The Court agrees w/ petitioners that the increased compensation provided is not operative until 12/30/69. xxx" The reason given being that the term of the 8 senators elected in 1963. instead of all the members of the Senate and of the House.-. 1 of RA 4134 provided. the Court said. there is a deterrent factor to any such measure unless the need for it is clearly felt. the fundamental consideration is that the terms of office of all members of the Legislature that enacted the measure must have expired before the increase in compensation can become operative. despite the difference in the terms of office." Significantly.

which is six years. therefore. filed a claim for retirement under CA 186. 3. This would be a subtle way of going around the constitutional prohibition and increasing in effect their compensation during their term of office and of doing indirectly what could not be done directly. the compensation they received "as provided by law" and the Consti during their term of office. as amended. Mathay. HELD: 1. even if the term of the Representative who voted for the law is only 3 years. of a similar claim filed by Cong Singson. Petitioner was reelected to a 3rd term (12/30/65 to 12/30/69) but was held not entitled to the salary increase of P32. the same can take effect not in the term beginning at noon of 30 June 1995. the same law can only take effect for the term that begins at noon of 30 June 1992. the top twelve senators elected on the 2nd Monday of May. Petitioner's request for recon having been denied by the Auditor Gen.'s adverse decision on Singson's claim came out. Effectively. During his 2nd term in office.a. Petitioners' contention that since the increased salary of P32T p. would be to pay them prohibited emoluments w/c in effect increase the salary beyond that w/c they were permitted by the Consti..a.000 p. The HRep thus issued a treasury warrant in petitioner's favor as his retirement gratuity. PAGE 127 . Petitioner lost his bid for a consecutive 4th term in the 1969 elections and his term having expired on 12/31/69. [T]he "rate of pay as provided by law" for members of Congress retiring on 12/30/69. must necessarily be P7. RAM. 2.a.200 p.000 during such third term by virtue of this Court's unanimous decision in Philconsa v. such law can take effect only after the expiration of the longest term of a Senator. Ligot v Mathay. but if a salary is passed in 1988 decreasing the salary of members of Congress. since the Constitution prohibits only the increase.000 p. 12 (c). using the increased salary of P32. RAM. When the Auditor Gen. 1992 would still be holding office then. Resp. his retirement gratuity should be based on such increased salary cannot be sustained as far as he and other members of Congress similarly situated are concerned for the simple reason that a retirement or benefit is a form of compensation w/in the purview of the Constitutional provision limiting their compensation and "other emoluments" to their salary as provided by law. 56 SCRA 823 (1974) F: Petitioner served as a member of the HRep of Congress for 3 consecutive 4-yr terms covering a 12-yr span from 12/30/57 to 12/30/69. It can only take effect in 1998. such as petitioner. Illustration: If a salary law is passed in 1983 increasing the salary of members of Congress. Sec. the law can take effect right away.a. he filed the present petition for review. If another salary law is passed in 1993 to increase the salary. resp Auditor requested petitioner to return the warrant for recomputation. RA 4134 was enacted into law. was already operative when his retirement took effect on 12/30/69.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition "members of the Senate and the House" would imply that the members of the Senate also held membership in the House. To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on 12/30/69 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32. Congress Auditor did not sign the warrant pending resolution by the Auditor Gen. to receive during their incumbency.

RPC penalizing a public officer who shall. Freedom from arrest Art." For under the Constitutional Convention Act. it was thought that a direct grant of parliamentary immunity was given. indirectly granted parliamentary immunity. VI. and in going to and returning from the same. freedom from arrest holds. or sleeping at home). during the sessions of Congress. 15. "Punishable" refers to the maximum possible penalty which a penal statute attaches to the offense. 11. when in Art. the information filed against petitioner Martinez for falsification of a public document (punishable by prision mayor) and 2 informations against petitioner Bautista. felony and breach of the peace. It does not matter where the member of Congress may be found (attending the session. xxx Elements of the privilege: i. it was provided that: "The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason. Sec. the member can be arrested. enacted in 1932. 15) or special (supra)." When the 1935 Constitution took effect. Sr." Martinez v Morfe. The crime for which the member is to be arrested is punishable by 6 years of imprisonment or less. arrest or search any member thereof. except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor. socializing in a private party. be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session. Sec. What is sought by petitioners is that the respective warrants of arrest issued against them be quashed on the claim that by virtue of the parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates. since in Art. It follows too that if the crime is punishable by 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor or more. 3815).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition b. even if he is session in the halls of Congress. be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of the Congress. PAGE 128 . in all offenses punishable by not more than six (6) years imprisonment (prision correcional). 145. it punished with a penalty of prision correcional "any public officer or employee who shall. ii. A Senator or Member of the House shall. while the Assembly is in regular or special session. so long as Congress is in session. 44 SCRA 22 (1972) F: Both petitioners are facing criminal prosecution. as delegates of the Con Con (1973 Consti. except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under (such) code by a penalty higher than prision mayor. Congress must be in session. VI. for violation of the Revised Election Code (penalty imposable for each offense charged is not higher than prision mayor). Petitioners. History of the privilege The Revised Penal Code (Act NO. "arrest or search any member thereof. xxx they are immune from arrest. delegates are entitled to the parliamentary immunities of a senator or a representative.) would invoke what they consider to be the protection of the constitution (granting immunity from arrest to senators and representatives during their attendance at the sessions of Congress) if considered in connection w/ Art 145. whether regular (sec.

There is no justification for granting their respective pleas. now. and likewise delegates to the ConCon. provided for real immunity in the 1973 Constitution. was rendered "inoperative" upon the passage of the 1935 Constitution." Without this felony. arrest can only be made when Congress is not in session. 145. and in going to and returning from the same. otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so. A felony is an act or omission punishable by law. The above conclusion reached by this Court is bolstered and fortified by policy considerations. however.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: Certiorari does not lie to quash the warrants issued against petitioners. The 1971 Concon. Sec. RAM. Art. 145. by including Art. There is. in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment. IV. w/o justification in reason. entitled to the utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their vital responsibilities." The 1987 Constitution seems to have widened the privilege by simply stating that such a member "shall. There is likely no dissent from the proposition that a legislator or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well.. aware of this ruling (Martinez and Bautista were delegates). 15 of the 1935 Consti. it was declared "inoperative. then was deemed stricken out of the statute books upon this declaration by the Court. Treason exists when the accused levies war against the Republic or adheres to its enemies giving them aid and comfort. if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense. a full recognition of the necessity to have members of Congress. Such a provision that took effect in 1932 could not survive after the Consti. it would amount to the creation of a privileged class. xxx [F]rom the explicit language of the Consti. be privileged from arrest during his attendance at its sessions. RPC come to their rescue. became operative on 10/15/35. Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined by the RPC or any special statute. to the extent that it penalized public officers from arresting members of Congress for crimes punishable with prision mayor or less. then that portion of Art. to be sure. the immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason. there was no way to speak of immunity from arrest. When it comes to freedom from arrest. be privileged form arrest while the Congress is in session. w/o the need for any transgression of the criminal law. 145. Art. Under Art. The exceptions under the 1935 Constitution (treason. Their reliance on the constitutional provision w/c for them should be supplemented by what was provided for in the RPC is futile. Sec. 145 of the RPC. If the arresting officer cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the member during such period. 9: "A Member of the National Assembly shall. he will have to wait until the end of his term. xxx The utmost latitude in free speech should be accorded them.. they would be considered immune during their attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same. felony and breach of the peace. PAGE 129 . RPC penalizing a public official or employee who shall while the Congress is in regular or special session arrest or search any member thereof except in case he has committed a crime punishable under the RPC by a penalty higher than prision mayor is declared inoperative. felony and breach of the peace) were so comprehensive as to exclude from the operation of the privilege all criminal offenses and to limit the immunity from arrest or civil process only during the session of that body. but the National Assembly shall surrender the Member involved to the custody of the law within 24 hours after its adjournment for a recess of its next session." Unlike the 1973 rule. xxx petitioners cannot justify their claim to immunity. in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment. Ultimately. xxx In the language of the Consti. bowing to no other force except the dictates of their conscience. Nor does Art. VIII.

Upon being summoned. Sec."Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions. as well as bills introduced in Congress. in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such. of several sums of money. either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices. Scope of Parliamentary Freedom of Speech and Debate. An open letter of the President. 145. ISSUES: Whether the publication in question is a privileged communication. 17 SCRA 876 (1966) F: This is an ordinary civil action for the recovery by plaintiffs Jimenez. even communicative actions. The speech. or votes cast in the halls of Congress. et al. whether the same is in session or not.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition It would also seem that upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. and that. must be made "in" Congress in the discharge of legislative duty. at the time of the performance of the acts in question. even if it were. was deemed revived. a debate or discussion. (2) whether it is libelous or not.. RPC which was declared inoperative by the SC. said letter is a privileged communication.that is to say. the Cabangbang moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the letter in question is not libelous. but with modification (from prision mayor to prision correcional). while the same is in session. xxx No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.used in this provision. This privilege protects the member concerned from any libel suit that may be filed against him for a speech made "in" the halls of Congress or in any of its committees. if not. the making of reports. 11. and other acts performed by Congressmen. (1) The determination of the first issue depends on w/n the publication falls w/in the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein"-. by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. c. and. in Congress-. Jimenez v Cabangbang. Speech is not confined to traditional speech but even to the casting of votes. such as speeches delivered. published in several newspapers of general circulation saying that certain members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines had been preparing for a coup and working for the candidacy of the Secretary of Defense for the Presidency. however. Thus. statements made." PAGE 130 . Speech and Debate Clause Art VI. and any other form of expression.-. Art.

It is obvious that.-. As a result of this. his speech may constitute disorderly behavior as in Osmena v Pendatun (109 Phil 863). (3) supposing he could be questioned and disciplined therefor. The statement is not derogatory to pltffs. For as mentioned above. the latter two upon concurrence of 2/3 of the membership. VI.. The provision protects the Member of Congress only from being held liable outside of Congress ("in any other place"). suspension for 60 days. Garcia. 175 found Osmena guilty of serious disorderly behavior. Osmena delivered a privilege speech in Congress entitled "A Message to Garcia. caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of gen. PAGE 131 .The letter was not libelous bec. and this may be penalized with censure. it mentions that herein appellants as possibly "unwitting tools of a plan of which they have absolutely no knowledge.. It is important to note that this privilege is not absolute. to suspend one of its members. Cong. and that they may be unwitting tools of the planners. the HRep through House Resolution No. gave him complete parliamentary immunity. the President himself who had been vilified by the petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action against him because of this immunity. 16(3)]. and when warranted. Osmena contended in his petition that: (1) the Consti." which means that he may be called to account for his remarks by his own colleagues in Congress itself. Sec. or expulsion. RAM. On his side. on or about said date. According to the complaint herein. in thus causing the communication to be so published. dated 11/14/58. Nonetheless. the House had lost the power to do so bec. He was suspended for 15 months. The rule provides that the legislator may not be questioned "in any other place. 59. he was not performing his official duty. Osmena v Pendatun (109 Phil 863) F: In 1960.. the very document upon w/c pltffs' action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operation plans. 59 created a special committee to investigate the veracity of the charges and for him to show cause why he should not be punished by the House if he failed to substantiate his charges. from possible disciplinary measures that his peers may impose upon him. in the Phils.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. it does not protect him from liability "inside" Congress. Resolution No. (4) that the House has no power." In other words. for words spoken in the House. in the case of Osmena v Pendatun. circ.e. when Congress presumably was not in session. the majority of the members of the House of Representatives in which the questioned speech was delivered were not precluded from demonstrating their loyalty to the chief executive by declaring Osmena guilty of disorderly behavior and suspending him in the exercise of their disciplinary power [now Art. (2) that his speech constituted no disorderly behavior for w/c he could be punished. it had taken up other business before approving House Resolution No. he ought not to be questioned. either as a member of Congress of as officer or any Committee thereof. to the point of entitling them to recover damages. i. and def. Thus. and so. punished for disorderly behavior. (2) Letter was not libelous. under the Consti." maliciously denouncing and charging the administration of Pres. it was an open letter to the Pres.

On the third point of petitioner that the House may no longer take action against him. a physical is not immune. xxx [C]ourts have declared that "the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation. the Consti. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government. members xxx of Congress have been. The court must thus wait for the recess of Congress before it can order his arrest. he cannot be arrested nor prosecuted for slander because of the speech clause.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: 1. VI. agency. be questioned in Congress itself. the courts have no concern. nevertheless. and adjudication by the Courts. has conferred jurisdiction upon it." And it has been said that "Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and w/ their observance. bec. Y and inflicts physical injuries. Art. he is immune from arrest. committed to prison." Observe that "they shall not be questioned in any other place" than Congress. suspended. But he can be punished by his peers for disorderly behavior. assaults Cong. even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. after his speech and before approving the Resolution No. VI of the 1935 Consti. he cannot be arrested while Congress is in session. Disqualifications (1) Incompatible Offices and Forbidden Offices Art. But although he can be prosecuted." 3. For unparliamentary conduct. Sec. 59. or could be censured. the Senators or Members of the HRep "shall not be questioned in any other place." The provision guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression w/o fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional Hall. but also bec. the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of w/c the House knows best but w/c can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to. the Rules of the House w/c petitioner himself has invoked recognize the House's power to hold a member responsible "for words spoken in debate. not only bec. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. 13. 2. But they may. constitutes disorderly conduct for w/c Osmena may be disciplined. it had taken up other business. But if Cong. or PAGE 132 . assuming the penalty does not exceed prision correctional. because while he is not immune from prosecution. he can be criminally prosecuted (for direct assault with grave or less grave physical injuries) because although a verbal assault is immune. Illustration: If Congressman X makes an oral abuse against Congressman Y in the halls of Congress. modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body appointing them. in the course of heated debate. Furthermore. RAM. or any subdivision. Sec. we believe that the House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior. On the question w/n delivery of speeches attacking the Pres. 15. d. X. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress.

Sec. Claiming to be the lawful occupant of the governor's office. Pacana. of candidacy. Fernando Pacana. Both qualified and assumed their respective offices. xxx An incompatible office is a post which a member cannot accept unless he waives or forfeits his seat in Congress. He argues that he was elected to said office for a term of 6 yrs. VIII of the 1973 Consti. Art. should be considered as having abandoned or resigned from the vicegovernorship when he filed his cert. The dictate of the people in whom legal sovereignty lies is explicit. if he waives or forfeits his seat. members of the various sangguniang or barangay officials shall. he may accept the other post. of Mis. resp. 10. including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. therefrom. 13. had no right to assume the governorship left vacant by petitioner's election to the BP.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition instrumentality thereof. and that w/in the context of the parliamentary system. during his term without forfeiting his seat." Resp falls w/in the coverage of this provision considering that he was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In the said elections. A sensu contrario. The second proposition advanced by petitioner is that resp. of candidacy. Art. xxx [T]he incompatibility herein present is one created by no less than the constitution itself. RAM. petitioner won while respondents lost. HELD: 1. Pacana. be considered on forced leave of absence from office. as a mere private citizen. since the incompatibility arises only because of his simultaneous membership in both. a local elective official can hold the position to w/c he had been elected and simultaneously be an elected member of Parliament. 13 (2) of w/c provides that governors. xxx 2. On 7/23/84. Elected vice-gov. Jr. for said province in the same elections was resp. and started to perform the duties of governor.. He maintains that resp. upon filing a cert. took his oath of office as gov. PAGE 133 . The point pressed runs afoul of BP 697. The constitutional prohibition against a member of the BP from holding any other office of employment in the govt during his tenure is clear and unambiguous. Sec. Sec. BARLONGAY CASE: Adaza v. petitioner has brought this petition to exclude resp. VI. xxx Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. that he remains to be the governor of the province until his term expires on 3/23/86 as provided by law. provides that: xxx It is of no avail to petitioner that the system of govt in other states allows a local elective official to act as an elected member of the parliament at the same time. Both Adaza and Pacana filed their certificates of candidacy for the 5/14/84 BP elections. 10. "Sec. mayors. A member of the National Assembly shall not hold any other office or employment in the government xxx except that of prime minister or member of the cabinet. Jr.. 135 SCRA 431 (1985) F: Petitioner Homobono Adaza was elected governor of Misamis Oriental in the 1/30/80 elections. Or.

or any subdivision. (i) Personally appearing as counsel before any court of justice. or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. The effect of his resignation from the Congress is the loss of his seat therein but his disqualification for the forbidden office nevertheless remains. an election for the 11 Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corp. the prohibition is against "any" court. the Electoral Tribunal. On 5/25/79. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. (2) Other prohibitions Art. Under the 1973 Constitution. thus including the SC and the CA. The said group claimed that the votes were not properly counted. There were two groups. 14. However. Jr.. PAGE 134 . Now. This is not a prohibition against.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Forbidden Office (VI. VI. directly or indirectly. Sec. the prohibition against personal appearance covered only courts inferior to a court of appellate jurisdiction (RTC down). the Puyat Group and the Acero Group. Such a member cannot resign in anticipation of the passage of the law creating such office or increasing its emolument as a way of circumventing the prohibition. questioning the 5/14/79 election. 113 SCRA 32 (1982) F: On 5/14/79. quasi-judicial bodies. the prohibition is not forever (as in the Jones Law). or its subsidiary. a member may still sign and file his pleadings. Sec. be interested financially in any contract with. Thus. BARLONGAY CASE: Puyat v. De Guzman. the practice of law in any court. The Puyat Group would be in control of the Board and of the management of IPI. the Acero Group instituted at the SEC quo warranto proc. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals. 13) A forbidden office is one to which a member cannot be appointed even if he is willing to give up his seat in Congress. or instrumentality thereof. Neither shall he. including any government-owned or controlled corporation. and other administrative bodies. and administrative bodies. (IPI) was held. during his term of office. What the Constitution prohibits in the case of members of Congress who are also members of the bar is their personal appearance before any of these bodies. give legal advice. or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government. The prohibition lies in the "fiduciary" nature of the relationship involved. regardless of the action. it is for the term for which he was elected. continue as partner. courts in a civil case wherein the government is the adverse party. agency. and have a partner or associate appear for him in court.

agency or instrumentality. It is this Order allowing intervention that precipitated the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition w/ Prel. Fernandez. before he moved to intervene. (ii) Being interested financially in any (a) contract with. 17. the validity of the objection. PAGE 135 . or its subsidiary. His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his ownership of 10 shares of IPI in respect of the matter in litigation. Art. provided that no Assemblyman could "appear as counsel before xxx any administrative body. he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for resp. then a member of the Interim BP. SEC Commissioner. Acero.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition May 25-31. the Puyat Group claims that at the conferences of the parties w/ resp." and SEC was an administrative body. he is not appearing on behalf of another. Fernandez at the proceedings in the SEC case. a governmentowned or controlled corporation. its subdivision. He had acquired a mere P200 worth of stocks in IPI. Justice Estanislao A. submit a declaration under oath of his assets. However. Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as counsel. Acero to w/c the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds. XI. The prohibition is for the duration of his term of office. the Court en banc issued a TRO enjoining resp SEC Commissioner from allowing the participation as an intervenor. A public officer or employee shall. office. He acquired them "after the fact. Fernandez' ownership of ten shares. orally entered his appearance as counsel for resp. instead to "intervene" on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation." Ordinarily. but w/c was objected to by petitioners. xxx On 7/17/79. There has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before xxx an administrative body. certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Assemblyman F. Sec. he decided. of resp. on 5/30/79. by virtue of the Motion of Intervention. (iii) Intervening in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary (iv) Intervening in any matter where he may be called upon to act on account of his It may be noted that the last 3 prohibitions are themselves punishable acts under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. e. And what is more. perhaps. Realizing. RAM. upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law. VIII of the 1973 Consti. benefit. Ostensibly. Duty to Disclose Art. in the SEC case." that is. xxx On 9/4/79. the Government. 1979. after the quo warranto suit had been filed on 5/25/79 before SEC and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC on 5/31/79. or (b) franchise or special privilege granted by. 11. HELD: The intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC case falls w/in the ambit of the prohibition contained in the Consti. after the contested election of Directors on 5/14/79. although he is joining the cause of the pvt resps. Inj. the SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis of Atty.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition liabilities. VI. and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank. a public officer or employee shall. Furthermore. A true. The amount of personal and family expenses. The law governing this financial disclosure by public officers and employees is RA 3019. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. he must notify the House concerned of any "potential conflict of interest" that may arise from his filing of such bill (Art. VI. and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. 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. the following: 1. the disclosure must be made public (Art. In the case of the President. the Supreme Court. and such books shall be audited by the PAGE 136 . and sworn statement of assets and liability. upon assuming office and as often thereafter as may be. make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. upon assumption of office. and (c) upon the expiration of their term of office. detailed. VI. In general. or upon resignation or separation from office When a member of Congress authors a proposed legislation. Art. XI. the Congress. the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. 3. 12. 20.) Furthermore. all members of Congress shall. and 4. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall. 12. 12). 2. Sec. the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law. and net worth. upon assumption of office make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests (Art. Every public officer shall submit to (a) the Office of the Department Head. the Members of the Cabinet. Sec. submit a declaration under oath of his assets. 17). The amount of income taxes paid the previous year. on the following occasions: (a) within 30 years after assuming office (b) on or before April 15 after the close of the calendar year. liabilities and net worth. Sec. the records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law. required by law. or (b) the Office of the President in case of a head of department or chief of an independent office. Sec. A statement of the amounts and sources of his income. the Vice-President. Sec. But in the case of members of Congress and other high government officials (as enumerated).

Sec. The quorum required to conduct business is a majority (1/2 + 1) of all the members. First order of business ." (VI. but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner. are required. which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member (Art. and thus give him a deterrent from committing graft and corruption. and under such penalties.. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.. i. 4. This is known as the "shifting majority". The public has a right to know how much it is spending for its government. a vote by 7 in favor of a bill is sufficient to pass it. a smaller number may adjourn from day to day. Election of officers Art. by a majority vote of all its respective Members. the number of votes needed to pass a bill would correspondingly increase.) The purpose of public disclosure of a member's financial status and official expenses is to make him visible to the rest. 16(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorom to do business. When a quorum cannot be had. If only 13 members are present. and such other officers that the rules of each house may provide. shift. Quorum Id. Sec. Upon the election of the President and the Speaker. 16 (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker. Sec. Avelino v Cuenco. A majority vote of all the respective members is required to elect these two officers. and compel the attendance of the absent (recalcitrant) members by the means of arrest or such other measures and penalties as the House may provide in its rules.election by each house of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. VI. But to pass a law.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Commission on Audit. But as the number of those present increases. as such House may provide. 83 Phil 17 (1949) PAGE 137 . only the votes of the majority of those present in the session. 20. 19) b. VI.e. To illustrate: 13 members of the Senate are sufficient to constitute a quorum. the Constitution deems the Houses "organized. Internal Government of Congress a. there being a quorum.

On 2/21/49. Therefore. ISSUES: a. "the House" does not mean "all" the members. an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23) constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of the quorom. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the subject-matter? b. by leaving the Hall. and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members. 68 and 67 validly approved? c. of the Senate. of the absent members xxx. suspend or expel a Member. (ii) at the beginning of such session there were at least 14 senators including Senators Pendatun and Lopez. Senate and oust resp. supra. 16(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Pablo and Bengzon say there was for the following reasons: (i) the minutes say so. In Avelino v Cuenco. By his petition in this quo warranto proceeding petitioner asks the Court to declare him the rightful President of the Phil. A penalty of suspension. Rules of proceedings Id. prevent the other 12 senators from passing a resolution that met w/ their unanimous resolution." There is a difference bet. Arranz was a continuation of the morning session and that a minority of 10 senators may not. they could have ordered the arrest of one." the latter requiring less number than the first. Feria. w/c power should not be interfered w/. J. c. when imposed.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: Jose Avelino was Senate President in 1949. Sen.. Should the petition be granted? HELD: a. xxx b. Cuenco. During the session. 12 senators constitute a majority of the Senate of 23 senators. there is unanimity in the view that the session under Sen. Sen. by the judiciary. the other was confined in a Manila hospital) in the morning of 2/21/49? (2) Was there a quorom in that session? (1) Supposing that the Court has jurisdiction. and (iii) in view of the absence from the country of Senator Confessor. 67 declaring the Senate Pres. Pablo believes further that even if the 12 did not constitute a quorom. Avelino and 6 others walked out leaving 12 senators behind. seat vacate. at least. the answer is in the negative. Cuenco was eventually elected as the acting Pres. The 12 senators continued the session and passed resolution no. Secs. When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorom. the political nature of the controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own pres. in view of the separation of powers. It if has. the ruling then was: The quorum was computed on the number of Senators over whom the Senate has jurisdiction at the time of session. shall not exceed sixty days. (2) If the rump session was not a continuation of the morning session... nor taken over. The second question depends upon these sub-questions: (1) Was the session of the so-called rump Senate a continuation of the session validly assembled w/ 22 Senators (2 were absent-.. Senators Tanada and Sanidad filed a resolution (Resolution 68) against Avelino calling for an investigation. was it validly constituted? Justices Paras. were resolutions Nos. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. PAGE 138 . a majority of "all the members of the House" and a majority of "the House. RAM.one was abroad. Even a majority of all the members constitute the "House. To the first question.

through the Judicial Supt. of Justice accordingly. Petitioner was taken by surprise and sought clarification from the prin. R 21 of the Revised Rules of the CA reads: "Respondent's theory would give to the mere filing of motion for recon." "Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may be considered on motion by a member presented not more than one day after their approval. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. then advised petitioner that he should vacate his position as he had not been duly confirmed. for w/ the concurrence of a majority of the members present is necessary. following what he considered to be the prevailing practice of such body that the mere presentation of such letter "automatically vacated the confirmation of the appointment in question ***." Resp. of the Phils. and this shall be a final disposition of such a motion.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec. stating that he was filing a motion for the recon. the ground being that his appointment had been by-passed. when a certain construction of such rules would defeat the right of the individual to a public office." PAGE 139 . petitioner F. it was submitted to the Commission on Appointments (CA) at its next session in '65. As his appointment was made during the recess of Congress. wrote to its Chairman. 1. that is. Molo. Sen. Ad interim appointments take effect at once. Ganzon. on 8/31/64 as Mun. The title of the appointee to the office is complete." The House may set aside the rules it adopted as it sees fit. hence. the appointment shall be reopened and submitted anew to the Commission. HELD: Petitioner must prevail. and. Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the then Pres. He was informed that a day after his confirmation. resp. advised petitioner to vacate his position as mun. These rules include the procedure to be followed in "inquiries in aid of legislation. because these rules are only of a temporary nature. On 5/20/65." (Altarejos v. w/c he had received. it is a justiciable matter.. It is bad enough if the minority were to prevail. 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. Resp. judge. 21.. the then Sec. after such confirmation. of the confirmation of the appointment of petitioner xxx in view of derogatory info. In the language of the Consti. 2. would dispense w/ the necessity of such approval. A one-man rule is infinitely worse. He then assumed office and discharged his duties. the effect w/c it would have if the motion were approved. Any motion to reconsider the vote on any appointment may be laid on the table.) xxx That would be tantamount to imparting to a move of single member of a collective body a decisive weight. of CA thus was led to notify the then Sec. Cotabato. Pacete v Secretary of the Commission on Appointments. More than 9 mos. Judge of Pigcawan. Each House or its committees may determine the rules of its proceedings. he was unanimously confirmed. the appointment is effective "until disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment of the Congress. 40 SCRA 58 (1971) The rules of the Commission on Appointments concerning its internal business could be reviewed by the Courts. of Justice.. If a majority of the members present concur to grant a recon. Sec. 25 SCRA 550. F: In his suit for mandamus and prohibition filed w/ this Court. one of the members of the CA.

which made it upheld the suspension of 15 months despite the Alejandrino ruling. he can be found guilty of disorderly behavior by his own peers. In effect. He could thus invoke constitutional protection. The penalty may consist of (i) censure. and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members. or upon a 2/3 vote of all the members of the house. No such thing happened in this case. This was carried over in the 1987 Constitution. infra. VI. Sec. to argue that the mere filing of a MFR did suffice to set it aside. Sec. Each house may punish it members for "disorderly behavior. the 1973 Constitution devised a system of allowing suspension as a penalty but limited its period to 60 days [Art. For resps. VII. In a dictum. 7(3)]. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. or (iii) expulsion. [Art. Petitioner had instead in his favor a unanimous vote of confirmation. shall not exceed sixty days. 46 P 83 (1924) PAGE 140 . There must either be a rejection by the CA or nonaction on its part. when imposed. the constituents could at least elect someone else to substitute the member represented.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The constitutional requirement is clear. VI. Discipline of members Art. Quezon. What constitutes Although a member of either house cannot be held accountable in any other place for any speech he make in the Congress or in any committee thereof. 3. In the case of expulsion. so ruled the Court in Osmena v Pendatun. The courts are called upon to see to it that private rights are not invaded. RAM. (ii) suspension. since suspension deprived the constituents of the member suspended of the right to be represented by a representative that they really had. 16(3)] Alejandrino v. not exceeding 60 days. especially so. 863 (1960). A penalty of suspension. there might not be a penalty appropriate enough for a disorderly behavior that merited something more than censure but less than expulsion. xxx [T]here is nothing sacrosanct about a rule of the CA. The history behind the 60-day limitation on the period of suspension could be traced to the early case of Alejandrino v Quezon. even in the absence of any further action is to lose sight of what is provided in the Consti." "disorderly behavior" is solely within the discretion of the house concerned. suspension punished the constituents. a construction sought to be fastened on it would defeat the right of an individual to a public office. when as in this case. Thus even legislative acts and executive orders are not beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. that the Court precisely faced in Osmena v Pendatun. the SC said that it was not within the power of the legislature to suspend its member. however. d. It was this dilemma. Sec. 109 Phil. Thus. suspend or expel a Member. 16 (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. If the only disciplinary measures were limited to expulsion and censure.

Pendatun.. However. These senators and representatives "hold office until removed by the Gov. provides otherwise. except as restricted by the Consti. to the Senate and the HRep. de Vera on the occasion of certain phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the credentials of Mr. however. that at that time the Legislature had only those powers w/ were granted to it by the Jones Law. (Speech and Debate Clause) Compared w/ Alejandrino v. The casus belli is a resolution adopted by the Phil. subject only to such limitations as are found in the Consti. Mandamus (M). respectively. The gen. xxx Now. So that any power deemed to be legislative by usage or tradition. Quezon: It is true that in Alejandrino an obiter dictum that "suspension deprives the electoral district of representation w/o that district being afforded any means by w/c to fill that vacancy. Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House w/o depriving the constituency of representation. for the reason that the SC does not possess the power of coercion to make the Phil. to appoint 2 senators and 9 representatives to represent the non-Christian regions in the Legislature. expulsion. the Organic Act authorizes the Gov-Gen. Avelino. PAGE 141 . Osmena v. its members. and. is necessarily possessed by the Congress. or its officers.supra. Alejandrino. and emoluments of his office for the period of 1 yr from 1/24 having been declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant viol.-Gen." (Vera v. is equivalent to qualified expulsion or removal. the Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension w/c the Consti. for the very obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other. has purposely withheld from the 2 Houses of the Leg. to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their character w/c therefore pertains to their legislative functions and over w/c they have exclusive control. did not impair. unless the Consti. privileges. rule is that the writ will not lie from one branch of the govt to a coordinate branch. The burden of petitioner's complaint is that the resolution is unconstitutional and entirely of no effect. However. whereas now the Congress has the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign nation. The Consti. depriving Alejandrino of all the prerogatives. pet. is granted the power to "punish its members for disorderly behavior. 77 P 192.) RAM. for mandamus and injunction is Jose Alejandrino. 109 P 863 (1960)-. By suspension. 2. and the GovGen." They may not be removed by the Leg. on 2/5/24. Senate composed of the resp. alike the power to suspend an appointive member. w/ the concurrence of 2/3. On the merits of the controversy. likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew. the writ prayed for cannot issue. Suspension for 1 yr. expel an elective member. a Senator appointed by the Gov-Gen. Senators. to represent the 12th Senatorial District." But the remark should be understood to refer particularly to the appointive senator who was then the affected party and who was then the affected party and who was by the same Jones Law charged w/ the duty to represent the 12th District xxx. when permissible. It must be observed. the seat remains filled but the occupant is silenced. RAM. M will not lie against the legislative body. The petitioner in this orig. "The Legislative power of Congress is plenary. The reason is obvious. of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted Sen. Senate take any particular action.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: HELD: 1." xxx. but suspension deprives the electoral district of representation w/o that district being afforded any means by w/c to fill the vacancy.

16(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same. 16(3) should be distinguished from exclusion under Art. e. Each Electoral Tribunal is independent of the other. It is the first time that the Constitution requires a "record" in addition to a "journal".POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Expulsion compared with exclusion under Art. and any other copy of the bill? The enrolled bill prevails. says the SC in the following cases. However. VI. excepting such parts as may. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. PAGE 142 . Sec. The enrolled copy is then sent to the President for his action. Up to the 1973 Constitution. Art. Journal and Congressional Records Art. Cruz: The journal is only a resume of minutes of what transpired during a legislative session. although in practice. and qualifications of their respective Members. Sec. the bill is engrossed or enrolled. Sec. the legislature has always kept a record. 17 Expulsion under Art. The record is the word-for-word transcript of the proceedings taken during the session. be entered in the Journal. 17. VI. the Electoral Tribunal is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets all the Constitution's requirements for membership. Sec. at the request of one-fifth of the Members present. in its judgment. and qualifications of their elective members. The purpose of the certification is to prevent attempts at smuggling in "riders". and the yeas and nays on any question shall. 17. (1) The Enrolled Bill Theory Once a bill has been approved by both houses (the procedure will be discussed later). xxx Under the latter. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. What happens if there is a discrepancy between the enrolled copy of the bill. affect national security. only a journal was required to be kept. each Tribunal cannot add to the qualifications or disqualifications found in the Constitution. Thus. They shall be the sole judges of the elections. and this "Enrolled Copy of the Bill" bears the certification of the Presiding Officer of the house (either Senate President or Speaker of the House) that this bill as enrolled is the version passed by each house. VI. this emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred upon each House. returns. determine election contests. Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House. VI. returns. VI.

the Court.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Mabanag v Lopez Vito. Pons. and it has not been shown that if that had been done. a very delicate power. Pons bec. PAGE 143 .. as amended..Both notions of jurisdiction and conclusiveness of legislative enactment are synonymous in that both are founded upon the regard w/c the judiciary accords a co-equal.-. 150. representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the COMELEC as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on 4/23/46. those were the documents offered in evidence. The 8 representatives since their election had not been allowed to sit in the lower House. Jurisdiction. nor was their membership reckoned in the computation of the necessary 3/4 vote w/c is required in proposing an amendment to the Consti.xxx [T]he rule against going behind the enrolled bill is required by the respect due to a co-equal and independent dept of govt. it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof. did not take part in the passage of the questioned resolution. or by published statutes or resolutions. that in the case of Acts of xxx the Phil. these 3 senators and 8 reprs. and independent branch of Govt. 313 of the old Code of Civ. Compared w/ US v.) If these members had been counted. or by copies certified by the clerk or secretary. the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary 3/4 vote in either branch of Congress. except to take part in the election of Speaker. this Court would not have held the copy conclusive proof of the due enactment of the law. Jur." Sec. and it would be an inquisition into the conduct of the members of the legislature. xxx As a consequence.-. It does not appear that a duly authenticated copy of the Act was in existence or was placed bef. coordinate. provides: Sec. bec. Proc. xxx 2. 78 Phil. when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies. The 3 senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session following the elections. (Am. 1 (1947) F: Three of the pltff. by the journals of those bodies or of either house thereof. courts could not rely on the published session laws. or printed by their order. but would be required to look beyond these to the journals of the legislature and often to any printed bills and amendments w/c might be found after the adjournment of the legislature.The respondent's other chief reliance is on the contention that a duly authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. the frequent exercise of w/c must lead to endless confusion in the admin. xxx "Official documents may be proved as follows: ***(2) the proceedings of the xxx Congress.-.) Reasons in support of enrollment: 3. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political departments.-. of the law.. for the same reason. RAM. a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. senators and 8 of the pltff. Leg. Enrolled Bill Theory. HELD: 1. on account of alleged irregularities in their election. The rule is also one of convenience. in all probability. Provided. (the Parity Rights Amendment. although they had not been formally suspended. Reasons for Conclusiveness.The Court looked into the journals in US v.

infra. In this case. And yet the SC refused to go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. There was no occasion. during the consideration of the bill bef. It was clear from the records and journal that the omission took place not any stage of the legislative proceedings. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill bef. xxx "Urea formaldehyde" is a finished product. Further. the House xxx. withdrew his signature and notified the President of the mistake. in upholding the enrolled bill. The case was different in Astorga v Villegas. the CB issued Circular No.w/c are the main RM in the production of said glues and paid the corresponding margin fee."-. but only during its enrollment. who then likewise withdrew his signature. because here. because of the respect due the other departments.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Casco Chemical Co. the enrolled bill-. bought for-ex for the importation of urea and formaldehyde-. thereby changing the qualifications required by the law of a chief of a city police agency. fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on for-ex transactions. 7 SCRA 347 (1963) F: Pursuant to the provisions of RA 2609 (For-Ex Margin Fee Law). the Senate President.. but only by an employee. the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approve said vouchers upon the ground that the exemption granted by the MB for petitioner's separate importations of urea and formaldehyde is not in accord w/ the provisions of sec. upon being informed that the enrolled bill did not contain the amendment proposed by Senator Tolentino (regarding the powers of the Vice-Mayor of Manila) when the house bill was raised to the Senate.. then." Petitioner contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative conjunction "and" bet. w/c is patently distinct and different from "urea" and "formaldehyde.. XVIII of RA 2609. "who has served the police department of city or " was omitted from the engrossed copy of the Police Act of 1966. and Dec. w/c is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues xxx. (2) Probative Value of the Journal PAGE 144 . Much less do they indicate the intent of the HRep. HELD: Said individual statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Pres. RAM. It was further clear that the change was made not by Congress.w/c uses the term "urea formaldehyde" instead of "urea and formaldehyde. explained that its basis is the separation of powers. Petitioner maintains that the term "urea formaldehyde" appearing in the provision should be construed as "urea and formaldehyde" and that the resps herein have erred in holding otherwise. par. the phrase. 1959. petitioner Casco. Although the CB issued the vouchers for the refund. to apply the enrolled bill theory. v Gimenez. 2. the SC. Petitioner had sought the refund claiming that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said fee. 95. infra." as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resin known as "urea formaldehyde. xxx Several times in Nov. In Morales v Subido.is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and adopted by the Pres. the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation. so that the remedy of an aggrieved party is not a judicial decree but a legislative amendment or curative legislation. the terms "urea" and "formaldehyde" and that the members of Congress intended to exempt "urea" and "formaldehyde" separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue xxx citing the statements made on the floor of the Senate.

The validity of the Act is not otherwise disputed. US V Pons. Govt was brought into existence. HELD: A. and so imperfect on account of the treachery of memory xxx. the same is null and void. namely. B. From their very nature and object the records of the Leg are as important as those of the judiciary. 2/28 and that the appellant is charged w/ having violated Act 2381.. 729 (1916).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The journal is conclusive on the courts as to its contents. and (2) whether the court can take judicial notice of the journals. (3) Matters Required to be Entered in the Journal The Constitution requires that the following matters be contained in the journal: PAGE 145 . must necessarily depend upon the memory or recollection of witnesses. xxx If the clock. counsel contented that the last day of the special sessions of the Leg. under w/c Pons must be punished if found guilty. (1) how that is to be proved. while the legislative journals are the acts of the Govt or the sovereign itself. Pons. and making the proof of legislative action depend upon uncertain oral evidence. to invade a coordinate and independent dept of the Govt. otherwise proof of legislative action would be uncertain and would now have to depend on the imperfect memory of men. "the resultant evil might be slight as compared w/ that of altering the probative force and character of legislative records. We will inquire w/n the courts may go behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journals are clear and explicit. so the SC ruled in US V Pons. 729 (1916) F: Juan Pons was accused of violating Act 2381 w/c prohibits the illegal importation of opium. As it is admitted that the last day of the special session was. Counsel for appellant. and to interfere w/ the legitimate powers and functions of the Leg. it is well settled in the US that such journals may be noticed by courts in determining the question w/n a particular bill became a law or not. w/ absolute certainty. would be to violate both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by w/c the Phil. was not passed or approved on 2/28 but on 3/1 of that yr. 34 Phil. that Act 2381. that the Leg. and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Leg. was. as here suggested. He contended. but that the members stopped the clock at mid-night. adjourned sine die at 12 o'clock on 2/28/14. whether by the legislative journals or extraneous evidence. 1914. that the statute was passed past the midnight after February 28. While there are no adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question w/n the courts may take judicial notice of the legislative journals. when they are clear and explicit. in order to establish his contention. the vital question is the date of the adjournment of the Leg. for 1914 was 2/28. therefore. liable to loss by death or absence. The SC rejected this claim. to pass the law. under the GovGen's proclamation. ruling that the probative value of the journal could not be questioned. and that. And these journals show.. RAM. however. and this reduces itself to 2 others. 34 Phil. in this case was prosecuted under a criminal statute. In his motion for the reversal of his conviction. in fact stopped. the last day of session of the legislative body.

But aside from these 4 matters. the Constitution speaks of the vote of each member of the House either affirming a favorable or overriding its contrary resolution of the impeachment complaint to be "recorded. of the Senate sent a letter to HRep that the House bill had PAGE 146 . It was referred to the appropriate Senate Committee. XI.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (a) The yeas and nays on third and final reading of a bill [Art. as to matters required by the Constitution to be placed in the journal. It also contradicts the ratio in Marshall Field & Co. enrollment does not add to the validity of the bill. passed on 3rd reading w/o amendments. VI. VI. 27(1)]. 3(3). To reconcile these two views. (b) Veto message of the President (i. while the certified bill is made by the highest officer of the chamber. w/c recommended approval w/ a minor amendment recommended by Sen. on the other hand. VI. since a journal is required by the Constitution while the enrollment of a bill is just a legislative practice that is not even mentioned in the Constitution. any other matter does not enjoy such conclusiveness. Roxas. 143 US 649 (1891) that the parties were not competent to show from the journal that the bill in the custody of the Secretary of State was against the contents of the journal. 56 SCRA 714 (1974) F: House Bill No. the journal contains the summary of the proceedings. It was sent to the Senate for concurrence. (c) The yeas and nays on the repassing of a bill vetoed by the President (Art. Further. w/c was filed in the HRep. 9266. (d) The yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the members present [Art. Sec. It contradicts the ruling in Morales v Subido that the enrolled copy prevails over the journal. his objection to a bill when he vetoes it) [Art. contains the verbatim transcript of all proceedings of the house or its committees. But this view is mere dictum. xxx On 5/21/54. because journals are just kept by clerks who could be mistaken. Tolentino. 26(2)]. in Art. substantial amendments to Sec. VI. for what makes it valid are the votes of the members. Sec. w/c amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. Astorga v Villegas. However. the journal is conclusive. indicated that the journal might really prevail over the enrolled bill.. Sec. 1 were introduced by Sen.e. A record. by way of obiter. the Sec. 16(4)] In addition. 27(1)]. it may be said that. v Clark. The Constitution is silent as to what the record must contain.." (4) Journal Entry Rule v Enrolled Bill Theory In the Astorga v Villegas case. Sec. the SC. Sec. When the bill was discussed on the Senate floor.

143 US 649 (1891) It is not competent for the appellant to show from the Journals that the enrolled bill contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled Act in the custody of the State Department. goes farther. and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of. Injunction and/or Prohibition w/ Prel Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction" to compel compliance w/ the provisions of RA 4065. on silk and cotton laces imported by Sutton & Co. the Mayor of Mla. The importers severally protested against the assessment upon the ground that the Act was not a law of the US. Attached was a certification of the amendment. It was contended. among others. and the Senate Pres. and not the Tolentino amendments w/c were the ones actually approved by the Senate. the then V-Mayor Astorga. The HRep signified approval as sent back to it. filed a pet. that the Tariff Act was a nullity bec. 9266. It was later made public by Sen. As far as Congress itself is concerned. it is said. sent a message to the presiding officers of both Houses informing them that in view of the circumstances he was officially withdrawing his signature on House Bill no. required. by the respect due to a co-equal dept of the govt. Petitioner's argument that the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill's due enactment. The inquiry.. Respondents' position is that RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate. Upon the foregoing facts. v Clark. the entry in the journal should be consulted. and that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue. It is merely a mode of authentification. F: In accordance w/ the Tariff Act of Oct. duties were assessed and collected on woollen dress goods. issued circulars ordering the disregard of the provisions of RA 4605. but would not affect the validity of the statute. 2. w/ this Court for "Mandamus. Obviously this declaration should be accorded even greater respect than the attestation it invalidated.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition been passed by the Senate w/ amendments. Roxas. declared his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate. 1890. Reacting to these steps.. He also issued an order recalling 5 members of the city police force who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under authority of RA 4065. would only mean that there was no attestation at all. Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer. woollen wearing apparel. there is nothing sacrosanct in the certification made by the presiding officers. It would limit the court's inquiry to the presence or absence of the attestation and to the effect of its absence upon the validity of the statute. is neutralized in this case by the fact that the Senate Pres. w/c was the one recommended by Sen. 1. granting it to have been validly made. xxx This arguments begs the question. The Senate Pres. however. and on colored cotton cloths imported by Sternbach & Co. RAM. It is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that is essential. Marshall Field & Co. 9266 signed into law by the Pres. "it is shown by congressional records of PAGE 147 . w/c it did for a reason that is undisputed in fact and indisputable in logic. As a result.. and silk embroideries imported by Field & Co. Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but argues that the disclaimer thereof by the Senate Pres. the Pres. The printed copies were then certified and attested to by the Secretaries of the Senate and of the HRep. Tolentino that the enrolled copy of House bill no. the Speaker of the HRep. what evidence is there to determine w/n the bill had been duly enacted? In such a case. admitted this mistake in a letter to the Pres. HELD: 1. was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate and approved on the Senate floor.

reports of committees of conference. in due form.) F: The present insistence of the petitioner is that the version of the provision (Sec. through their presiding officers. 10 is exactly as it is in the statute as officially published in slip form by the Bureau of Printing. 10 of the Police Act of 1966). expressly requires must be entered on the journal of each house. more specifically in the proofreading thereof. Morales v. and having reference to House Bill 9416. and deposited in the archives. the sanction of the legislative branch of the govt. that a bill. We cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. [T]he enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the Pres. Otherwise." In support of this assertion." HELD: The signing by the House Speaker and by the Senate Pres. we would be cast in the unenviable and unwanted role of a sleuth trying to determine what actually did happen in the labyrinth of law-making. It would thus appear that the omission of the phrase "who has served the police dept of a city of".POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition proceedings. has received. to the Pres. RAM. was made not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only in the course of engrossment of the bill. the only change made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase "or has served as chief of police w/ exemplary record. HELD: The petitioner wholly misconceives the function of the judiciary under our system of govt. Rodrigo. The investigation w/c the petitioner would like this Court to make can be better done in Congress. that the change was not made by Congress but only by an employee thereof xxx. of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two Houses that such bill is the one that has passed Congress. [W]e are not to be understood as holding that in all cases the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. and that when the bill emerged from the conference committee. was the version approved by the Senate on 3rd reading. (5) Congressional Record PAGE 148 . xxx [W]ith respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal. as amended at the behest of Sen. the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy. and approved by the Pres. 27 SCRA 131 (1969. 10 of the Act w/c did not carry such phrase. shows that sec. thus attested. To be sure. Subido. there are certain matters w/c the Const. w/ consequent impairment of the integrity of the legislative process. and other papers printed by authority of Congress. that a section of the bill as it finally passed. of the Phils. The respect due to the other branches of Govt demands that we act upon the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official acts of their respective departments. and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills w/c pass Congress shall be presented to him. the petitioner submitted certified photostatic copies of the different drafts of House Bill 6951 showing the various changes made. And when the bill thus attested is signed by the Pres. but according to the petitioner the House bill division deleted the entire provision and substituted what is now Sec. It is unmistakable that the phrase "who has served the police dept of a city or. its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. RAM. was not in the bill authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the respective houses of Congress." was still part of the provision. It is a declaration by the 2 houses.

The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session. 10) in w/c Congress shall convene at 10 a. Congress convenes without need of a call. 11. it can only meet in special session call by the President. 15. if not in session. Sec. of the third day after the vacancy. VII. shall. and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine. within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension. Sessions (1) Regular sessions Art. Special sessions are held in the following instances: a) When the President calls for a special session at any time (Art. 15.m.) Congress shall convene. VII. 16 (4) xxx Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. Sec.) (Art. Sec. Congress. 18). (2) Special sessions Art. In the last three cases. VI. Sec. without need of a call. Sec. VII. Sundays and legal holidays. exclusive of Saturdays. without need of a call. adjourn for more than three days. d) To revoke or extend the Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (Art. xxx The President may call a special session at any time. (This takes place not when the Cabinet first sends a written declaration about the inability of the President. until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session. VI. xxx Sec. but after the President has disputed this initial declaration. Sec. (3) Joint session PAGE 149 . VI. Cruz: "[P]lace" as here used refers not to the building but to the political unit where the two Houses may be sitting. c) To decide on the disability of the President because the Cabinet (majority) has "disputed" his assertion that he is able to dispose his duties and powers. convene.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. without need of call. VI. These are exceptions to the general rule in the 1st case that when Congress is not in session. nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. 16(5) Neither house during the session of the Congress shall. unless a different date is fixed by law. UPDATED 1/6/96 RAM f. within 48 hours. without the consent of the other house. if it is not in session. Sec. 15) b) To call a special election due to a vacancy in the offices of President and VicePresident (Art.

4. the vote is taken jointly. par. voting separately (Art. there has been a proclamation of Martial law or a suspension of the writ by the President. VII. 11. VI. b) When it decides (by 2/3 vote) on the question of the President's inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office (Art. if not graver. there is no reason why it should not be so to declare the existence of war (which among others. and the same weight of vote to a representative. Electoral Tribunals PAGE 150 . To declare a state of war. XVII. and Congress has to decide whether to revoke or to extend such proclamation or suspension (majority vote of all members. Joint session and separate voting take place in the following instances: (a) Voting Separately a) When Congress. voting jointly) (VII. If the voting is made "joint" due to the emergency character of the situation brought about by the invasion or rebellion.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition When both houses meet jointly. VII. VII. par. such person shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both Houses. who is either elected only by one legislative district or a party-list. Sec. while acting as the canvasser of votes for the President and VicePresident. But to decide on an internal disorder (which is short of war) which spurred the proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of the writ. 9). Sec. while there are 250 representatives. Sec. when it confirms the nomination of a VP by the President from among the members of Congress. e) When it proposes to amend the Constitution (3/4 vote of the members) [Art. who was elected "at large". has to break the tie between two or more candidates for either position having an equal and the highest number of votes (Art. the danger to national security and the emergency nature being the same. Sec. Sec. VV: There is an illogical inconsistency here. they generally vote separately. c) Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the VP. 4). the vote is taken separately. 1(1)]. d) When it declares (by 2/3 vote) the existence of a state of war [Art. 5. 23(1)]. (b) Voting Jointly But there is one exceptional instance when the two houses meet and vote jointly: When. The reason is obvious: there are only 24 senators. empowers the President to extend the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff). Sec. 18). It would be bad policy to give one vote to a Senator. 5).

a. by making the composition proportional. even if there was only one member from the minority party (in the person of Tanada). 3 shall be justices of the SC to be designated by the Chief Justice. In Tanada v Cuenco. The use of proportional representation to fill up the 6 slots reserved for members of the particular house is different from the rule under the 1935 Constitution. 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. and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives. 103 Phil. And even if this single representative vote together with the 3 justices. so long as there is one minority senator. as the case may be. and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system. VI. The case then is one of a majority preserving its advantage. returns. there is no way for them outvote the 5 from the majority party. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members. At least. Composition The Senate and the House shall each have an Electoral Tribunal. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session. there is always a clause that he could outvote the majority. at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members. which reserved 3 seats for the majority party and another 3 seats for the minority party. Sec. and the remaining 6 shall be members of the respective houses chose on the basis of "proportional representation" from the political parties. if only one senator comes from the minority party. 17 and 19 Art. PAGE 151 . VI. 17. Id. In the Senate. 1051 (1957). The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. and this would defeat its neutrality when acting as the sole judge of all election contests. who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list represented therein. for instance.. the SC ruled that the slot reserved for the minority party should not be filled up by the majority party. and qualifications of their respective Members. to discharge such powers and functions as herein conferred upon it. 2 senators are required of the 24 members of the Senate in order to have one representative in the tribunal. Sec. and that is when the 3 justices vote with him. This could not be done under the present set-up of the lower house because of the party-list system.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. which makes a fixed representation impossible. On the other hand. 19. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. the very nature of the Electoral Tribunal as a neutral judge of election contests has been destroyed. Under the system in the 1935 Constitution. there is no way that he would be represented in the tribunal. For to fill it up would offset the balance of the tribunal. The senior justice shall be the Chairman. to be composed of 9 members. Secs.

PAGE 152 . sought the disqualification of all the legislative members thereof on the ground that they were among the protestees in the said contest. Senator Estrada.) In dismissing the petition. some of whom would inevitably have to sit in judgment thereon. the petitioners who were protestants in a contest before the respondent body. later joined the majority and was replaced by Senator Enrile. (The original opposition member. (Angara vs Electoral Commission. returns and qualifications of Senators. who voluntarily inhibited himself. the SC said: It seems clear that in providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the Supreme Court and members of the Senate. is intended to be complete and unimpaired.1991) This resolution should be read in connection with Bondoc vs Pineda. returns and qualifications of members of the legislature. 166 SCRA 651. Where a situation is created which precludes the substitution of any Senator sitting in the Tribunal by any of his other colleagues in the Senate without inviting the same objections to the substitute's competence. it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. along with the other majority members of the Senate. 63 Phil 134) Request of Justices Melencio Herrera. b. but which it cannot lawfully discharge is shorn of the participation of its entire membership of Senators. March 19.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition In Abbas vs Senate Electoral Tribunal. would leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body can perform. Said intent is more clearly signalled by the fact that the proportion of Senators to Justices is 2 to 1 -. It should be noted that the framers of the Constitution could not have been unaware of the possibility of an election contest that would involve all 24 Senators-elect.an unmistakable indication that the legislative and judicial components cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial election contests. the proposed mass disqualification. the performance of which is in the highest interest of the people. which is discussed under Independence of the Electoral Tribunals. The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election. Cruz and Feliciano to be relieved as members of the HRET (Res. Nature of Function The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation. invested with the necessary authority in the performance and execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution. if sanctioned and ordered. the Constitution intended that both those judicial and legislative components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election. Though its composition is constituted by a majority of members of the legislature. The overriding consideration should be that the Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform.

and (iii) qualifications of their respective members. permanent disability. the members-legislators. To further bolster the independence of the Tribunals. those so designated should divest themselves of affiliation with their respective political parties. or removal for valid cause. Functions (id. the house may conduct "exclusion proceedings. The SC resolved to direct them to return to their duties in the Tribunal. not including political disloyalty. (not in VV's revised outline) Status In Angara v Electoral Commission. the Commission on Audit. was ruled to be an independent body. although attached to Congress. returns and qualifications of the members of Congress. sit in the Tribunal no longer as representatives of their respective political parties but as impartial judges. political factors which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. all members of these bodies should be guided only be purely legal considerations in the decision of the cases before them and that in the contemplation of the Constitution. the SC held that the then Electoral Commission was an independent body. upon assumption of their duties therein. In Suares v Chief Accountant. supra.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition In said request. VI. and so the salary of its staffers need not be the same as those of the Senate. Under Vera v Avelino. although attached to Congress.. Organization (Art. resignation. Sec. supra. were blocking the accomplishment of their constitutionally mandated task. the term of office of every member thereof should be considered co-extensive with the corresponding legislative term and may not be legally terminated except only by death. the three justices asked to be relieved from membership in the HRET. (then under the 1935 Constitution) as adjunct of Congress." and by a vote of the majority deny admission to a member-elect pending the resolution of complaints concerning his election. PAGE 153 . to insure their independence and objectivity as they sit in Tribunal deliberations. According to the court. They therefore suggested that there should be a provision in the Constitution that upon designation to membership in the Electoral Tribunal. in view of the sensitive constitutional functions of the Electoral Tribunals as the "sole judge" of all contests relating to the election. (ii) returns. thereof. 19) The Electoral Tribunal shall be constituted within 30 days after the 2 houses shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. Sec. According to them. 17) The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the (i) election.

at the request of the dominant political party therein. to serve the interests of the party in power. As judges.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Even if the Constitution vests in the Electoral Tribunal the power to decide the election. 1991) F: Pineda (LDP) and Bondoc (NP) both ran as congressional reps for the 4th district of Pampanga. returns and qualifications of member-elect. If. they are independent of the legislature. presumably to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the Tribunal. is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the HRET to be the sole judge of the election contest between Bondoc and Pineda. Pineda won but Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Reps Electoral Tribunal (HRET). To sanction such interference by the House of Representative in the work of the HRET would reduce the Tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in power which the three SC justices and the lone minority member would be powerless to stop. the question raised was whether the House of Representatives could.even independence from the political party to which they belong. there may be no electoral contest. 201 SCRA 792. in the discharge of their constitutional duties. may shuffle and manipulate the political (as distinguished from the judicial) component of the HRET. In this case. Sept. change its representative in the HRET. Bondoc. which is composed PAGE 154 . c. Bondoc v. The opposite is an "expulsion proceeding" where a sitting member is ousted for disorderly behavior by a vote of 2/3 pf all the members of the particular house. In the case Bondoc vs Pineda. The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the HRET for disloyalty to the LDP. the SC assumed jurisdiction. A minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the Tribunal. and so no occasion for the Electoral Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction. The SC held that the independence of the HRET would become a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of Representatives of the majority party therein. While acknowledging the independence of the Tribunal as the "sole judge" of election contests involving the members of the House of Representatives. there would be no election contest since there would be no protestant. because he cast his vote in favor of the NP's candidate. and so the jurisdiction of the tribunal could not be invoked. e.g. and also of the other departments for that matter. citizenship. precisely to protect that independence. it is not correct to say that they are mere adjuncts of the Congress of the Philippines. the members of the HRET must be non-partisan. impartiality and independence -. Pineda ( 201 SCRA 792.. S is the only candidate and he suffers from a disqualification. the house could not be denied the power to pass on this member-elect's qualifications. In fact. for instance. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment. Independence of the Electoral Tribunals Although the Electoral Tribunals are predominantly legislative in membership and the provision creating them is found in Article VI on the Legislative Department.

1991)] ISSUES: 1. d. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment. March 19. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a "conscience vote" in favor of Bondoc. Before Bondoc could be proclaimed. does not mean that the courts are superior to the President & the legislature. The tribunal was created to function as a NONPARTISAN court although 2/3 of its members are politicians. Its resolution of expulsion against Camasura is null & void.1990). Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not shared by it with the Legislature nor with the courts.. VI of the 1987 Consti & Sec. 3 of whom are SC justices. It is a NON-POLITICAL body in a sea of politicians x x x. It does mean though that the judiciary may not shirk the "irksome task" of inquiring into the constitutionality & legality of legislative or executive action when a justiciable controversy is brought before the courts by someone who has been aggrieved or prejudiced by such action. Cong. the LDP expelled Camasura as member of the party. an injustice. that power to hear and dispose of a case or controversu properly brogue before the court. The power & duty of the courts to nullify. the members of the tribunal must be NON-PARTISAN. VI of the 1935 Consti underscores the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the HRET as judge of contests relating to the ELECTION.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition of 9 members. an LDP. in appropriate cases. voted in favor of Bondoc. the HRET must be INDEPENDENT. GR 88647. as in this case. 11 of Art. The use of the word "SOLE" in both Sec. May the Supreme Court review and annul that action of the House? HELD: (as to Issue #1): 1. 2. Hence. and the remaining 6 are members of the House chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties & the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction. 17 of Art. 77 Phil 192). In expelling Cong. and a violation of the Constitution. Cruz and Feliciano to be relieved as members of the HRET (Res. impartiality. As to issue #2: Yes. & independence. Powers PAGE 155 . the actions of the executive & legislative branches of the Govt. May the House of Reps at the request of the dominant political party therein. change the party's representation in the HRET to thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein? 2. DISLOYALTY TO PARTY & BREACH OF PARTY DISCIPLINE are NOT VALID grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. Avelino. The 3 justices who also voted for Bondoc asked to be relieved from their assignment in the HRET because the withdrawal of Camasura as HRET rep of LDP in effect was a way of aborting the proclamation of Bondoc (NP). based strictly on the result of the examination & appreciation of the ballots & the recount of the votes by the tribunal. As judges. The HRET decided in favor of Bondoc. RETURNS & QUALIFICATIONS of the members of the House (Robles v. [Request of Justices Melencio Herrera. Adapted. Camasura. the house committed a grave abuse of discretion. HRET. It is "a plain exercise of the judicial power.even independence from the political party to which they belong. to the determination of which must be brought the test & measure of the law (Vera v. No.

HELD: 1. In the absence of a showing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Balinquit & Ong ran for representative of the 2nd legislative district of Northern Samar in the May 11. Its rule making power necessarily flows from the general power granted to it by the Constitution. July. the SC held that the creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. elected by each House on the basis of proportional PAGE 156 . In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission. as ex officio Chairman. Sec. 2. to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction. This ruling was recently affirmed by the SC in Lazatin vs House Electoral Tribunal. VI. as against those earlier adopted by the legislature itself. Commission on Appointments Art. twelve senators. is beyond dispute. or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated ERROR. Sec. 18-19 Art. Judicial Review of decisions of Electoral Tribunals Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives (199 SCRA 692. The SC held that: The power of the HRET. x x x upon a determination that the tribunal's decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction. 6. VI. the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election. it was held that the respondent body had the exclusive right to prescribe its own rules of procedure. Where a general power is conferred. 18. and twelve Members of the House of Representatives. manifestly constituting such grave abuse of discretion that there has to be a remedy for such abuse. Adapted. or with grave abuse of discretion or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of law. 1991) F: Co. the Court cannot exercise its corrective power. every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. returns and qualifications of the members of the legislature.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition In the earlier case of Angara vs Electoral Commission (63 Phil 139). must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. In such case. This is the import of the case Angara vs Electoral Commission. including the period for filing election protests before it. 168 SCRA 391. Ong won but pets (Co & Balanquit) protested Ong's election on the ground of noncitizenship. 1987 elections. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate. returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives. in connection with the election contests under its jurisdiction. Judgments of electoral tribunal are beyond judicial interference save only in the exercise of the Court's so-called extraordinary jurisdiction. therefore. as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. e. The HRET found for Ong.

the COMELEC then granted the petition of the LDP for registration as a political party. The House of Representatives therefore has the authority to change its representation in the Commission of Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the PAGE 157 . However. 115 Phil 7 (1962). The Commission shall rule by a majority votes of all the Members. Sec. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. Id. the petitioner questioned his replacement in the Commission on Appointments. except in case of a tie. And rightly so. For his part. at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members. Ruling in favor of the respondent. only the Liberal Party shall pass such test. Since membership in the Commission on Appointments is based on party affiliation. the SC declared that petitioner's argument is based on the non-registration of the LDP. which he claims has not provided the permanent political realignment to justify the questioned reorganization. The petitioner claimed that the formation of the LDP was merely a temporary development whereas the respondent claimed that it had permanently altered the political composition of the House. but without a change in party affiliation. So the SC ruled in Cunanan v Tan.. the Commission on Appointments performs the essentially political function of appointment. 180 SCRA 496. insisting that his designation thereto as a representative of the Liberal Party was permanent and could not be withdrawn. For unlike the Electoral Tribunal which performs the essentially neutral function of adjudication. does not justify a call to reorganize the commission on the ground that there is no longer proportional representation. Both invoked the earlier Cunanan vs Tan case. then a defection from one party to another changes the proportion in the respective houses (which) is a valid ground for the reorganization of the commission. If such argument is to be followed. the respondent contended that he could be validly be named in the petitioner's place in view of the political realignment in the House following the reorganization of the LDP to which he belonged. Under this theory. 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. an agreement between and among members coming from different parties to act in a concerted manner only on some issues. to discharge such powers and functions as herein conferred upon it. The distribution of political parties in the two Houses must thus be reflected proportionately in the Commission. However. a registered party obtaining the majority of the seats will not be entitled to representation in the Commission on Appointments as long as it was organized only recently and has not yet aged. a mere temporary alliance.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. Petitioner then claims that registration is not sufficient and that the political party must pass the test of time. 19. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote. In Daza vs Singson. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session. Composition by proportional representation has always been the rule even under the 1935 Constitution. where the SC had held that the political affiliations in the two Houses of Congress should be reflected in their respective representations in the Commission of Appointments.

Coseteng vs Mitra (187 SCRA 377) F: During the 1987 Congressional elections. and not the wisdom. his party is entitled to representation. Art. the LAKAS-NUCD to 1. HELD : The petition should be dismissed not because it raises a political question.eleven from the Coalesced Majority and one from the Coalesced Minority .5.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition political alignments of its membership.5) to be able to elect Senator Romulo. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another. The legality. The issue is justiciable.4% of the House. which it does not. VI. This is clearly a violation of Sec. the NPC to 2. but because the revision of the House representation in the CA is based on proportional representation of the political parties therein. Adapted. PAGE 158 . Coseteng filed a petition to declare null and void the appointment of the members of the CA on the theory that their election to the CA violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. In so doing. one other party's fractional representation in the CA was reduced. Of the 12 elected to the Commission on Appointments. Guingona vs Gonzales (214 SCRA 789) F: As a result of the 1992 Senatorial elections. Sec. The LDP majority converted a fractional half-membership to a whole membership (7. such would still come within judicial review on the issue of whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. represented the Coalesced Minority. the House Committees including the House representation in the Commission on Appointments had to be reorganized.5. The other minority parties are bound by the majority's choices. Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the KAIBA party. The other representatives to the CA were duly elected by the House (not by their party) as provided in Art. When the LDP was organized a year later. The composition was based on proportional representation of the political parties therein. the LDP was entitled to 7.5 to one senator) and because as the sole representative of his party.5 + . Even if it were a political question. The validity of their election to the CA .5 seats in the CA. The problem arose as to what to with the 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. Coseteng requested Mitra that she be appointed a member of the CA as a representative of KAIBA. of the manner of filling the CA. Roque Ablan of the KBL. its lone member represents only . 18. 18. Senator Tanada claimed that he has a right to be elected as member of the CA because of the physical impossibility of dividing a person (need to round off . Even if KAIBA were an opposition party.5 and the LP-PDP-LABAN to . is justiciable. Ablan was however retained as the 12th member representing the House minority. VI because it is no longer based on proportional representation of the political parties.is unassailable. thus she is not entitled to one of the 12 seats.

or (b) a majority of all its members. other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution a. while Congress is in session. except to break a tie. Adapted. Sec. other public ministers. a political party must at least have 2 duly elected senators for every seat in the CA. (not in VV's revised outline) Function (Art. provided that the number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the CA. Then. VII. 18. What the Constitution requires is that there be at least a majority of the entire membership. The Commission rules by a majority vote of all its members. Regular appointment Regular appointment takes place when the President appoints an officer whose appoinment requires confirmation by the Commission. The Chairman of the Commission does not vote. Failure to act within the period is tantamount to disapproval of the nomination. If the Congress or the Commission itself adjourns without taking any PAGE 159 . and consuls 3. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of the Congress from their submission. The election of Senator Romulo and Tanada as members of the CA was clearly a violation of Art. officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain 4. The SC does not agree that it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the CA. 18). members of the Regional Consultative council Sessions and Procedure (Secs. regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council c. The President must first nominate him to the Commission. Therefore. since the Constitution requires positive action by the Commission (VV). Section 18 also assures representation in the CA of any political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate. VI. 16) The Commission shall confirm or approve nominations made by the President of certain public officers named by the Constitution or by law: 1. heads of the executive departments 2. Sec. The officer so appointed cannot assume office at once. The Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12 senators and 12 members of the House in order that the Commission may function. 18 & 19) The Commission on Appointments shall meet to discharge its powers and functions only while the Congress is in session. ambassadors.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation. in the Senate. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. The meeting may be called by (a) the Chairman. the Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of the Congress from their submission (VI. Chairman and members of 3 Constitutional Commissions b.

III. the ad-interim appointment made by the President is complete in itself. 2). whether voluntary or compulsory. Bill of Rights. Limitations on the Legislative Power (1) Substantive limitations (a) Express substantive limitations 1) The Bill of Rights Art. the President shall have the power to make appointment during the recess of the Congress. When Congress convenes. whether or not his term is about to expire. (This is also known as ad-interim appointment. 7. The freedom of individuals are addressed as limitations to the power of Congress to legislate. 19) or until the next adjournment of the Congress (if the Commission fails to act earlier). VII. the Office of the President makes an "issuance of commission.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition action on the nomination. and thus effective at once. recess appointment takes when Congress is not in session. the Commission would have to act on the ad interim appointment by confirming it (in which case the appointment becomes permanent) or disapproving it by means of a positive failure to act on the appointment (in which case the appointment is immediately terminated). par. General plenary powers Art. PAGE 160 . and (ii) recess appointment. 1. the provisions of the Bill of Rights begin with the phrase "No law shall be passed". but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments (which can only be done when Congress is in session (Art. which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. whether or not this is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. If the Commission approves the nomination. Legislative Power and Process of Congress a. VI. But this appointment has only temporary effect. which happens when the President makes an appointment before his term expires. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines. 16. According to the Constitution." Only then can the appointee assume office. but the latter term is equivocal because it can be used in 2 senses: (i) midnight appointment. even without confirmation. which happens when the President makes appointment while Congress is in recess. Sec. again it is deemed disapproved (or bypassed). (Art. Recess appointment On the other hand. Sec. Sec. b.) Unlike regular appointment. VI. except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Thus.

content. Sec. General Principle No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. 24). and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. 29(1)]. (7) If. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 25. bills of local application. All appropriation. the President of the Senate. VI. 29. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriation recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. VI. shall originate exclusively in the House. and private bills. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. by the end of any fiscal year. (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.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 2) Appropriation Laws Art. and (b) PAGE 161 . [Art. 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. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriations therein. a budget of (a) expenditures. or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. Sec. (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer. Sec. as the basis of the general appropriations bill. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. by law. the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year.) General Appropriation The President shall submit to Congress. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. xxx Art. revenue or tariff bills. within 30 days from the opening of its regular session. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. the President. however. The form. (The reason is that the House is the more popular chamber of Congress. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Sec. VI.

by law. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. with or without savings. and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. however. [Art. 44 of the Budget Act of 1977 (BP 1177) granting the President the blanket authority to transfer funds from one department to another. VI. Sec. [Art. content. including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. [Art. VII. VI. Sec. and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. Sec. and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.) Transfer of funds already appropriated No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. VI. Sec. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. 10. PAGE 162 . by the end of the fiscal year. [Art. the President. and (b) supported by funds. 25(6)] In Demetria v Alba. (Art. supra. Sec. 25(4)] (A special appropriations bill may be proposed to supply a lack or meet a new need. from "savings" in other items of their respective appropriations. the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year. 2nd sentence]. In the case of a special law to elect the President and Vice-President.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition sources of financing. [Art. 25(5)] Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes. President of the Senate. No provision or enactment shall be embrace in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. be authorized to "augment" any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices. the requirements of the sections are specifically exempted by the Constitution in Art. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. VI. 25(1). is unconstitutional. Sec. VII. 25(7)] Special Appropriation A special appropriations bill shall (a) specify the purpose for which it is intended. actually available as certified by the National Treasurer. it was held that Sec. Sec. Speaker of the House. The form. VI. However. Sec. and the heads of the Constitutional Commission may. like a special election. the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted. or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. If. [Art. 25(2)] The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. VI. to be supported by appropriate vouchers. 22).

Id. al. directly. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions. Art. 25)) are tied up with Tax laws (the power to raise revenues (id. actually. or (d) any leprosarium. Exception: When such priest. directly. Sec. Sec. Sec. tariff rates. or employed). Sec. mosques. VI. non-profit cemeteries. 29(2)] Appropriations laws (the spending powers of Congress (id. or any system of religion) or of any priest (preacher. Sec. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. and exclusively used for religious. within specified limits. (b) any penal institution. Cruz: Uniformity in taxation means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. import and export quotas. w/c means that the tax burden must be imposed according to the taxpayer's capacity to pay. their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. or support of any religion (sect. paid. XIV. buildings. denomination. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (c) any government orphanage.. and improvements. is assigned to (a) the AFP. (3) Charitable institutions. 28 (2) The Congress may. other religious teacher. 4 (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. minister. authorize the President to fix. adds that the rule of taxation shall also be equitable. for the use. Sec. charitable. or religious dignitary). et. benefit. tonnage and wharfage dues. church. PAGE 163 . 3) Tax laws Id. Sec. sectarian institution. 28. [Art. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. It is distinguished from equality in taxation in that the latter requires the tax imposed to be determined on the basis of the value of the property. The present Consti.. non-profit educational institutions used actually.. They are two indispensable sides of a coin. directly or indirectly.. 28)). by law.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Prohibited appropriation to enforce the Separation of Church and State No public money or property shall be appropriated (applied. They are tied up by the principle that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (id.. and all lands. 29(1)). churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto.

may likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. or support of any sect. or employed. legislative powers cannot be delegated. preacher. 30. minister. The Constitution. minister. applied. (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. or system of religion. except when such priest. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. benefit. VI. or other religious teacher. for the use. paid. (b) Implied substantive limitations (i) Non-delegation of legislative powers As a general rule. provides certain specific exemptions. 5) Title of royalty Art. Sec. or dignitary as such. Delegation to the President PAGE 164 . Cruz: The purpose of this prohibition is to preserve the republican and democratic nature of our society by prohibiting the creation of privileged classes w/ special perquisites not available to the rest of the citizenry. 29. including those cooperatively owned. Sec. Cruz: The purpose is to prevent further additions to the present tremendous case load of the SC w/c includes the baclog of the past 2 decades. what can be delegated is the execution of the laws under acceptable standards limiting discretion of the executive. Art. or of any priest. preacher. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. A. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted. denomination. or to any penal institution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Proprietary educational institutions. VI. Sec. 31. if any. however. VI. church. 4) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Art. or government orphanage or leprosarium. directly or indirectly. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. sectarian institution. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. the balance.

argued that it was not. fees. authorize the President to fix.the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable-. VI. to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers. The SC declared that the Cardona case involved not the creation of a new municipality but merely the transfer of territory from one municipality to another. 28. xxx (2) The Congress may. by law. The SC upheld Pelaez.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 1) Emergency powers: Art. merge. Sec. import and export quotas. that said law: (a) be complete in itself -. abolish or otherwise alter the boundaries of municipal corporations. it is essential. authorize the President. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes. xxx (2) In times of war or other national emergency. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. within specified limits. 5. by law. enforcement or administration of a law. Such taxes. tonnage and wharfage dues. VI. fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide. tariff rates. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government.it must set forth therein the policy to be executed. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress. Sec. Delegation to Local Governments Tax powers: Art. carried out or implemented by the delegate -. the Congress may. for a limited period. 23. 36 Phil 547. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. The govt. The power to fix such boundaries of existing municipalities may partake of an administrative nature but the creation of municipal corporations is strictly legislative in nature. VI. 2) Certain taxing powers [Art.and (b) to fix a standard -. and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.to which the PAGE 165 . invoking the earlier case of Cardona vs Binangonan. 28(2)] (see Delegation of Tax Powers) Art. Pelaez vs Auditor General 15 SCRA 569 At issue here was the validity of Sec. B. divide. Sec. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. 68 of the Revised Administrative Code empowering the President of the Philippines to create. Sec. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. the power to fill details in the execution. X. where the power of the governor-general to transfer territory from one municipality to another was sustained. Pelaez contended that it was an invalid delegation of legislative power.. It ruled that the completeness test and the sufficient standard test must be applied together or concurrently. Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Govt.

it shall become PAGE 166 . (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days. he shall sign it. it shall be sent. after such reconsideration. without a statutory declaration of policy. except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws. C. shall. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. 26 (1) Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The Congress. Delegation to the People Initiative and referendum powers: Art. whether the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of his authority. or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof. and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. together with the objections. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. VI. Sec. If he approves the same. may be repealed or amended. Neither does it give a standard sufficiently precise to avoid the evil effects of undue delegation. be presented to the President. Indeed. No one can bind future generations to a law. with reasonable certainty. after the registration of a petition therefore. 68 of the RAC does not meet these well settled requirements for a valid delegation of the power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. provide for a system of initiative and referendum. VI. which is the essence of every law. passed by the Congress or local legislative body. as early as possible. (2) Procedural Limits Art. and the exceptions therefrom. 32. otherwise.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Adapted. before it becomes a law. It does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President. If. no amendment thereto shall be allowed. there would be no means to determine. 27 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. Sec. and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage. and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter. Upon the last reading of a bill. Sec. two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill. even the Constitution itself. to the other House by which it shall likewise be considered. he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated. signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters with every legislative district represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof. Sec. (ii) Prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws It is axiomatic that all laws. and without the aforementioned standard.

but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. The purpose is to enable the cabinet member to prepare. If the President forbids his appearance. under 1987. but may cover matters related It is submitted that a member of the Cabinet may not refuse to appear before the house. by any house. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative with the consent of the President. d. Question Hour Art. VI. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof. revenue. The heads of department shall provide. or tariff bill. Under 1935.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition a law. 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. or upon the request of either House. and the President so states in writing. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions. a feature of a parliamentary system. it shall become a law as if he had signed it. otherwise. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. Sec. with the consent of the President. (It must be noted then that the President cannot disallow the appearance but can only ask for a closed door session). and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. thereto. appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions. Legislative Investigations PAGE 167 . the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. c. (This is a carryover of the 1973 Constitution. he can be cited for contempt. 22. or (ii) upon request of either house. the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. still he must appear if asked by Congress. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. as the rules of that house shall provide. appear before. it was an excuse for the President to certify that the interest of public security justifies the refusal. on any matter pertaining to their departments: (i) upon their own initiative. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing. but may cover matters related thereto. as the rules of each House shall provide. In all such cases. the remedy is an executive session not refusal to appear. If he refuses a summons.) Written questions shall be submitted to the presiding officer of the house at least 3 days before the scheduled appearance. and be heard.

21. holding that the petitioners are impleaded as defendants in a case before the Sandiganbayan. the contempt seems to be effective even beyond the session during which the contempt was made. this time about an affidavit which purportedly gave the details surrounding the acquisitions of the estates by Bert and the supposed circumstances under which he gave the amount to a Jess Santos. The Court in both cases.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. Usually. In connection with the legislative investigation of the Buenavista and Tambobong Real Estates whereby a certain Bert was able to sell the land to the government and realized P1. and thus dismissed the habeas corpus petitions. When so held in contempt. 55 Phil 170 (1930). or (b) affected by such inquiries shall be respected.5 million. The SC granted the petition. Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee 203 SCRA 767 In this case. The second case of Arnault v Balagtas. 87 Phil 29 (1950). The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Arnault was cited for contempt for persistently refusing. the SC upheld the power of Congress to hold in contempt a person required to appear before Congress or its committee and answer questions relevant to a matter of legislative interest in the Arnault cases. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid or legislation in accordance with its duly published rules or procedure. the rights of the persons (a) appearing in. overruling the case of Lopez v de los Reyes. to reveal the name of the person to whom gave the P440. held the SC in Arnault. However. the petitioners sought to restrain the respondent from investigating their participation in the alleged misuse of govt. Its findings on this matter PAGE 168 . and that no legislation was apparently being contemplated in connection with the said investigation.000. the decision failed to consider that the proceeding before the Sandiganbayan was criminal in nature and that the purpose of the legislative investigation was to ascertain the disposition of funds and properties claimed to be public in nature. funds and the illicit acquisition of properties being claimed by the PCGG for the Republic of the Philippines. VI. which involves issues intimately related to the subject of contemplated inquiry before the respondent Committee. 97 Phil 350 (1955) arose when he persisted in not giving information. where the Court held that the contempt lasted only for the session and could not be revived in the next session by a mere reapproval of the previous contempt. upheld the authority of the Senate to cite him in contempt. Notable among these rights is the right against "self. Each house or any of its committees may conduct "inquiries in aid of legislation" according to its duly published rules of procedures.incrimination". To enforce this right. after taking the stand. In Arnault v Nazareno. since the Senate is a continuing body. immunity is granted to those who are compelled to appear. However. Sec.

Thomposon. and (b) that the function of Congress is confined to strictly lawmaking. there is nothing it can do if Congress refuses to comply w/ its demand. w/ coercive power to compel disclosure. but only the beginning. until today it is used only as a counterweight to individual rights. xxx Second.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition could be the subject of legislation although it may not have been expressly stated that such was the purpose of the inquiry. Legislative purpose serves not as a limitation on the power of investigation but rather as a counterweight to the interest in civil liberties. of the complexity. On what ground can the Court strike down vague authorizing resolutions? On the principle of separation of powers? Fourth. At the same time concern for the fact that unless limited to a "legislative purpose" the power to investigate may be used to harass individuals and invade fundamental rights very early led the US SC to insist on a showing that investigations be "in aid of legislation. first announced in Kilbourn vs. the SC is bound to presume that the action of the legislative body was with a legitimate object if it was capable of being so construed. The Use of Legislative Purpose as a Limitation on the Congressional Power of Investigation. the doctrine of legislative purpose. Only a doctrinaire view of the principle of separation of powers can support the first. judicial and executive. 87 Phil 29. xxx [W]hile the Court may try to enforce the legislative purpose doctrine by requiring Congress to state the aims and purposes of authorized investigations. [T]he doctrine of legislative purpose is difficult of enforcement. the task of the Court is not at an end. xxx The legislative purpose served by the inquiry will still have to be weighed against the right of the witness." xxx THE ALTERNATIVE USE OF THE DOCTRINE Through the years. The 2nd assumption is based on an unreality. As observed in the earlier case of Arnault vs Nazareno. To say that congressional inquiries may only be justified in terms of the need for legislation is to assume two things: (a) that the powers of govt can be neatly divided into legislative. But how is the Court to prove otherwise if Congress declares that its purpose is legislation? The Court cannot probe into the motives of the members of Congress. xxx The idea that Congress has a right to be fully informed in order that it may legislate wisely underlies the exercise of the power to investigate. 103 US 168 (1880). Mendoza. 46 PHIL L. PAGE 169 . And legislative investigation need not result in legislation. xxx The use of the doctrine of legislative purpose is subject to the following observations: First. Even given the fact that an investigation is for a legislative purpose. xxx It is said that investigations can only be undertaken in aid of legislation.J. and it has no right to assume that the contrary was intended. 707 (1971) A determination that the inquiry is for a "legislative purpose" is not the end. has steadily declined in value as a limitation on the congressional power of investigation.

4 Congressional investigations have the salutary effect of keeping the public informed of what is happening in their government since congressional investigations are given wide publicity by media. UE Law Journal. the Supreme Court said: The power of inquiry. 57. xxx. pp. Roces. The Congress of the Philippines. Nazareno2. The Senate may conduct an investigation into all matters pertinent to the possible ratification of a 1Joaquin R. pp.to guide and aid Congress in the enactment of laws. Rivera. 7Art. p. xxx Notes on Legislative Inquiries by RAM : The power of Congress to conduct investigations exists for the primary purpose of enabling it to discharge its legislative functions wisely and effectively-. 4Tanada and Fernando. their amendments and as well as their repeal.5 Congressional investigative function may be justified under certain provisions of the Constitution which are judicial and executive in nature. 5op cit. vol. the power of inquiry may be utilized by Congress for the scrutiny of executive action as well as the formation of public opinion. striking down those inquiries which needlessly destroy constitutional rights and upholding those in w/c exposure of some danger or misdeeds is essential to society. xxx xxx By recognizing exposure as a normal purpose of investigations.which is not infrequently true. 16.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Fifth. xxx [T]he use of "legislative purpose as a short hand term for what Congress might undertake tends to lend a conclusory meaning when what is involved is a process of reaching judgment. 3Juan F. Legislative investigations are carried out in order to ascertain (a) what new legislation is needed (b) the existing law to be repealed and (c) whether a new legislation is effectively accomplishing its purpose with a view of amending it. The Constitution of the Philippines. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. Sec. nos. information concerning the qualifications of the appointee may be investigated.recourse must be had to others who do posses it. The Congress of the Philippines.. and where the legislative body does not itself possess requisite information. 57-58. 287 Phil 29. the Court can begin to act as a real balancer of interests.3 But in addition to obtaining facts that may be useful in enacting laws. individual rights would indeed appear to be mere paper weights. 1987 Constitution PAGE 170 . 19581959 at page 262-263. 771-771. 1-4.6 In the exercise of the power to confirm appointments7.with power to enforce it . VII. loc cit. The Power of Congressional Investigations.is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. xxx To presume that the purpose is lawmaking where the purpose is different is to place an undue weight on one side of the scale. 6Juan F. Against the presumption of legislative purpose. while at the same time stressing its potential danger to individual rights. Rivera. 45 (1950). I.1 In the seminal case of Arnault vs.

with acts which inherently obstruct or prevent the discharge of its legislative duties. consists of its authority to summon witnesses. unlike the Senate which is a continuing body. 2. terminates when the legislative body ceases to exist upon its final adjournment. ibid. de los Reyes. and compel the production of papers.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition treaty. citing Willoughby. 267 1555 Phil 170. 23. British Parliament had experimented with a fact-finding committee armed with the power to compel attendance of persons and the production of documents with the power to punish contumacious witnesses. on the other hand. p. to extract testimony from them. or the declaration of the existence of a state of war. I. 17supra note 2 at p. however. ibid 11Art. XVII. II. XI."17 This punitive power. and that volunteered information are often unreliable. the term of whose members expire at different times. Sec. PAGE 171 . on the one hand. inherently obstruct or prevent the discharge of legislative duties.14 As early as the case of Lopez v. 14ibid. 134. ibid. This pronouncement has been reaffirmed in the 1950 case of Arnault v. Sec. Nazareno. sec.16 In that case. 20supra note 18. The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary. VI. 344. by way of contempt proceedings. at p.20 TRACING THE ROOTS The practice of legislative inquiries dates back to the 1620s when Pilgrims landed in America. On the Consitution of the United States.9 Investigatory power is also available when Congress is considering constitutional amendments10. VII.15 the Supreme Court has ruled that the power to punish for contempt is essential to permit the Legislature to perform its duties without impediment.19 the life of the House of Representatives terminates upon its final adjournment. 9Art. consists of its authority to deal directly. 243 US 521.18 Thus. 2 at p. 264-265.11 The general power of Congress in conducting investigations may be roughly divided into two parts. XII. Vol. 10Art. concluded that some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed. 13ibid. The correlative power to punish a prevaricating witness for contempt rests on the right of the legislature to self-preservation and is founded on "the right to prevent acts which. 19Art. The courts. 12supra note no. ibid. documents and other information. 267 citing Marshall v. thus.8 The power to inquire is also implied in the authority to impeach officials.13 The punitive power of the Legislature. in and of themselves. 1987 Constitution. vol. Sec.12 The inquisitorial powers of Congress. Sec. 3. or refusal to do that which there is an inherent legislative power to compel in order that legislative functions may be performed. 16 supra note 6. 21. the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often unavailing. Gordon. one being its inquisitorial power and the other its punitive power. Before that event. 18Bernas. This experiment on legislative inquest eventually developed as a necessary part of the legislative process with the establishment of the supremacy 8Art.

US rulings."25 LIMITATIONS Article VI. In that case. By 1689. supra 24Kilbourn v. Burt. thereby upholding the right of Congress to conduct investigations in aid of legislation. a number of parliamentary committees of investigation were in operation. and among them was Jean Arnault. The former Congress had approved a resolution creating a committee to investigate the causes of failure of the expedition under Major General St. 56 citing Keele. Nonetheless. Muntinglupa until discharged by further order of the Senate or by the Special Committee created by Senate Resolution no. 25supra note no. United States Presidents from Jefferson to Truman effectively wielded this doctrine as a shield against inquiries initiated by Congress. giving this committee the power to call for papers and records need in the investigation. Senate Resolution no. 60 citing US v. Thompson. In 1796. Philippine courts have held that the congressional power to investigate is co-extensive with legislative power. Jean Arnault refused to reveal the name of the person to whom he gave the amount of one hundred forty thousand pesos (P140. Nazareno. 8. PAGE 172 . The Committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the government. February 1954. 103 US 168 (1881).23 This ruling follows the later decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court. President Washington again refused the request of the House for the delivery of copy of instruction of the US Minister who negotiated a treaty with Great Britain invoking the doctrine of separation of powers. Subsequently. A petition for the release of the petitioner from his confinement at Muntignlupa was denied by the Supreme Court. 2 at p. the examination of which would promote public interest. 8 created a special committee to investigate the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates purchase. 500.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition of Parliament in 1688. vol. Johnson. President George Washington ordered his cabinet to deliver only those papers."24 Later.00) as well as to any other related pertinent questions.000. 40 no. The Committee called and examined various witnesses. have expanded the power to "at least as great as the power to legislate. 2. American Bar Association Journal. 154. 000). Harold M. Clair against the Indians at Fort Wayne. 22supra note 2. 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides: 21supra note 7 at p. 333 US 837. It sought to inquire into the necessity and regularity of the payment of a certain Burt of one million five hundred thousand pesos (P 1. Nazareno. p. When the committee was called to submit the necessary papers relative to the campaign. at p. Note that earlier US jurisprudence has maintained that congressional investigative power is to be used to implement a "clear and precise legislative purpose. for the downpayment of twenty thousand pesos (P20. Sec. and to refuse the delivery of such papers when disclosure would injure public interest. 265-266 citing History of (US) Congressional Investigations.000) had sometime in 1946 purchased from San Juan de Dios Hospital and from the Philippine Trust Company the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates. Notes on Congressional Investigations. however.21 The US Congress first exercised this power in March of 1792. the determination of what would enhance public interest was still a Presidential prerogative. The Committee then ordered his commitment to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms and imprisonment in the New Bilibid Prison.22 The first Philippine case on the matter of legislative investigations is the case of Arnault v. 23Arnault v.

28 Unfortunately. 105 A 2d 756.34 the Supreme Court has held that the contemplated inquiry by the respondent Committee is not really "in aid of legislation" because it is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress. as Congress cannot legislate on them.35 The Court notes the fact that since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the 26Watkins 27Jacinto v. Mendoza. (4) the question itself. Symaqn. First. 354 Us 178. However Congress can inquire into private affairs if they affect matters on which Congress can legislate. US. 30supra. Ateneo Law Journal. how will the court prove otherwise? More often than not. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 28Ibid. In that case. however. (2) the opening remarks of the committee chair. PAGE 173 . the determination of what is "in aid of legislation" is not the end but only the beginning of the complexity.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. the investigation must be in aid of legislation. Congress cannot conduct an investigation to find out if someone should be prosecuted criminally. In the case of Bengzon v. 764.32 In determining the propriety of the question propounded to a witness. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. 33supra note 23 citing Watkins v. Materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress.31 It is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to a proposed legislation. supra. p. the petitioners seek to enjoin the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee from requiring them to testify and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the equity of Benjamin Romualdez to Lopa Group in thirty six (36) corporations. 209-214. Nazareno. 35Miriam Defensor-Santiago. supra Jimenez.. US. 719. In an attempt to protect the rights of witnesses. the Constitution imposes several limitations to the investigatory power of Congress. (3) the nature of the proceedings.26 Investigation of purely private affairs of people cannot be made.30 It is difficult to define any limits by which the subject matter of its inquiry can be circumscribed. No inquiry is an end in itself.27 Moreover. Congress is not a law enforcement agency or a court. 32ibid. 46 PLJ 707. and (5) the response of the committee to a pertinency objection. vol XXXIV p. 34203 SCRA 767. or to determine if someone is guilty or innocent of a crime. 141.29 If a claim is made by Congress that an investigation is in aid of legislation. 31Arnault v. citing Nelson v. Congress cannot conduct an investigation merely for the purpose of investigation. The Use of Legislative Purpose as a Limitaiton on Congressional Power to Investigate. thus. or to decide what are the rights of parties to a controversy. 71. courts are compelled to take the statement of "in aid of legislation" at face value and render it conclusive upon themselves. The Modern Day Spanish Inquisition. 29Vicente V. note 29 at p. the following matters are to be considered33: (1) the definition of the inquiry found in the authorizing resolution or statute.

38 And thirdly. would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that has much earlier set in. they cannot be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. belief. Like all other forms of governmental actions. 109 Phil. 783.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition relatives of the President or Mr."41 The privilege. 142 US 547. in themselves support a conviction but likewise. or losing one's job. p. 11 citing Counselman v. 90 citing In re Petition of Graham. even infamous ones. or investigative. or freedom of association. and to join associations. the investigation must be in accordance with duly published rules of procedure of Congress. p. nevertheless. whether civil.36 In addition. 95 L Ed 1118. US. supra.42 In a legislative investigation. without fear of ultimate sanction for doing so. 133 citing Osmena v. the court notes that for respondent committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy. 42Ibid. p. or religion. 784.Law Center. 43Jacinto Jimenez. 104 So 2d 16. 38supra note 19 at p. 12 S Ct 195. 71 S Ct 816. Perfecto V. religion and political belief and association cannot be abridged. Ricardo Lopa has violated Section 5 of Republic Act 3019.39 The right against self-incrimination applies to any witness in any proceeding. criminal. there must be a showing that (1) there is a threat of criminal liability. and their freedoms of speech. hence. even unpopular ones. These rules of procedure are subject to change or even suspension by Congress at any time except if it will affect the substantive rights of the witness and other persons involved. the Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional investigations. 139 citing Hoffman v. He must wait until he is asked an incriminatory question. 37ibid. and (3) that such threat is real and appreciable and not imaginary and unsubstantial. 40Manual on Guaranty against Self-incrimination. which is already before the Sandiganbayan. embrace "those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence to prosecute the claimant for a (crime). To the extent that testifying before a legislative committee forces one to publicly reveal beliefs and associations when disclosure can lead to being blacklisted. 41Ibid. socially ostracized.. Pendatun. 66. a witness cannot claim his right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer before any question is propounded on him.43 A witness can attempt to avoid answering particular questions by claiming an infringement of his freedom of speech. (2) that such threat of criminal liability concerns the witness himself. press. US. who is being compelled to give testimony that may be used against them in a subsequent criminal case. 63 citing Hoffman v. 35 L Ed 1110. compelling such testimony infringes upon one's constitutional 36Ibid. p. cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. 18. To be meaningful. Fernandez. 341 US 479. PAGE 174 . freedom of speech and freedom of association must allow citizens to express ideas. Hitchcock. p.40 The privilege against self-incrimination not only extends to answers that will. 863 (1960) 39supra note 2 at p. UP Law Complex Institute of Human Rights. Witnesses at such investigations. supra note 27 at p. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the Constitution further mandates that the rights of witnesses appearing in or affected by such inquiries must be respected. is operative and available only where the compelled testimony or communication possesses a potential for incrimination. the matter appears more within the province of courts rather than the legislature.37 Secondly. For potential incrimination to exist.

Indeed.47 This is a significant development since under the 1935 Constitution. the following propositions50 have been made: (1) the authority of an investigating committee to act must be determined from the rule or resolution creating it. 50supra note 2 at p. 66 citing Barenblatt v. The courts can review whether or not the questions propounded to a witness is relevant to the subject matter of legislative investigation. Otis H. speech. 46Ibid. it is apparent that but for a limited and proper claim. Whether the alleged immateriality of the to Investigate. 27 US Law Week 4366 (1959). be delimited in order to enable the witness to know whether the subject of investigation is proper. but invariably unrestricted in practice. VIII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. There is a need for defining with "sufficient particularity" the jurisdiction and purpose of investigating committees (1) as a way of insuring the responsible exercise of delegated power and (2) as a basis for determining the relevance of the questions asked. Stephens and Gregory J. 711 citing Watkins v. 132. 79 Sct 1081. and (3) the witness must be informed as to the pertinency of the particular question in relation to the legislative purpose. 27 US Law Week 4366 (1959). US. the legislative power of inquiry and the auxiliary power to compel testimony are limited in theory only. US. p. 47Bernas. (2) a valid legislative purpose as distinct from a purpose merely of exposure. Rathjen. supra note 18 at p. 360 US 109.46 The 1987.45 However. US. AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Art. must be shown. 354 US 178.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition rights. 45supra note 33 at p. 48supra note 29 at p. ultimately whether the questions asked are pertinent to the subject of inquiry. 148.49 In delineating this powers. or of the press and association and (3) validly claims questions asked are not pertinent.44 A witness can remain silent and ultimately avoid possible sanction for a contempt citation if he or she (1) makes a proper claim to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. 79 S Ct 1081.48 The scope of the powers of the committee must. none of these options is free of a substantial risk that the witness may be wrong and have to suffer for the miscalculations. (2) validly alleges an infringement of freedom of religion. and. A legislative investigation may create what is called a "chilling effect" on the exercise of these rights. PAGE 175 44Power . the Supreme Court and the Allocation of Consitutional Power. Introductory Essays and Selected Cases. 146 citing Barenblatt v. the investigatory powers of the committees were conferred by the legislature. as well as in the 1973 Constitution directly conferred the power of investigation upon congressional committees. 49Ibid. therefore.

. press. note 44. As to persons who may appear: 22: Only a department head 21: Any person b. Question Hour (Art. xxx 51supra 52supra note 6. 21) a. 55Ibid. 53Bengzon v.52 It cannot be simply assumed. VII.54 To presume that the purpose is lawmaking when . it is not is to place an undue weight on one side of the scale. 4. 719. as a counterweight to the interest in civil liberties. PAGE 176 . Art. however. pars. 720. religion and association is asserted to bar governmental interrogation. 22) and Legislative Investigation (id. in fact. 4. Senate Blue Ribbon Committe. 203 SCRA 767. freedom of speech. p. e. 785.51 When a claim to the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Act as Board of Canvassers for presidential and Vice Presidential elections Art. 4. VII.55 RAM. Sec. Sec. the resolution of the issue always involves a balancing by the courts of the competing private and public interests at stake in the particular circumstances shown. Sec. Legislative purpose serves best.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition information sought by the legislative body from a witness is relied upon to contest its jurisdiction. that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that over-balances any private rights affected. et seq. not as a limitation on the power of investigation but rather. the court is in duty bound to pass upon the contention. VI. As to who conducts the investigation 22: Entire body 21: Committees c. 54supra note 30 at p. To do so is to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech. Sec. religion or assembly. press. As to subject-matter 22: Matters related to the department only 21: Any matter for the purpose of legislation.53 The legislative purpose served by the inquiry will still have to be weighed against the right of the witness.

Call a special election in case of vacancy in the offices of President and Vice-President Art. f. but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes (tie). (2) each certificate of canvass contains the names of all of the candidates for President and Vice-President and their corresponding votes in words and in figures. shall be transmitted to the Congress. Congress shall. When the certificate of canvass. 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 PAGE 177 . city or district. voting separately. 10. open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives in joint public session. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass. upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law. at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs. count the votes as they appear in the copies of the election returns submitted to it.. canvass (i.President. the President of the Senate shall. directed to the President of the Senate. upon request of the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate concerned or his party.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The returns of every election for President and Vice. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. duly certified by the board of canvassers of each provinces or city. not later than thirty days after the day of election (w/c is the 2nd Tuesday of June).-. one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members of Congress. for the sole purpose of verifying the actual number of votes cast for President and Vice-President. tally the certificates of canvass) the votes. the election returns from polling places that were not included in the certificate of canvass and supporting statements. Said election returns shall be submitted by personal delivery within two (2) days from receipt of notice. and the Congress. Sec. duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province. The Congress shall. VII.Congress shall determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass for President and Vice-President as accomplished and transmitted to it by the local boards of canvassers. When it appears that any certificate of canvass or supporting statement of votes by precinct bears erasures or alterations which may cast doubt as to the veracity of the number of votes stated therein and may affect the result of the election. RA 7166 : An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms Sec. and (3) there exists no discrepancy in other authentic copies of the certificate of canvass or discrepancy in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same certificate. the Senate President shall require the board of canvassers concerned to transmit by personal delivery. on a showing that: (1) each certificate of canvass was executed. appears to be incomplete. 30.e. The persons having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected. signed and thumbmarked by the chairman and members of the board of canvassers and transmitted or caused to be transmitted to Congress by them. Congress as the National Board of Canvassers for the Election of President and VicePresident: Determination of Authenticity and Due Execution of Certificates of Canvass.

since Art. VII. Revoke or extend suspension of privilege of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law PAGE 178 . The bill automatically becomes a law. 2. then. b) Approval by the President (for obvious reasons).POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. Not later than 30 days after the election. or revenue raising measure under Art. Section 26.as the case may be . The holding of the special election cannot be postponed. 26. VI. The convening of Congress cannot be suspended. in accordance with its rules. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4. Within 7 days after it convenes. the timetable is: Day 0 . it shall enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and Vice. the three readings can be done all on the same day.election is held Day 85 to 100 . The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2.canvassing by Congress. if it has not done so earlier. Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Thus. par. Section 25. When a vacancy occurs in the offices of the President and Vice-President.President. c) Certification by the National Treasurer of the availability of funds. Sec. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. Sec. a talks of every election for President and Vice-President. more than 18 months before the date of the next regular presidential election. 25(4). to be held between 45 to 60 days from the day of such call. if it has not passed before this date Day 55 to 70 . 4 par.vacancy occurs Day 3 . Congress shall again act as Board of Canvassers (see infra). upon its approval on 3rd and final reading. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. g. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations.Congress convenes without need of call Day 10 . Article VI of this Constitution. latest. the Congress shall convene at 10 AM of the 3rd day after the vacancy.Congress passes the special election law. without need of call. Thus. Under the Constitution then a vacancy is filled by the 100th day from the vacancy at the The law so passed is exempted from the following: a) Certification under VI.

shall within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension. for a period not exceeding sixty days. VII. and whenever it becomes necessary. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. The President shall then submit a report in person or in writing to Congress. The Congress. In case of invasion or rebellion. in the same manner. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. the Congress may. when the public safety requires it. By a joint majority vote of all the members of both houses in a joint meeting. he may. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. Sec. Upon the initiative of the President. or 2) To extend the proclamation after 60 days. which extension need not be for another 60 days only. may revoke such proclamation or suspension. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. because the proclamation or suspension is valid in itself for 60 days already. if the causes persist. convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. the Congress has 2 possible courses of action: 1) To revoke (or disapprove) the proclamation or suspension. the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. then Congress shall convene within 24 hours form the proclamation or suspension in accordance with its rules. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. PAGE 179 . nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. 18. infra). Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. but either disapproves it or extends it. The Congress. It must be noted that the Congress does not approve the proclamation or suspension. voting jointly. which revocation cannot be set aside (vetoed) by the President. within 48 hours from the proclamation or suspension. When the President suspends the privilege of the writ or proclaims martial law (see discussion. if not in session. without need of a call. The suspension of the privilege shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. The Supreme Court may review. What it needs is the extension that may be granted by Congress beyond the 60-day period when it expires. for a period to be determined by Congress. if it is not in session. and so does not require the approval of Congress for its effectivity. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies. 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. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. otherwise he shall be released. invasion or rebellion. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days.

and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. other public ministers and consuls. Ambassadors. VII. i. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. Confirm certain appointments (1) Art. the President may grant reprieves. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. 16. but such appointment shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. and those whom. 9 (By Congress) Art. The President has the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. 9. Approve Presidential Amnesties Art. 16) PAGE 180 . VII. in the courts. VII. Sec. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress. commissions or boards.. whether voluntary or compulsory. or in the heads of departments. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel and naval captain (VII. by law. 16) c. Sec. voting separately. 16) b. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. and remit fines and forfeitures. agencies. The following officers appointed by the President require confirmation by the CA: a. (2) Id. public ministers. with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The Congress may. appoint the heads of the executive departments. vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone. Sec. after conviction by final judgment. ambassadors. VII. 19. Sec. 16 (By the Commission on Appointments) Art. Sec. Heads of departments (VII. the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of Congress. The President shall nominate and. and consuls (VII. or as otherwise provided in this Constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition h. commutations. he may be authorized by law to appoint. and pardons. Except in cases of impeachment.

and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Consti. Sec. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. On the other hand. 16. 16. 1 (2)]. with the consent of a Commission on Appointment.) after the word "captain" and substitute the phrase "and all" w/ the phrase "HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT ANY. 1[2]) e. Sec. 18. Foz. X. (4) Chairman and Commissioners of the COA [Art. Sec. HELD: Art. Sec. C. PAGE 181 . being of the rank of the bureau director. shall appoint the heads of executive departments and bureaus. on motion of Comm. VIII. 156 SCRA 549. Sec. 16 are not subject to confirmation. The President shall nominate and. VII. Sec. other public ministers and consuls. members of the Bar and law professors. Sarmiento vs Mison. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. to enjoin respondent Commissioner of Customs from performing his functions on the ground that his appointment. & D. the 2nd amendment was intended to subject to confirmation only those mentioned in the frist sentence. IX-D. 1 (2)]. is unconstitutional. Sec. without need of confirmation by the CA. It was the clear and express intent of the framers of the Constitution to exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by the CA. However. 2 changes were approved in the text of the provision. and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. in the courts. The first was to delete the phrase "and bureaus. 156 SCRA 549 F: Petitioners brought this suit for prohibition in their capacity as taxpayers.. Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions (IX. as orginally proposed by the Committe on Executive Power of the 1986 Con Com read: Sec. namely: The heads of the exec. the Commissioner of Customs was held not to be subject to confirmation. IX-B.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition d. 8[2]) In Sarmiento vs Mison. Members of the Judicial and Bar Council (VIII. (1) Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council [Art. ambassadors. i. or in the heads of departments. w/o confirmation by the CA. IX-C. These are: (1) all other officers of the Govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law." The first amendment was intended to exempt the appointment of bureau directors from the requirement of confirmation on the ground that this position is low and to require confirmation would subject bureau directors to political influence. (3) Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC [Art. B. other public ministers and consuls." and the second was to place a period (.) The rest of the appointments mentioned in sec. The Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone. except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in Art. 8(2)] (2) Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission [Art. ambassadors. The power to appoint is already vested in the President. 16. VII. (5) Members of the regional consultative commission (Art. depts. who was purposely deleted from the listing of those whose appointments had to be approved by the Commission on Appointments.e. 1 (2)].

Sec. VII. that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If the Congress. authorize the President. (2) In times of war or other national emergency. This is true. 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. although it is the President who is the chief spokesman in foreign relations. [Art. Sec. or if not in session. otherwise. par. for a limited period and subject such restrictions as the law may prescribe. within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration. 23(1)] In times of war or other national emergency. VI. 11.] Although the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the AFP should not exceed 3 years. voting separately. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. The Congress. VI. and (3) officers lower in rank whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the Pres. (1) The Congress. within twelve days after it is required to assemble. Sec. Declaration of war and delegation of emergency powers Art. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. 4. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled but voting separately shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. Concur in Treaties Art. Sec. 23. Executive agreements do not need concurrence.] l. [Art. 23(2). for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. xxx. PAGE 182 . Sec. the Congress may authorize the President. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress. by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint sessions assembled. [Art. 5(7). the President may extend such tour of duty in times of war or other national emergency declared by Congress. alone. Such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment of Congress. VV. XVI. k. Sec. 21. by law. the Vice-President shall act as President. Be judge of the President's physical fitness Art. may be authorized by law to appoint. the Congress may. determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses. unless sooner withdrawn by its resolution. VI.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (2) those whom the Pres. shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. j. voting separately. the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. VII.

they can contest this "declaration of non. his declaration entitles him to stay until Congress says otherwise. is required to declare the President's inability. if it is not in session.) Congress must convene (a) within 10 days after receipt of the 2nd written declaration by the Cabinet. the President shall continue in office. he shall reassume his office. But if less than 2/3 of each House vote that the President is unable. acting on the 2nd written declaration by the Cabinet When the President himself transmits to the Senate President and Speaker of the House his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. or (b) within 12 days after it is required to assemble by its respective presiding officer. (The Vice-President in this second instance does not act as President: the President having spoken as against his Cabinet. the Vice-President shall act as President. Power of Impeachment PAGE 183 . this may be viewed as a new declaration. But if the Cabinet submits the declaration more than 5 days after the President reassumes office. The Vice-President shall discharge such powers and duties as Acting President. Upon such transmittal.inability" by again sending a second written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker. The President can contest this by transmitting to the Senate President and Speaker his written declaration that no inability exists. voting separately. and so the Vice-President can immediately act as President. In a joint session. The problem arises when a majority of all members of Cabinet transmit to the Senate President and Speaker their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge his office. if 2/3 of each house vote that the President must step down. Two-thirds vote by each house. within 5 days from the time the President transmitted his written declaration of non-inability. if it is in session. Upon such transmittal. But if the majority of all the members of the Cabinet really believe otherwise. there is no problem. In other words.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition There are 3 ways in which the President may be declared unable to discharge his functions under this article: (1) Upon his own written declaration (2) Upon the first written declaration by majority of his Cabinet (3) Upon determination by Congress by 2/3 vote of all its members voting separately. the Congress shall decide the President's ability. the Vice-President shall "immediately" assume the office as Acting President. It is this second cabinet written "declaration of inability" that brings in the Congress as judge of the President's ability to discharge his office. until the President transmit to the Senate President and Speaker a written declaration that he is no longer unable to discharge his powers and duties. m.

XI. other high crimes. President b. and the Ombudsman may be removed from office. on impeachment for. 3(5)] Forum: The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Sec. The President. or betrayal or public trust. 2. 3(1)] (3) Procedure for impeachment Art. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. culpable violation of the Constitution. the Members of the Constitutional Commissions. XI. the Members of the Supreme Court. the Vice-President. Sec. XI. 2. Members of the Constitutional Commissions e. 3(1)-(6) PAGE 184 . bribery. Ombudsman (2) Grounds for impeachment Art. XI. but not by impeachment. Sec. a. graft and corruption. XI. Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (1) Who are subject to impeachment Art. and conviction of. XI. Sec. Vice-President c. 2 Art. Sec. [Art. Justices of the Supreme Court d. supra. [Art. a) Culpable violation of the Constitution b) Treason (RPC) c) Bribery (RA 3019) d) Graft and corruption (RA 3019) e) Other high crimes f) Betrayal of public trust Limitation: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. treason.

No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. or (ii) any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member of the House. (b) The complaint must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days upon receipt thereof. which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. the Committee on Justice and Order). shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral. and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. 3. When sitting for that purpose.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. When the President of the Philippines is on trial. (e) The resolution shall be calendared for consideration and general discussion by the House within 10 session days from receipt thereof. (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. after hearing. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. PAGE 185 . The vote of each Member shall be recorded. together with the corresponding resolution. and to submit report and its resolution to the House. 3(2)-(4)] (a) A verified complaint for impeachment is filed with the House of Representative by : (i) a member of the House of Representatives. or override its contrary resolution. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. XI. A) Initiation stage 1) If initiated by less than 1/3 [Secs. it must be referred (by the Speaker) to the proper committee (usually. (d) The Committee has 60 session days from receipt of the referral to conduct hearings (to see if there is probable cause). (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. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. (the purpose is to prohibit any delay) (c) Not later than 3 session days after. Sec. but shall not vote. and by a majority vote of all its Members. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House. The Committee. to vote by an absolute majority. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. including the complaint in the Order of Business.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (f) After the discussion. it recommended the dismissal of the complaint). and thus subject to judicial review. The reason is that the initiation stage does not determine the guilt or innocence of the officer being impeached. even if 5 believe that it should not hear the case. served as the precursor of the present provision on impeachment. one must resort to mandamus to retrieve the case from the archives. 1/3 of all the members are needed to approve such recommendation. Once the 4 justices believe that the petition is on its face meritorious. regardless of its recommendation. and satisfy the requirements of judicial review (like an injury). supra. regardless of the committee recommendation. the court had to consider the question as a political one because it could not order the Speaker.e. in the same way laws passed by Congress can be measured against the constitutional norm. the grant of due course does not mean a favorable judgment in the end. even if Romulo was raising a legal question. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House is needed to "affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee. It cannot now "kill" the bill on its own volition. to retrieve the case they shelved. then the case would be sent to the Senate.. so long as 1/3 of the lower house votes to proceed with the trial.. But how can one mandamus the Speaker? Thus. The factual situation could no longer arise under the present Constitution since the Committee must report the case to the floor. that it should not be sent to the Senate for trial. 1/3 of all the members are needed to disapprove or override this report. PAGE 186 . any other procedure similar to that adopted by the Batasan would now be reviewable by the Courts against a constitutional standard. it recommended that the complaint be sent over to the Senate)." The silence of the Constitution on the procedure to be followed enabled the Batasan to adopt a rule that would allow a mere committee of the Batasan to kill the complaint for impeachment by merely shelving it into the archives. the National Assembly may initiate impeachment by a vote of at least 1/3 of all its members." If the Committee made a favorable recommendation (i. could even be as high as 66% of the entire House). the only provision on the initiation stage of impeachment was: "upon the filing of a verified complaint. For although the legality of the rules of procedure on impeachment is a justiciable or legal question. Its analogy in US Constitutional Law is the vote of 4 justices of the US Supreme Court on whether to give due course to a petition for certiorari. It is similar to a preliminary investigation. to question this in court. with the vote of each member recorded. Under the 1973 Constitution. The case of Romulo v Yniguez. a vote is taken. a decision made by the legislature in a matter within its competence. In other words. and regardless of the number who vote (which. the Court must give due course to it. or to override its contrary resolution. Anyway. And since there is a clear rule of procedure. And the dilemma in Romulo v Yniguez was the political nature of the decision to shelve the case.e. It merely determines whether there is a prima facie case against the officer that merits a full blown trial in the Senate. a coequal. If the Committee made a contrary recommendation (i.

Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 2) If initiated by 1/3 [Art. 3(4)] If the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House. which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. But when it is the President of the Philippines who is on trial. because pending the impeachment trial. B) Trial Stage a) The Articles of Impeachment of the Committee is forwarded to the Senate. this judgment cannot be reviewed. If less than 2/3 vote that the officer is guilty. 3(7)] PAGE 187 . but also a bar from any criminal action on the same offense that may be filed later on. This means that the entire process is cut short. the effect is acquittal. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. but he shall not vote. d) To carry out a conviction. for trial. Sec. (VV) In case of conviction [Art. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. 3 (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. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be the presiding officer. XI. the President of the Senate presides over an impeachment trial. The President continues in office. (Unlike a law that can be reviewed by the courts because of the existence of constitutional standards. the vote of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate (16 Senators) is required. he remains in Acquittal does not only mean the dismissal of the impeachment case. XI. In case of acquittal office. trial.) (4) Consequences of Impeachment Art. b) When sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment case. There is no need for a Committee report and discussion anymore. and punishment according to law. c) As a general rule. Sec. since the end result is that 1/3 of the members of the House have decided to send the case for trial. for the Constitution itself has granted the discretion to this co-equal branch to appreciate the case as presented. XI. e) The judgment of the Senate (like the judgment of the House on whether to initiate) is a political question that cannot be reviewed by the court (Romulo v Yniguez).

and other natural resources are owned by the State. including those in GOOCs. trust or profit under the Republic of the Philippines. trial and punishment according to law. Therefore a fiscal or prosecuting officer should forthwith and motu proprio dismiss any charges brought against constitutional officers. XII. trust or profit under the Republic of the Philippines. minerals. they may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against them in appropriate proceedings. the party convicted in the impeachment proceeding shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. and other mineral oils. trial. (The courts cannot review the judgment on the impeachment case. But a person convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. the filing of a criminal action in accordance with law may not prosper. There are exceptions. the Constitution proscribes removal from office by any other method. 128 SCRA 324. Constitutional officers are not entitled to immunity from liability for possible criminal acts. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall be limited to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor. 2. and punishment according to law (RPC. flora and fauna. In their case. tried and thereafter punished in accordance with law. would be violative of the clear mandate of the fundamental law. petroleum. 2 and 3). Power with regard to the utilization of natural resources Art. and punishment. particularly those declared to be removable by impeachment. All lands of the public domain. however. But it can review the judgment in the criminal case. The remedy of a person with a legitimate grievance is to file impeachment proceedings. coal. n. But there is a fundamental procedural requirement that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. and other penal laws). The clear implication is. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution trial. forests or timber. fisheries. The party thus convicted may be proceeded against. XI. waters. to allow a public officer who may be removed solely by impeachment to be charged criminally while holding his office with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office. and that if the same does not result in conviction and the official is not thereby removed. all forces of potential energy. With the exception of PAGE 188 . Secs. the SC said that the broad power of the Constitution vests the respondent court with jurisdiction over public officers and employees.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than (i) removal from office and (ii) disqualification to hold any office under RP. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. wildlife. Sec. otherwise. and ultimately the removal from office and the disqualification.) (5) Must impeachment precede filing of criminal case? In Lecaroz vs Sandiganbayan. in accordance with law. Should they be impeached. They must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment (Art. because these are political questions. like the constitutional officers. The effect of impeachment is limited to the loss of position and disqualification to hold any office of honor.

PAGE 189 . The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters. Sec. renewable for not more than twenty-five years. No amendment under this section shall be authorised within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. petroleum. and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. Such agreement may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years. with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers.. or it may enter into co-production. lakes. pars. or industrial uses other than the development of water power. fisheries. petroleum. 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 votes therein. within 30 days from its execution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition agricultural lands. XVII. or revision of. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision. allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration. 2. and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law. In such agreements. water supply. and utilization of minerals. all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Art. and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law. and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. as well as cooperative fish farming. the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. In cases of water rights for irrigation. The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration. territorial sea. and exclusive economic zone. The State may directly undertake such activities. joint venture. XII. Any amendment to. 4 & 5). The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision. and utilization of minerals. this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress. The Congress may. based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. The exploration. and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. within thirty days from its execution. or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. o. 1. development. Sec. Amendment of the Constitution Art. and lagoons. or (2) A constitutional convention. upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members. Sec. by law. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.. bays. development. development. 2.

Constituent Power (Art. Secs. or b) Congress submits to the electorate the question of calling such convention. XVII. XVII. Compared with the 1935 Constitution : 1935 Constitution. The Congress may. Sec. or by a majority vote of all its Members. infra. Any amendment to. is different from the law-making power of Congress. 2) Through initiative upon petition by 12% of all registered voters. By the people (Art. nor (ii) more often than once every five years. By Congress acting as a constituent body (XVII. 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. XV PAGE 190 . by an absolute majority vote. call a constitutional convetion. 1) A vote of 3/4 of all its members is required. 1) a) Congress calls a Con Con by a vote of 2/3 of all its members. submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. 2. Amendment or revision of the Constitution may be proposed in 3 ways: 1. 1 and 2) The constituent power. But this cannot be resorted to (i) within 5 years from February 2. of whichever legislative district is represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. 3. 1987.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec. the approval of the amendment or revision in the case of Congress or the Con Con. by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members. By a constitutional convention (XVII. or the power to amend or revise the Constitution. Sec. 4. 3. or the certification by COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition in the case of the people. Art. or revision of this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. said the SC in Gonzales v Comelec. Any amendment or revision shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held between 6o to 90 days from.

Sec. that is. Requirements as to bills (1) As to titles of bills Art. Which should control." (2) To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature. the SC referred to the title of the bill to fix the meaning of the text or the substantive portion of the bill. the title or the text of the statute? In Cruz v Paras. Title of bills The purpose is to prevent "log-rolling" or the smuggling in of "riders". 1. VI. may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for the purpose. or w/c is misleading. by petition or otherwise. a title must not be "so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents. (3) To fairly apprise the people. This is defined as "any act containing several subjects dealing with unrelated matters representing diverse interests. 26. 8. if they should so desire." The title could be specific ( A bill to create the municipality of Bagoda) or as broad (Civil Code). by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately. either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. xxx But the title need not be a complete catalogue of a bill. XV. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Legislative Process a.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. through such publications of its proceedings as are usually made. The purposes of this rule are: (1) To prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling legislation. the main object of such combination being to unite the members of the legislature who favor any one of the subjects in support of the whole act. xxx In any case. or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act. infra. items that are unrelated to the bill itself and would not have been passed had they not been sneaked into the bill. The title provided for the "regulation" of nightclubs and PAGE 191 Cruz: . of the subjects of legislation that are being considered in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon. The Congress in joint session assembled. Sec.

corporations the power to prohibit the operation of nightclubs would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. they filed prohibition suits to stop the Mun. cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs. Certiorari granted. the recentyly-enacted LGC (BP 337) speaks simply of the power to regulate the establishment. and dance halls in that mun. because the nightclubs were not nuisances per se that could be summarily evicted. while the text. VI. Bulacan. All appropriations. theatrical performances. VV. not prohibition. The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session. Hence. this petition for certiorari. VII. corp. and private bills shall originate PAGE 192 . bills authorizing increase of the public debt. or the renewal of licenses to operate them. HELD: A mun." Moreover. Secs. circuses and other forms of entertainment. the law was ameded by RA 979 w/c purported to give municipalities the power not only to regulate but likewise to prohibit the operation of nightclubs. 24. the fact is that the title of the law remained the same so that the power granted to municipalities remains that of regulation. While it is true that On 5/21/54. RA 938. cabarets. 123 SCRA 569 (1983) F: The petitioners are operators or nightclubs in Bocaue. as the basis of the general appropriations bill. including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. Paras. under this law. gave local governments the authority to "prohibit" these places altogether. The CFI upheld the validity of the ordinance and dismissed the petition. could not.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition other places for entertainment. as amended. To construe the amendatory act as granting municipal corporations the power to prohibit the operation of nightclubs would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. bills of local application. The Court ruled that Bocaue. and operation of billiard pools. granted municipalities the power to regulate the establishment. a budget of expenditures and sources of financing. and second. Art. To construe the amendatory act as granting mun. Sec. 24-25 Art. Sec. of Bocaue from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the operation of nightclubs. revenue or tariff bills." Cruz v. Nightclubs may be regulated but not prevented from carrying on their business. prohibit these places but only regulate them. VI. maintenance and operation of nightclubs and the like. 22. as orginally enacted. first because the title was controlling over the text (VV: the Court stood the principle on its head). (2) Requirements as to certain laws (a) Appropriation laws Art.

VI.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition exclusively in the House of Representatives. the President. (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. by the end of any fiscal year. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriations therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. A revenue bill is one that levies taxes and raises funds for the govt. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriation 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. or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. Cruz: The above-mentioned bills are supposed to be initiated by the House or Representatives bec. 148 SCRA 208 (1987) PAGE 193 . 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. however. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. Sec. the President of the Senate. 25. its members are presumed to be more familiar w/ the needs of the country in regard to the enactment of the legislation involved. (7) If. Alba. Private bills are illustrated by a bill granting honorary citizenship to a distinguished foreigner. (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended. (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. The form. while a tariff bill specifies the rates or duties to be imposed on imported articles. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may. xxx An appropriation bill is one the primary and specific purpose of w/c is to authorize the release of funds from the public treasury. Art. content. and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer. by law. Demetria v. the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A bill of local application is one involving purely local or municipal matters. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. it is more numerous in membership and therefore also more representative of the people. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. like a charter of a city. Moreover. A bill increasing the public debt is illustrated by one floating bonds for public subscription redeemable after a certain period.

. church. it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives. Sec. 196 SCRA 221 (1991) F: Petitioners question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget. Authorizing the Transfer of Items Appropriated for One Government Office to Another is Unconstitutional. Having faithfully complied therewith. bureaus. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." HELD: Par. Article XIV of the Constitution. that can reasonably service our PAGE 194 . or w/n the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to w/c said transfer is to be made.. 1 of Sec. benefit. 16 (5) of the 1973 Constitution. preacher. Art. F: Petitioners. to provide an appropriation. if any. 29. or support of any sect. office or agency of the Executive Dept. bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment. filed a petition for prohibition. w/o regard as to w/n the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from w/c the same are to be taken. such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void. HELD: While it is true that under Sec. or system of religion. It empowers the Pres. sectarian institution. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces. Garague. or other religious teacher. bureau.. as concerned citizens. paid. In this case. guided only by its good judgment. authorizing the President of the Phils. project or activity of any dept. project or activity of any department.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Budget Law. minister. Guingona v.. It does not completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law. 44 of PD 1177 unduly extends the privilege granted under Art. and members of the BP. 44. 5(5). to any program. thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers. Sec. bureau or office. offices and agencies of the Executive Department. or to any penal institution. to any program. contesting the validity of PD 1177. but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated. for the use. (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. VV. Congress is mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. or dignitary as such. or government orphanage or leprosarium. the budget for education has tripled and the compensation for teachers has doubled. appropriated for the different departments. This is a clear compliance with the constitutional mandate giving highest priority to education. applied. preacher. except when such priest. Indeed. or of any priest. "to transfer any fund. VIII. denomination. or employed. minister. directly or indirectly. Congress is certainly not without any power. the balance.. VI. Sec. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. to indiscriminately transfer funds from one dept.

and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. It was argued that the PDs did not meet the requirement that all appropriations authorizing increase of debt must be passed by Congress and approved by the President (VI. otherwise it is an undue delegation of legislative power to the President who determines in advance the amount appropriated for the debt service.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition enormous debt. and all lands. by law. taxes and other charges when they shall become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. interest. The SC was not persuaded by such arguments. Sec. This refers only to appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress. XIV. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. repealed or revoked. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of our country. tonnage and wharfage dues. 4 (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock. non-profit cemeteries. certainty. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. In this case. and improvements. In this case. the legislative intention is clear and that is the amount needed should be automatically set aside in order to enable the country to pay the principal. The transitory provisions provide that all existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until amended. They assert that there must be definiteness. churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto. buildings. Although the amounts are not stated specifically. import and export quotas. mosques. 28. the very survival of our economy is at stake. 24 and 27). 29(1) : No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Art. charitable. the questioned laws are complete in all their essential terms and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein. As to whether there was undue delegation of legislative power. directly. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. actually. interest. and exactness in an appropriation. the automatic appropriation provides the flexibility for the effective execution of debt management policies. It was also argued that the Presidential Decrees authorizing automatic appropriation is violative of Sec. (2) The Congress may. (3) Charitable institutions. authorize the President to fix. If in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to education. PAGE 195 . (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. taxes and other charges. More especially. non-profit educational institutions used actually. such amounts are limited to the principal. within specified limits. the SC finds that such appropriation is constitutional. and exclusively used for religious. the PDs have been considered as passed. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions. tariff rates. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. Sec. (b) Tax laws Art. the Court finds that in this case. directly. VI. In this case.

any doubt as to the applicability of a tax exemption granted to a person must be resolved against the exemption. [Art. 5) The taxing power may also be exercised by the President as an incident of the emergency powers that Congress may grant to him. "no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. 23(2). X. But any doubt regarding the taxability of any person under a valid tax law must be resolved in favor of that person and against the taxing power. VI. Such taxes. 28(4)] According to jurisprudence. may. donations. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has PAGE 196 . The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. being an essential aspect of sovereignty. Sec. [id. (4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law. under Art. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. Sec. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. (i) tariff rates. authorize the President to fix. 28(2)] 2." [id. 28(1)] Delegation of Tax Powers As a general rule. unless the Constitution itself allows the delegation. the power to tax. all grants. and (iv) other duties and imposts. any question regarding the constitutionality of a tax measure must be resolved in favor of its validity. by law. The Congress. consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. is inherently legislative and therefore is non-delegable. (ii) import and export quotas. fees. including those cooperatively owned. Sec... Sec. fees. (iii) tonnage and wharfage dues. may likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. There are 2 sets of specific exceptions: 1. within the framework of the national development program of the Government. Sec. directly. Norms of Taxation The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. Burden of Taxation Taxation being the source of revenue of government and its very lifeblood. or contributions used actually. and to levy taxes. (Art. However. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues. and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide. VI.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Proprietary educational institutions. within specified limits. Proceeds of taxes 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. endowments.

and not founded and conducted for profit. not being a tax. and the dissenting opinion of Justice Malcolm followed. [Art. a "special assessment" (the amount assessed resulting from the appreciation of value of realty due to public works constructed nearby) under the Real Property Tax Code (or the recently enacted Local Government Code). 28(3)] In Abra vs Hernando. 6). educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. VI. and exclusively used for . 29(3)) Local government units shall have a just share. X. charitable.. churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto. charitable and educational ends. directly. 33 Phil 217 (1916)." At any rate. or educational purposes. [id. and (2) a tract garden near the convent where vegetables were planted for the use of the priest. Taxation of Educational Institutions All lands. directly. the exemption applies only to taxes. property owned by a religious institution and used for religious and educational purposes is liable for special assessments. and "all lands. buildings. charitable or educational purposes". actually. Taxation of religious and charitable institutions Charitable institutions. the exemption is not limited to religious institutions. the balance if any. and exclusively for religious or charitable purposes". 71 Phil 347 (1941). Under the 1935 Constitution. Sec. were held to be tax-exempt. and improvements. charitable or educational purposes. Sec. buildings and improvements. VI.. Thus. 67 Phil 352 (1927). directly. and. the SC exempted from taxation (1) a piece of land that used to be a cemetery but was no longer used for burial where the faithful would congregate before and after mass.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition been fulfilled or abandoned. directly. actually. does not fall under the exemption. the provision read "exclusively for religious. Sec.. and exclusively used for religious. non-profit cemeteries.) This cannot simply be presumed on the basis of a declaration to that effect. in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them. directly. as determined by law." (Art. the buildings and grounds of the YMCA devoted to religious. It is submitted that under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. and exclusively used for religious. "actually. shall be exempt from taxation. 107 SCRA 104 (1981). the SC held that one who claims exemption from taxes on the ground that the property sought to be taxed by the government is "actually. Sec. this case would be overruled.) In Bishop of Nueva Segovia v Provincial Board. 28(3)] PAGE 197 . shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. mosques. in 1987. In YMCA v Collector. As in Apostolic Prefect v City Treasurer. in 1973 actually. (As now. For the former cemetery and the vegetable tract are not "actually and directly" used for religious purposes. and exclusively used for religious purposes" (must prove it. (Art.

26. XIV. is read before the body. 4(3)] construed together as well as (2) non-stock. Sec. are granted only limited exemption. XIV.] On "first reading. a motion to close the general debate is made. 4(4)]. the Committee returns the same to the body together with its amendments. Procedure for the passage of bills Art. [Art. non-profit educational institutions used actually. Sec. directly.. except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage. Sec. [Art. Under these provisions. b} income tax [Art.. [Art. Sec.. then a vote PAGE 198 . and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax. 4(4)]. objections or recommendations.. with such amendments as the committee may have proposed. donations or contributions actually. Sec. Subject to the conditions prescribed by law. and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter. the bill is placed on the proper calendar. 4(3)]. directly. it is subjected to debate. VI. XIV. Upon the last reading of a bill. the bill or resolution is read in full before the floor. Sec. discussion and amendments. no amendment thereto shall be allowed. may likewise be entitled to such exemptions. The presiding officer then refers the bill to the proper committee e. XIV.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition All revenues and assets of non-stock. non-profit secular schools [Art. XIV." the title of the bill. Proprietary educational institutions. Sec. 28(3) and Art. including those cooperatively owned. (Congress generally works through its committees. endowments. Sec.. it is clear that (1) sectarian schools [Art. Proprietary schools on the other hand. 4(3)] are exempt from the following taxes : a} all real property tax ("assets" and Hodges v Municipal Board of Iloilo City. XIV. not as one body. the matter shall be laid on the table. "To the Committee on Local Governments". On "second reading". VI. Then. all grants. VI. directly. subject to the limitations provided by law. b.) After consideration of the bill or resolution. 19 SCRA 28 (1967). If the report is unfavorable. and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment.g. Three Readings: No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings. Where the report is favorable. and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. without the provisions. (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days. Sec. When this is through. 4(3)] for #2 and a fortiori for #1 for income actually. unless the body on the whole decides otherwise. and exclusively used for educational purposes and even c} estate and gift tax [Art. 26(2).

therefore.] The exception is found in Art. 2. the bill is called by its name or title.] As a general rule. VII. The bill as amended and approved is the "printed in final form" and its copies are. In the latter case. (The effects of this enrolled bill are discussed above. composed of equal number of members from the Senate and the House. the committee comes up with a "Conference Committee Report". 10: When Congress convenes to call a special election to elect the President and Vice-President. the three readings can be done on the same day. Sec. then a vote is taken right away. There is no problem if the bill is passed jointly. A Conference Committee is then organized. with the "yeas" and "nays" entered in the Journal. this is called the other house's version of the bill. the bill is engrossed or enrolled (see supra). distributed to the members at least 3 days before its passage. or separately.] As an exception. 26(2). the three readings may be made in less than 3 days without the bill being printed. supra). or sequentially (when a bill originates form one house and goes to the other house). Once the other house approves the bill. [Sec. Engrossment or Enrollment of the Bill Once the bill is approved by both houses. 26(2). [Sec. [Sec.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition is taken by the membership on whether to pass the bill or not on the basis of the amendments or discussions. as a general rule. 26(2). "the bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under par. and to see if riders have been introduced. At the end of the process. which is then submitted to the respective chambers for approval. But if it is passed separately. meaning. Sec. the three readings must be conducted on separate days. the Constitution allows the 3-day and printed copy requirement to be dispensed with when the President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment of the bill to meet a public calamity or emergency. 26. however.) PAGE 199 .] In this case. No more amendment is allowed. [Sec. The Enrolled copy of the Bill bears the certification by the presiding officers (Senate President and Speaker of the House) that this enrolled copy is the version passed by each house. to make recommendations to the respective chambers on how to reconcile the two versions of the bill. it can be passed simultaneously (when a bill is taken up by both houses separately but at the same time. Art. The respective members are usually granted blanket authority to negotiate and reconcile the bills. VI". 26(2)] [The purpose of the 3-day requirement is to enable the members to check if the bill reflects the text and amendments approved on second reading. Conference Committee A bill can be passed jointly (when it is a joint session. which can amend such bill. On the "third and final reading". the bill approved by one house goes to the other house.

[Sec. otherwise. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. 10. 27(1). Generally. it shall be sent. Sec. The bill as approved by Congress and certified by its presiding officers is then presented to the President. 2) When the vote of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the members of both 3) Upon failure of the President to veto the bill and to return it with his objections. Sec. there are 3 ways for the bill to become a law: 1) When it is approved by the President. within 30 days after the date of receipt. otherwise. to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. Here the bill becomes law upon 3rd and final reading. VII. it shall become a law as if he had signed it. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. or tariff bill. If. The President's veto power Qualified versus Absolute Veto Veto Power of the President PAGE 200 . he shall veto it and return the same with his objection to the House where it originated. for he may have an interest in the question. but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. to the House where it originated. after such reconsideration. VI. In such cases. c. be presented to the President. and 2) When the bill is one calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Art.] But there are 2 cases when a bill becomes a law without the signature of the President: 1) When the veto of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the members of both houses. revenue. The Acting President is not required to sign.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Approval by the President Art. before it becomes a law. 27 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. he shall sign it. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof. together with the objections. houses. it shall become a law. If he approves the same. two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill.

and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. Sec.-.) A pocket veto. (The United States Constitution. it shall be sent. 7 of US Constitution: Art. which message shall be entered in the Journal within 30 days after receipt [Sec. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. there is no such provision. the President must still act in order to veto the bill. In such cases. (1) failure to act on the bill and (2) the reason he does not return the bill to Congress is that Congress is not in session. Sec. in like manner as if he had signed it. before it becomes a law. to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. Only he needs to communicate the veto to Congress without need of returning the vetoed bill with his veto message. together with his "veto message" (explaining his objections to the bill. if the US Congress is in session.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Message Veto versus Pocket Veto. Art. 20 PAGE 201 . as in the US requires two concurring elements. he shall sign it. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. together with the objections. 27(1)] No "pocket veto" in the Philippines. and returning it to the house where the bill originated. he shall veto it and return the same with his objection to the House where it originated. I. revenue. failure by the President to act will not result in the veto of the bill. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. 27 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof. unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return in which case it shall not be a law. two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill. If. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. Sec. Inaction by the President for 30 days never produced a veto. or tariff bill. but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. it shall become a law. 7. If he approves the same. What is a pocket veto? Compare with Art. be presented to the President. VI. it shall become a law as if he had signed it. Compare with 1935 Constitution. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him. after such reconsideration. otherwise. there is no "pocket veto" in the Philippines. I. If Congress is not in session. Sec. VI. Thus. the same shall be a law. In the Philippines.There is only one way for the President to veto a bill: By disapproving it. Art.In this regard. otherwise.-.

He cannot choose only the parts that he likes and vetoes the rest. If the veto refers to a bill or any item of an appropriation bill which appropriates a sum in excess of ten per centum of the total amount voted in the appropriation bill for the general expenses of the Govt. The exception applies to appropriation. Cruz: In Bolinao Electronics Corp. but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. but if not. 11 SCRA 486. to the other House by which it shall likewise be considered. he shall sign it. Thus. it shall become a law. before it becomes a law. unless the Congress by adjournment prevents its return. it was held that the veto was ineffectual and that the approval of the item carried w/ it the approval of the condition attached to it. The item or items objected to shall not take effect except in the manner heretofore provided as to bills returned to the Congress without the approval of the President. the President cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates. and so the President is limited to approving or disapproving the bill. (The 1935 Constitution. in toto. Pres. not creative. If any bill shall not be returned by the President as herein provided within twenty days(Sunday excepted). be presented to the President. When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. in this case. for the preceding year. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items of any appropriation bill. indicating his objections thereto in what is commonly known as a "veto message" so that the same can be studied by the members for possible overriding of his veto. he shall return it with his objections to the House where it originated. the SC further held that the veto power is "destructive" in nature. revenue and tariff bills. two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill. the same shall not become a law unless approved by three-fourths of all the Members of each House. he should return the measure to the House of origin. When his act was subsequently challenged in the SC. 20 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. In all such cases. any particular item or items of which may be disapproved without affecting the item or items to which he does not object. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. it shall be sent. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. a public works bill contained an item appropriating a certain sum for assistance to television stations. and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. or if it should refer to a bill authorizing an increase of the public debt. after it shall have been presented to him.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec. subject to the condition that the amount would not be available in placees where there were commercial television stations in operation. together with the objections. If he approves the same. xxx In this case. after such reconsideration. the President was prohibited from vetoing only the part prohibiting the Philippine Broadcasting System from PAGE 202 . If. v Valencia. in which case it shall become a law unless vetoed by the President within thirty days after adjournment. the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it.) Veto Message : When the President vetoes a measure. Macapagal approved the appropriation but vetoed the condition. Is partial veto allowed under the Constitution? The general rule is that the President must approve entirely or disapprove in toto.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

operating outside a certain radius, while approving the rest of the appropriation for this government radio station. Thus, when the President approves one part and vetoes another, the veto is ineffective: it is as though there is no veto. But in the case of appropriations, revenue or tariff bills, the President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items, without vetoing the other item or items to which he does not object. The reason is, these items are really independent of each other, and so every item is deemed a bill in itself. But as to each item, he cannot approve part and disapprove the other part. In Gonzales vs Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452, the President of the Philippines vetoed a provision in the 1989 General Appropriations Bill and later a similar provision in the 1990 General Appropriations Bill [providing for a prohibition against the restoration or increase of recommended appropriations disapproved and/or reduced by Congress]. In her veto message, Pres. Aquino said that such provision violates Art. VI Sec. 25(5) and that it nullifies her power and that of the Senate President, Speaker, Chief Justice and Heads of Constitutional Commissions, to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations, even in cases of calamity or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the implementation of essential public services. In rejecting the challenge to the veto, the SC declared that the restrictive interpretation urged by the petitioners that the President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of a bill may be subject of a separate veto but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision shall be limited in its operate to the appropriation to which it relates [Art. VI, Sec. 25(5).] In other words, a provision in an appropriation bill is limited in its operation to some particular appropriation to which it relates, and does not relate to the entire bill. In this case, the challenged provisions do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. Also, such provisions are more of an expression of Congressional policy rather than a budgetary appropriation. They should be treated as items for the purpose of the President's veto power. Bengzon vs Drilon 208 SCRA 133 (1992) F:
The issue here is the constitutionality of the veto by the President of certain provisions in the 1992 General Appropriations Act relating to the payment of adjusted pensions to retired justices of the SC and the CA. According to Pres. Aquino, the payment of such adjusted pensions (adjusted with respect to the peso purchasing power) would erode the govt's collective effort to enforce the policy of standardization of compensation and that govt. should not grant distinct privileges to select groups of officials over those of the vast majority of civil service servants. The retired justices asserted that such subject veto is not an item veto.

PAGE 203

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

HELD: The veto power of the President is not absolute. The Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. However when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs the money to run the machinery of govt. and it can not veto the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features. This is the reason for the item veto power. The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to disapprove any item or items in an appropriate bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. The terms "item" and "provision" are different. An item refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. An item obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, and not some general provision of law. In this case, the President did not veto an item. She vetoed the methods or systems placed by Congress to insure that permanent and continuing obligations to certain officials will be paid when they fall due. In this case, the vetoed portions are not items but are provisions. The augmentation of specific appropriations found inadequate to pay retirement payments, by transferring savings from other items of appropriations is a provision and not an item. It gives the SC Chief Justice the power to transfer funds from one item to another. There is no specific appropriation of money involved. Neither may the veto power be exercised as a means of repealing existing laws. This is arrogating unto the Presidency legislative powers which are beyond its authority. Adapted. Overriding the Veto Upon consideration of the objections raised by the President in his veto message, the House from which the bill originated shall reconsider the bill. If after such reconsideration, 2/3 of all the members of such house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent together with the objections of the President, to the other house by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. If approved by 2/3 of all the members of that house, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each house shall be determined by "yeas" or "nays", and the names of the members voting for or against shall be entered in the Journal. [VI, 27(1)] d. Legislative vetoes The Congress cannot deem a draft submitted by an executive agency passed as law by it mere inaction within a certain period. It must go through the 3 readings and the submission of the bill to the President, as required by the Constitution. In Miller v Mardo, 2 SCRA 298 (1961), the SC struck down as unconstitutional Sec. 6 of RA 997, which provided that the reorganization plan drafted by the Department of Labor and submitted to President for approval shall be deemed as approved by Congress after its adjournment, unless in the meantime, Congress by resolution disapproved the plan. It struck down as well the Reorganization Plan drafted pursuant to this law.
PAGE 204

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

In so holding, the Court ruled that the approval of a bill cannot be made by Congress by mere silence, adjournment or concurrent resolution. The Constitution requires the two houses to hold separate session for deliberation, and to submit the determination of one to the separate determination of the other, unless a joint session is provided for. This method of passing a law amounts to an abdication by Congress of its legislative prerogatives to the Executive. e. Effectivity of Laws Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. The Code shall take effect one year after such publication. When a bill becomes a law through any of the 3 means mentioned above, the law does not become effective at once. According to the ruling upon reconsideration in Tanada v Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985), in addition to the date fixed either by the effectivity clause of the statute, or, in its absence, by Art. 2 of the Civil (15 days after its publication), there must first be a publication of the law either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation [EO 200]. Otherwise, there is a violation of due process. This requirement for publication applies to any kind of law, even laws which are not of general application, private laws (e.g. law granting citizenship to X), laws of local application, and rules and regulations of substantive character. In People v Que Po Lay, 94 Phil 640 (1956), a CB circular governing the remittance of dollars with corresponding forfeiture in case of violation, was held to require publication, since it had the nature of a penal rule. Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 S 27 (1985) F: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in the Constitution, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the OG of various PDs, LOIs, general orders, proclamations, EOs, letters of implementation and administrative orders. Respondents contend, among others that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the OG is indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Art. 2 of NCC. HELD: The interpretation given by respondent is in accord w/ this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OG is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-- for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, w/c is the 15th day following its publication-- but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

PAGE 205

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Respondent's argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws w/ the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Art. 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the OG, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. xxx The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. RAM. Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 S 446 (1986). Motion for reconsideration. xxx [T]he clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, w/c cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, w/o its previous publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15-day period shall be shortened or extended. It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed w/ altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. Conclusive presumption of knowledge of the law.-- The conclusive presumption that every person knows the law presupposes that the law has been published if the presumption is to have any legal justification at all. The term laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. RULE: All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, w/c shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Coverage.-- Covered by this rule are PDs and EOs promulgated by the Pres. in the exercise of legislative powers. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, i.e., regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The mere mention of the number of the PD, the title of such decree, its whereabouts, the supposed date of effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the OG cannot satisfy the publication requirement. This is not even substantial compliance. RAM.

PAGE 206

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Executive Order No. 200, June 18, 1987 Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. (as amended by EO 200.)

9. Initiative and Referendum, Initiative is the power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly. It is the right of a group of citizens to introduce a matter for legislation either to the legislature or directly to the voters. Referendum is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of the electors become a law. It is a method of submitting an impt. legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people, the submission of a law passed by the legislature for their approval or rejection.

Rep. Act No. 6735, Aug. 4, 1989

UPDATED 1/22/96 /RAM

B. Executive Department 1. The President a. Qualifications, election, term and oath

PAGE 207

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Art. VII, Secs. 2, 4 and 5 Art. VII, Sec. 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. Qualifications of President 1) Natural-born citizen of the Philippines 2) Registered voter 3) Able to read and write 4) 40 years of age on the day of election 5) Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election Art. VII, Sec. 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and VicePresident shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice- President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each provinces or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of election (w/c is the 2nd Tuesday of June), open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass (i.e., tally the certificates of canvass) the votes. The persons having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes (tie), one of them shall forth with be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members of Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President, or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. Election and Term of President Regular Election and Term

PAGE 208

) In In re Saturnino Bermudez.President elected in the February 7. Executive Sec. 140 SCRA 455. only. (Art. The six year term for the incumbent President and Vice. VII. a midterm election in a presidential system of government in response to popular clamor for it. But in the Philippine Bar Association.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The President and Vice-President (who shall be elected with and in the same manner as the President) shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of 6 years. VII. VV. for purposes of synchronization of elections. v COMELEC. 4 pars. 9 (now Art. PBA V. 1986 Snap Election). COMELEC. 1992. Sec. Special Election and Term If a vacancy occurs in the offices of President and Vice. XVIII. 7 Justices voted to DISMISS. 10. VII. 145 SCRA 160. The law was enacted following the letter of Pres. effective only when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as Pres.President more than 18 months before the date of the next regular presidential election. Marcos to the BP that he was "irrevocably vacating the position of Pres. calling a special election for Pres. it is a decision that is not supported by a ratio decidendi. Suits questioning the validity of BP 883. 140 SCRA 455 (1985)." The principal ground for the challenge to the validity of the statute was that the conditional resignation of the Pres. The regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the 2nd Monday of May. Sec.. After deliberating. by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation. Indeed.-. Sec. 1992. 8) w/c authorized the calling of a special election. the failure of the SC to issue an injunction on time is already a decision in itself in favor of the validity of the law calling for Snap Elections despite the absence of vacancy. In accordance w/ Javellana v. Sec.) A conditional resignation by the incumbent President is not a real resignation that creates a vacancy for the purpose of calling a special election. and VicePres. is a legal anomaly. did not create a vacancy required by Art. Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel (even if they were not the ones declared by the Batasang Pambansa as the winners of the February 7. a special election to elect the President and Vice-President shall be called by Congress. Inc. supra and Succession. 7. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the 2nd Monday of May. Teehankee was of the view that as there were less than ten votes for declaring BP 883 unconstitutional. No opinion was delivered. On the other hand. 1986. on Feb. infra. PAGE 209 . 1986 election is. J. 5 Justices voted to DECLARE the statute unconstitutional. the SC held that the "incumbent President and Vice-President" referred to above are Pres. hereby extended to noon of June 30.Validity of "Snap" Election for President and Vice-President. 5. (See discussion under Other Powers of Congress. (Art. the petitions should be dismissed. 1 & 3). which shall begin on the noon of June 30 next following the day of election. pursuant to VII. 50 SCRA 141 (1973).

1987 election was not conducted under the present Constitution. Furthermore. he is ineligible for re-election as President. shall not be considered an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full terms for which he was elected. 4.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Constitution is silent as to whether the persons elected in the special election shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the term.) Canvassing of Election Returns As already noted in the Other Powers of the Legislature. shall not serve for more than 2 successive terms. if he has served for more than 4 years. In both cases. canvass the votes. par. then he cannot run for the Presidency in 1992. And for this purpose. This is applicable. (Art. Re-election The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. Furthermore. 5. VV: Only unexpired portion. the President of the Senate shall. XVII. she will have done so not as successor to the Presidency. shall be submitted to the Congress. it is the Congress that acts as Board of Canvassers of every election for President and Vice-President. however. 1) The person who succeeds as President and not just in an acting capacity. could either be (i) the Vice-President. it is submitted that this person may resign on the 4th year so as to be qualified to run for President. If he served for 4 years or less. upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof. shall be qualified for any election to the same office (the Presidency) at any time. PAGE 210 . directed to the President of the Senate. In view of the wording of Art. 2). President Aquino can run for the 1992 election as President without violating the rule against re-election since the February 7. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass. however. and the Congress. not later than 30 days after the date of the election. 4. Furthermore. it is submitted. par. and whether the new President can run for reelection if he has not served more than 4 years. (Art. since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this. Sec. VII. in the manner provided by law. or (ii) one who was elected President in a special election. beginning 1992." discussed in the next section. Sec. which depends on the construction of the phrase "has succeeded as the President. no person who has "succeeded" as President and has served as such for more than 4 years.election. Sec. The provision reads: "The returns of every election for President and Vice-President duly certified by the Board of Canvassers of each province or city. although she may have served for more than 4 years as President by then. because of the Transitory Provisions. If Vice-President Laurel is the one who serves as President for more than 4 years. a voluntary (but not involuntary) renunciation of office for any length of time. supra. VII. (This prohibition is similar to that applicable to Senators. the 1992 Presidential election being the "first regular elections" to be held under this Constitution. open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in a joint public session. he can run for re. since (a) the term "succeeded" encompasses election and (b) the general rule prohibiting the President to run for re-election refers to the President elected during the regular election. The Vice-President on the other hand.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law. shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. Sec. 4 . Electoral Tribunal for the Election of the President and Vice. VII." (Art. one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members of the Congress. 4.President The Supreme Court. PAGE 211 .) Note that while election controversies in the Congress are under the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective Electoral Tribunals. voting separately. Oath of Office Art. execute its laws.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected. returns. pars. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. and consecrate to myself to the service of the Nation. last sentence will be omitted.000. 6. Privilege and salary Art. Sec. sitting en banc.6). par. VII. the salary of P 240. but in case 2 or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes.) b. VII. Before they enter on the execution of their office. the President. and qualifications of the President or Vice-President. the Vice-President or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved. the President shall receive an annual salary of P 300. So help me God. (Art. Sec. 7." (In case of affirmation. 4.000 and the Vice-President. VII. and may promulgate its rules for that purpose. Unless the Congress provides otherwise. The President shall have an official residence. 5. those in the Executive are under the Supreme Court itself. preserve and defend its Constitution. do justice to every man. They shall not received during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. Sec.

unless otherwise provided in this Constitution. The respondents. chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. members of the Cabinet. subject of the limitations imposed therein. or be financially interested in any contract with. Vice-President. participate in any business. or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold other positions in the govt. Vice-President. 13. or the Office of the Ombudsman. the SC held that by ostensibly restricting the no. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Sec. VIII. Prohibition against the President. albeit. undersecretaries or asst. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members. hold any other office or employment during their tenure. albeit.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition c. 13 prohibiting them from doing so. 7. directly or indirectly practice any other profession. EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Art. Civil Liberties Union (CLU) v Executive Secretary. Sec. If maximum benefits are to be derived from a dept. and GOOCs. secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the govt. he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt. Prohibitions Art. during said tenure. including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. Undersecretaries. Order No. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold other positions in the govt. 194 SCRA 317 (1991) F: the petitioner challenged Ex. of positions that Cabinet members. their undersecretaries and asst.. Order No. unless otherwise provided by this Constitution In Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary. their undersecretaries and asst. in refuting PAGE 212 . The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions. VIII. IX-B. VII. invoked Art. 194 SCRA 317. the petitioner challenged Ex. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members. and their deputies or assistants (a) They shall not hold any other office or employment during their tenure. unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. Sec.. Sec. 13. and their deputies or assistants shall not. the Members of the Cabinet. or in any franchise. offices or employment. allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive official if allowed by law or by the pressing functions of his positions. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The respondents. or as Secretaries. The President. In declaring the EO unconstitutional. They shall not. subject of the limitations imposed therein. agency or instrumentality thereof. in refuting the petitioners' argument that the measure was violative of Art. head's ability and expertise.

Sec. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government. Sec. xxx The stricter prohibition applied to the Pres. Thus. including government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. VIII. or any subdivision. invoked Art. PAGE 213 . while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the govt during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions. 7. VI. Sec. If maximum benefits are to be derived from a dept. VII. to treat them as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibions. 13 must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein w/o addition compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said official's office. EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition the petitioners' argument that the measure was violative of Art. during his term without forfeiting his seat. IX. he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt. and GOOCs. Compare Prohibitions against other officials Art. 7. xxx However. agency. Sec. 13. Sec. offices or employment. their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Consti. Sec. HELD: By ostensibly restricting the no. par. head's ability and expertise. secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the govt. or instrumentality thereof. of positions that Cabinet members. 2 are proof of the intent of the 1987 Consti. The reason is that these posts do not comprise "any other office" w/in the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional duties and function on said officials. members of the Cabinet. itself. (c) They shall not participate in any business. 13. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. Art. VII as compared to the prohibition applicable to appointive officials in general under Art. allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive official if allowed by law or by the pressing functions of his positions. (b) They shall not practice any other profession. and his official family under Sec. or in any franchise or special privilege granted. 13. B. Adapted. IX-B. the prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Art. undersecretaries or asst. (d) They shall not be financially interested in any contract with. unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. VIII. 13 prohibiting them from doing so.

directly or indirectly. (Art. c. hold any other office or employment. Sec. IX. 2) Such PAGE 214 . Vice-President Art. agency or instrumentality thereof. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall. par. IX. B.) (2) The President is the Chairman of NEDA. VII.owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. 9) b. Cabinet (1) The Secretary of Justice shall be an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. Sec. (Art. including governmentowned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. Exceptions to rule prohibiting executive officials from holding additional positions: a. appointive officials shall not hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision. (because the departments are mere extensions of his personality. nor shall he be financially interested. IX. Sec. 8[1]) 2) Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position. according to the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. A. appointment requires no confirmation. 12. 13. VIII. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office. xxx The Vice-President may be appointed as member of the Cabinet. Art. VII. 7. Sec. so no objection can be validly raised based on Art. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. agency or instrumentality thereof. in any contract with. or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government. B. no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision. including government. 3. President (1) The President can assume a Cabinet post. 7. Art. any of its subdivisions. during his tenure. 2. Sec. Sec. VIII. (Art. or instrumentalities. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position. agencies.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. XII. Sec. including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

13 talks of "unless otherwise provided by the Constitution. Secretary. as the case may be. VII. Thus. depending on whether the vacancy took place before the beginning of the term on June 30.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. Art. Temporary or permanent vacancy in the Presidency before the term 1. Secretary of Trade and Industry as Chairman of NDC. Sec. 7. If the President-elect cannot assume his post at the beginning of his term because i) he has not qualified as yet ( e. B.g. pars. (The cut-off point is unsettled. and every 6 years thereafter. or (ii) is allowed by law. 1. VII. 7. he had an operation and so he could not take his oath of office on June 30). Sec. (Art. xxx PAGE 215 . as expressed in Art. Secretary of Agrarian Reform as Chairman of the Land Bank). there is a tie and Congress has not yet broken the tie).) A. this refers to Art. par. Succession (1) At the beginning of term Art. ii) or a President has not been "chosen" and qualified as yet (e. VII. then the Vice-President shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified. or during the pendency of the terms that commences on June 30. 7. Sec. 7. 2 & 3). VII.g. Sec. The other view is that the cut-off is midnight of June 29 when June 30 begins. One view is that the cut-off is noon of June 30." In the case of Cabinet members. IX. xxx This provision refers to the President and Vice-President elected in the regular election. the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. Vacancy in the Presidency There are two sets of rules on succession. the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. or shall have been "chosen: and qualified. the Constitution allows a Cabinet member to hold another office provided either (1) such is necessitated by the primary functions of his position (e.g. If a President shall not have been chosen. VII. Sec. par. d. and so the term referred to begins on June 30 next following the election on the 2nd Monday of 1992. 4. The President-elect and the Vice-President elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. xxx If the President-elect fails to qualify. The validity of EO 284 allowing members of the Cabinet and their Under-Secretaries to hold 2 additional offices was decided in the case of CLU vs Exec. 2.

3. or in case of his inability. 6 thereof.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 2. then the President of the Senate. or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph. 10. If the President-elect i) dies. then the Vice-President elect shall become the President. xxx xxx xxx If at the beginning of the term of the President. 10. (par. provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified. by law. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2.. xxx The Congress shall.. provide for the "manner of selecting" the one who will act as President until a President of Vice-President shall have (been either "chosen" or "elected" pursuant to the special election referred to in VII. 7. Sec.) Art. the President of the Senate or. Sec. Article VI of this Constitution. the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled. and qualified. Sec. or ii) becomes permanently disabled "at the beginning of the term of the President" (i. 7. 4) Art. shall act as President until a President or a VicePresident shall have been "chosen" and qualified. the Speaker of the House.e. (par. VII. permanent disability. (Id. If both President and Vice-President (i) have not been "chosen" or (ii) have not qualified. VII. VII. in case of his inability. 5 thereof. at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs. Art. Sec. 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. in case of death. then Congress shall by law. before the term). Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. par. 5) Art. the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified. VII. (par. or (iv) become permanently disabled. the Vice-President-elect shall become President. 7. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4. xxx Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified. or (iii) die.) In case both the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are unable to act as President. or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled. The Congress shall. Section 26. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election PAGE 216 . Section 25.

or. shall act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been "elected" (pursuant to the special election in Art. Permanent Vacancy in the Presidency during the term 1. 1) 2. his stay being temporary). the Speaker of the House. in case of his inability. permanent disability. because there is no need to impeach him. In case of death. or resignation of both the President and Vice-President. In case of death. removal from office. b) The vacancy must occur in the offices of both the President and Vice-President in order for the Senate President. in case of his inability. In case of the President's (i) death (ii) permanent disability. becomes permanently disabled. 1. permanent disability. by law. (par. (par. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. Sec. provide "who" shall be Acting President until the President or Vice-President shall have been "elected" (pursuant to the special election in Art. or resignation. or the Speaker. The Congress shall. 10) and qualified.. the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of both the President's and Vice-President's death.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition postponed. 2) Comparisons and distinctions between the two vacancies: a) The incumbent President never holds-over the Presidency in any case. or resigns (but is not removed. Sec. VII. removal from office. shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. or (iv) resignation. VII. or Speaker of the House) dies. VII. removal from office (by impeachment). (iii) removal from office (the only way is by impeachment).) When the Acting President (i. the Senate President. 10) and qualified. permanent disability. then the Senate President or. the President of the Senate or. then the Congress shall by law.(par. permanent disability. This Acting President shall be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications. and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President. Sec. or resignation of the President. (2) During term Art. in their inability. the one provided to succeed PAGE 217 . provide who shall serve as President in case of death. B. 8. or resignation of the Acting President. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. the Vice-President shall become President for the unexpired portion of the term. the Speaker of the House of Representatives.e.

Section 25. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2. the stint of the Acting President is temporary.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition according to the Law of Succession passed by the Congress. But in the case of a vacancy occurring before the term. par. it talks of "elected" and qualified. removal. it provides for "the person" who shall act as President. the law provides only for the "manner of selecting" the Acting President. to be discussed next following. e) A special election in both cases is held. VII. the grounds are 4 (death. (3) In case of temporary disability Art. Vice-President. Section 26. 10. permanent disability. c) The Law on Succession must be passed by the Congress in both cases in the event that the President. and resignation). Secs. d) When the vacancy comes before the term. pursuant to Art. The Congress shall. in case of the temporary inability of the President during the term of office. VII. VII. VII. The reason is that before the term. 4. while if the vacancy occurs during the term. 10. 5). at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs. Sec. Sec. the vacancy that occurs during the term of office can only be a permanent one. Sec. the grounds are limited to 2 (death and permanent disability or both). Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. VII. Thus. the vacancy in the Presidency need not be filled up by election. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. However. Sec. when it comes during. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4. f) The vacancy that occurs before the term of office may be temporary or permanent. while in the case of a vacancy occurring during the term. the only way to fill up the vacancy is by special election. only when both offices of President and Vice-President are vacant. Senate President and the Speaker are all unable to act as President. the Constitution talks of the successor acting as President until a President has been "chosen" and "qualified". but during the term. 11. In both cases. Art. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to PAGE 218 . 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. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. 11-12 Art. to succeed as Acting President until the qualification of the President. if the vacancy occurs before the term. since it may be filled up by a vote of Congress in case of a tie (Art. a different set of rules applies. Article VI of this Constitution.

Meanwhile. Contested inability of the President PAGE 219 . determines by a twothirds vote of both Houses. In all these cases. supra) ways: A vacancy in the Presidency arising from his disability can occur in any of the following 1. within twelve days after it is required to assemble. within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration. the Congress shall convene. Temporary Vacancy in the Presidency during the term (Art. Written declaration by the Cabinet 3. such powers and duties shall be discharged by the VicePresident as Acting President. The Vice-President shall so act until the President transmits to the Senate President and the Speaker a written declaration that he is no longer unable to discharge his office. A written declaration by the President 2. voting separately. For that purpose. when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists. Sec. the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. in accordance with its rules and without need of call. within forty-eight hours. if it is not in session. he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Finding by Congress by 2/3 vote that the President is disabled. such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. the Congress shall decide the issue. VI. the Vice-President temporarily acts as the President. the Vice-President shall act as President. Thereafter. the VicePresident shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. When the President transmits to the Senate President and the Speaker his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. b. and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary. Voluntary declaration of inability by President a. should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition discharge the powers and duties of his office. C. or if not in session. otherwise. 11. If the Congress.

or betrayal or public trust. and conviction of. determined to be "unable" to discharge his office. the Members of the Supreme Court. 3. then the Vice-President shall act as President. then the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. If the President. then Congress shall step in. on impeachment for. Should the majority of the Cabinet insist on their original stand by transmitting a second written declaration of the President's inability within 5 days from resumption of office of the President. but not by impeachment. If less than 2/3 find him unable. Serious Illness of the President Art. d. the Vice-President. 2-3 Art. PAGE 220 . All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. culpable violation of the Constitution. 2. In case of serious illness of the President. within 48 hours. Secs. 12. without need of call. bribery. Upon receipt of this second declaration by the Cabinet. c. the Members of the Constitutional Commissions. graft and corruption. that no inability exists. VII. Upon such transmittal. 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. or within 12 days after it is required to assemble by its respective presiding officer if it is not in session. (If it is already in session. in accordance with its rules.) e. if it is not in session. other high crimes. When majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the Senate President and Speaker their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge his office. treason. Congress shall convene. by a 2/3 vote of both houses voting separately. Sec. XI. and the Ombudsman may be removed from office. the President shall automatically assume his office. it must convene in 2 days and decide before the 12th day. The President can contest this by sending his own written declaration to the Senate President and Speaker. whereas if it is not in session. as glimpsed from the fact that they only have 10 days to decide. Congress shall determine the President's inability within 10 days after receipt of the second written declaration by the Cabinet if it is in session. the public shall be informed of the state of his health. Removal Art. Sec. it must meet right away. then the Vice-President shall immediately assume the Presidency in an acting capacity. b. shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition a. e. XI. Art. The President. Sec. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. XI. f.

voting. trial. Placing on calendar of the Committee resolution within 10 days from submission. f. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. and by a majority vote of all its Members. (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.] Initiation Stage at the House of Representatives a. and submission of report by the Committee within 60 days from e. When sitting for that purpose. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House. after hearing. or override its contrary resolution. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof. treason. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. on the ground of culpable violation of the Constitution. When the President of the Philippines is on trial. other high crimes. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. or betrayal of public trust. Hearing. bribery. together with the corresponding resolution. which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. and punishment according to law. The Committee. Discussion on the floor of the report. shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral. d. Inclusion of the complaint in the Order of Business within 10 session days. Referral of complaint to the Committee on Justice within 3 session days from its inclusion. Filing of verified complaint for impeachment of the President or Vice-President. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. graft and corruption. PAGE 221 . referral. then a vote by the membership of the House of Representatives. b. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. c. and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. but shall not vote. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. (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. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. [A more detailed discussion on this topic can be found above under Other Powers of Congress: Impeachment.

The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Id. they are acting under the control of the President. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. Secs. Marcos and his immediate family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. this power is exercised by the President. b. f. and offices. 17. impeachment proceeding can again be initiated against him within a period of one year. 178 SCRA 760 F: This is a petition for mandamus asking the Court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. 3(7) may be subject to him immunity from suit. and shall be disqualified to hold any office in the Republic. After trial. PAGE 222 . If the President is acquitted by the Senate. Philippines. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. bureaus. The Senators take an oath or affirmation. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. the case is forwarded to the Senate for trial. 1. The executive function is essentially the duty to implement the laws within the standards imposed by the legislature. Powers and Functions of the President (1) Executive Power Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition g. Thus. but does not vote. VII. Marcos vs Manglapus 177 SCRA 668. the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Under the Constitution. in the exercise of executive power. If the President is impeached. Post-trial a. the Senators vote to convict or acquit. No b. when the Cabinet and other branches of the Executive Department implement the law. XI. Sec. If 1/3 vote to affirm a favorable resolution or override a contrary resolution. The issue is whether or not.. A vote of 16 (2/3 of all the members) is required to convict the President or Vice-President. Sec. Sec. Trial Stage at the Senate a. His criminal liability under Art. he shall continue in office. he shall be removed from office at once. 1 and 17 Art. VII.

until countermanded or reprobated by him". "Control" is the power to substitute one's own judgment in that of a subordinate. the different executive departments are mere adjuncts of the President.e. has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. 1). the power to execute the laws.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The inevitable question is whether by enumerating certain powers of the President. the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific power enumerated in the Constitution. the President has the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Sec. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. It is founded on the duty of the President. She has the obligation to protect the people. it does not define what is meant by "executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President. 17. Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration : It cannot be denied that the President. the extension of the President in the particular field in which they act. Sec. Their acts are presumptively acts of the "President. and offices. the power to grant reprieves. as steward of the people. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. commutations. Corollarily. upon whom executive power is vested. VII. The secretaries are the alter ego of the President. the power to enter into treaties or international agreements. the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. the power of control over all executive depts. Sec.. i. and they cannot complain. The President can substitute his will over those of the secretaries. men of his bosom confidence whom he designated to assist him in his otherwise physically impossible multifarious functions. the appointing power. However. In this case. (2) Control of executive departments The Constitution provides that the executive power shall be vested in the President (Art. bureaus. In other words. executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. promote their welfare and advance the national interest. bureaus and offices. Under the qualified political agency doctrine. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. 14-23) Art. the powers under the commander in chief clause. the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress. that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President. VII. pardons. the power to submit the budget to congress and the power to address Congress. (VII. it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of executive power. did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? According to the SC. Adapted. She has to balance the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. PAGE 223 .

heads and cabinet secretaries. Under the presidential system. Sec. xxx The President shall exercise general supervision over local Art. unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive. the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed and promulgated in the regular course of business. are.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Furthermore. governments. PAGE 224 . the investigation of the Mayor of Makati by the Secretary of the Interior was deemed an investigation conducted by the President himself. and the President could investigate local officials. if these acts are within their discretion. The doctrine on the power of control remained unchanged in the jurisprudence under the 1973 Constitution. was the alter ego of the President. The President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally. The President has the constitutional power of control and direction over such dept. Thus. "General supervision" means the mere overseeing of a subordinate to make sure that they do their duties under the law. all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department. Free Telephone Workers Union vs Minister of Labor (108 SCRA 757) had occasion to reemphasize its continuing validity. There can be no real local autonomy while the National Government controls the local governments. Each head of a department is. The grant of mere supervisory power over local governments and autonomous regions is in line with the policy of the State to promote the autonomy of local governments and autonomous regions. All that was needed to settle the case was to hark back to the Villena doctrine that the heads of ministries are alter egos of the President. they hold their office subject to the discretion of the President. 4. the Commissioner could likewise investigate them. Sec. the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive and. In Villena v Secretary of the Interior. and must be. Here. then not an independent body. the power given to the Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute affecting the national interest or to certify it for compulsory arbitration was challenged as an undue delegation of a power which properly belonged to the President. in Planas v Gil. 16. who can replace them anytime once he loses his confidence in them. X. the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority. since the Civil Service Commissioner. (3) General supervision of local governments and autonomous regions Art. presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. But this does not include the power to overrule their acts. X.

156 SCRA 547. It can be classified as follows: With the consent of the Commission on Appointments Members of the Regional Consultative Council in Art. it PAGE 225 . (4) Power of appointment Cruz: Appointment may be defined as the selection. supra. This is a mistaken impression because legally "supervision" is not incompatible with disciplinary authority. But J. to deprive the legislature of all authority over municipal corporations. Mendoza disagrees. also subject to confirmation by the CA. X. Also. acting through the Secretary of Local Government.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Ganzon vs CA 200 SCRA 271 The petitioners question the power of the President. Art. intend for the sake of local autonomy. which supposedly excludes the power of investigation. then there is no need for CA confirmation to prevent an overkill. of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. It is enough that the President made the appointment on the basis of nominations. 4. The omission of "as may be provided by law" (Sec. X) signifies nothing more than to underscore local governments' autonomy from Congress and to break Congress' "control" over local govt. by the authority vested w/ the power. The power of appointment is. The power of appointment by the President under the 1987 Constitution has been significantly curbed. For unlike the Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions and the regular members of the JBC. "Control" has been defined as the power of an officer to alter. the pattern in the Constitution shows that where the nominees are already screened either by JBC (for justices and judges) or the multi-sectoral bodies (Regional Consultative Council). because their appointment is vested in the President by the Constitution. Sec. in particular. Adapted. It is the considered opinion of the Court that notwithstanding the change in the constitution. which allegedly embraces disciplinary authority. because it is through his appointees that the President can execute laws. Sec. affairs. The Constitution did not. however.or the President of her prerogative as conferred by existing legislation to provide administrative sanctions against local officials. the most eminently executive power. Petitioners are under the impression that the Constitution has left the President mere supervisory powers. 18 are according to Sarmiento v Mison. 18 does not say that the appointment is subject to confirmation. modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. to suspend and/or remove local officials. according to the SC in Concepcion v Paredes. the charter did not intend to divest the legislature of its right -. and denied her control. the Constitution in Art. X. Otherwise. "Supervision" on the other hand means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. concerning discipline.

She took F: her oath of office on 12/22 and thereafter entered into the discharge of her functions and duties. anticipating the action of the CA.) may be authorized by law to appoint. she was asked by the Commission on Appointments to submit certain information and documents needed in the confirmation of her appointment. "the heads of the executive departments. May 5. why not the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs who has a higher rank? (c) Why not the CB governor who is so powerful as to plunge the country into bankruptcy? Bautista vs Salonga 172 SCRA 160 Petitioner was appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights on 12/17/88. They are among the officers of the govt "whom he (the Pres. but upon motion. The deliberations of the Con Con showed that a draft similar to VII. the Pres." All other appointments by the Pres. it follows that the appointment by the President of the Chairman of the CHR is to be made without the review or participation of the CA. considering that the duty of the RCC is only to advise Congress on the autonomous act to be enacted. but. are to be made w/o the participation of the CA. In saying so." And Sec. the CA disapproved her appointment on 1/25. other officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. However. submitted petitioner's ad interim appointment to the CA. Art. however. which included bureau heads in the list of appointees requiring confirmation. namely. an independent office created by the Constitution. filed a petition for certiorari w/ the SC. the SC held that no they did not need to be confirmed. She refused to do so on the ground that her appointment was not subject to confirmation. 1987). it did not try to explain certain anomalies that may arise from such restrictive interpretation: (a) If a colonel needed confirmation. it said. VV. PAGE 226 . authorizes the Pres. is not among the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. other public ministers and consuls. HELD: (1) Only those appointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16. appointments to which are to be made with the confirmation of the CA.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition would be too rigid. was introduced. why not the Undersecretary of National Defense who has a higher rank as line officer? (b) If an ambassador needed confirmation. Do bureau directors need confirmation? In Sarmiento v Mison (Dec. the 4th must be given a restrictive construction because confirmation derogates the appointing power of the President. 10 of the 1935 Constitution. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. ambassadors. Art. On 1/14/89. only a small class of officers needed confirmation. VII. ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment by the President of the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is to be made with or without CA confirmation. and so were thought to be better shielded from partisan politics. considering petitioner's refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the CA. bureau directors were omitted expressly from the draft because they were considered of low rank. 2 (c) of EO 163. 16. Petitioner. But the SC added that of the 4 categories of public officers requiring confirmation. to appoint the Chairman and Members of the CHR." Since the position of Chairman of the CHR. VII are to be reviewed by the CA. Indeed. xxx. on 1/9/89. 1987.

ISSUE: Whether the Constitution requires confirmation by the CA in the appointment of sectoral representatives to the House of Representatives. the President need not make any reference to the constitutional provisions above-quoted in appointing the petitioner. 16.(SARMIENTO VS. Sec. Calderon v. the recognition by the President as appointing authority that petitioner's appointment requires confirmation by the CA. the SC construed Sec. 7. Art VII. Section 16. said appointment/nomination had become moot and academic pursuant to Sec. Carale (208 SCRA 254) F: In March 1989. 2. par. appoint the heads of the executive departments. 2. Art. appointments made by the President pursuant thereto "shall be effective only until disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Art. Art. 13 thereof as follows: "xxx The Chairman. Under Par. Since the seats reserved for sectoral representatives in par. 16. Sec. CA having acted on petitioner's appointment. 5. who insisted that sectoral representatives must first be confirmed by the CA before they can take their oaths and/or assume office as members of the House of Representatives. the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall be appointed by the President." Adapted. petitioner and the 3 other sectoral representatives. It provides in Sec. However.appointees were not able to take their oaths and discharge their duties as members of Congress due to the opposition of some congressmen-members of the Commission on Appointments (CA). with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law). it is indubitable that sectoral representatives to the House of Representatives are among the "other officers whose appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution". VI may be filled by appointment by the President by express provision of Sec. 23 of the Rules of resp. referred to in the first sentence of Sec. MISON (1987)." If indeed appointments of sectoral representatives need no confirmation. Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Quintos-Deles vs. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution x x x". Art. was approved. Art. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. MISON) Implicit in the invocation of par. xxx" PAGE 227 . 16. the President had expressly submitted petitioner's appointment for confirmation by the CA. Section 16. amending the Labor Code. ambassadors. In SARMIENTO VS. 2 and Article XVIII. VII of the Constitution to mean that only appointments to offices mentioned in the first sentence of the said Section 16. CA and "unless resubmitted shall not again be considered by the Commission. Article VII of the Constitution provides that: "The president shall nominate and. Section 16. HELD: YES. Considering that Congress had adjourned without resp. As a matter of fact. XVIII of the Constitution. Commission on Appointments 177 SCRA 259 F: Petitioner and 3 others were appointed Sectoral Representatives by the President pursuant to Article VII. VII whose appointments are subject to confirmation by the CA. VII as authority for the appointment of petitioner is. other public ministers and consuls. Section 7 of the Constitution. VII require confirmation by the CA. 2. subject to confirmation by the CA.

and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. 16. VII by expanding the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments without constitutional basis. The second sentence of Sec. The appointments stated that the appointees may qualify and enter upon the performances of the duties of the office. The Congress may. 16. CARALE) and Commissioners of the NLRC. VII of the Constitution. Art. by law. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715. that RA 6715 transgresses Sec. ISSUES: (1) W/N Congress may. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. Petitioners insists on a mandatory compliance w/ RA 6715 which has in its favor the presumption of validity. 16. 16 of Art. or boards. 16. RA 6715 is not. 16. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. in the courts. Second. Fourth." xxx are: There are four groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. other public ministers and consuls. Art. on the other hand. (NO) HELD: The controversy in the case is focused on Sec. The present petition for prohibition questions the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments extended by the President to the respondents Chairman and Members of the NLRC. require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments extended by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. VII. Indubitably. officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. VII refers to all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. ambassadors. all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for law. These four groups First. appoint the heads of the executive departments. by law. The President shall nominate and. ambassadors. the heads of the executive departments. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. more specifically under "those whom he (the President) may be authorized by law to PAGE 228 . VII of the Constitution. commissions. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. The Solicitor General contends. Third. VII of the 1987 Constitution w/c provides: "Sec. agencies. vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone. or in the heads of departments.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Pursuant to said law. those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. an encroachment on the appointing power of the executive contained in Sec. Art. 16. President Aquino appointed the Chairman (B. Art. other public ministers and consuls. without submitting the same to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art. Art. the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Sec. with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. according to the petitioner.

Constitutional Commission. 172 S 160. Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint (like the Chairman and Members of the Com. 16 whose appointments requires confirmation by the CA. 2. this would surely cause confusion and instability in PAGE 229 . including. and 2. Mison. Also. To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by the CA of the appointments of respondents Chairman and Members of the NLRC. the officers are considered as among those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. those officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the Constitution itself in the president (like sectoral representatives to Congress and members of the constitutional commissions of Audit. 16. especially after the courts have in actual case ascertained its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision. Adapted. the second sentence of Sec. Supreme Court decisions applying or interpreting the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Confirmation by the CA is required only for presidential appointees as mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. which is not within the sphere of the Legislative Department. 156 S 549). as observed in Sarmiento v. Notes: From the rulings in Sarmiento III v. This is more true with regard to the interpretation of the Constitution. Determining their constitutionality is a judicial function. VII. by imposing the confirmation of the CA on appointments w/c are otherwise entrusted only with the President. VII.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition appoint. on Human Rights). VII of the Constitution by adding thereto appointments requiring confirmation by the CA. David. or what a specific portion of the Constitution means. In Endencia and Jugo v. these doctrines are deducible: 1. 16. 16. or provides in an unconstitutional manner for such appointments. the Court held: "We have already said that the Legislature under our form of government is assigned the task and the power to make and enact laws. when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for appointment thereto. it is unconstitutional because: 1. 177 S 259. If the Legislature may declare what a law means. Art. Civil Service and Election). Salonga. the first sentence of Sec. but not to interpret them. Mison. 93 Phil. Bautista v. Deciding on what laws to pass is a legislative prerogative. it amends by legislation. and Deles v. it amends by legislation. 699. the Chairman and Members of the NLRC are not among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. Art." Undeniably. No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc. Art. (2) W/N legislation can expand a constitutional provision after the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

" It cannot be overlooked that Sec." The function of the Court in passing upon an act of Congress is to " lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former" and to announce its considered judgment upon the question.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition judicial processes and court decisions. nominated Rafael Alvarez for the same office. particularly those governing the separation of powers. among others. Art. VII of the 1935 Constitution. Magsaysay. save in the case of mayor. R. (YES) Sec. a final court determination of a case based on judicial interpretation of the law or of the Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the Constitution by the Legislative Department. The nomination was unanimously confirmed by the CA after it has rejected Ramos' appointment. PAGE 230 . the new President of the Phil. provides: Whenever in any elective local office a vacancy occurs as a result of the death." Under Par. officers of the Army from the rank of colonel. 21(b) of the REC is subject to the consent of the CA. besides being clearly violative of the fundamental principles of our constitutional system of government. who assumed office thereafter. 21(b) of the REC. Ramos v. which shall be filled by the vice-mayor. removal or cessation of the incumbent. 3. despite vigorous opposition from Ramos. the President shall appoint thereto a suitable person belonging to the political party of the officer whom he is to replace. leading to many cases of abuse of such power of confirmation. there are four groups of officers that the President shall appoint. 21 (b) of the Revised Election code (REC) appointed Agustin Ramos (LP). 844) [Compare with Calderon case] F: Before serving his full term as elected member of the Provincial Board of Negros Occ. 16. Ramos' interim appointment was submitted to the Commission on Appointments (CA) for confirmation. VII of the 1987 Constitution was deliberately intended by the framers to be a departure from the system embodied in the 1935 Constitution where the CA exercised the power of confirmation over almost all presidential appointments. of the Navy and air forces from the rank of captain or commander. Adapted.. Art.. who thereafter filed the present petition to have himself declared legally entitled to the office and to have Alvarez ousted therefrom. That would neither be wise nor desirable. under w/c the petitioner was appointed. namely: First. Petitioner contends. that he is still legally entitled to the office because his appointment was not subject to the consent or disapproval of the CA. of Sec. Alvarez assumed office as member of the Prov'l Board of Negros Occ. then President Quirino. ISSUE: W/N an appointment made by the President under Sec. acting on the authority of Sec. 10. Hon. In due time. upon the recommendation of said party. To fill such vacancy. Under such a system. Respondent on his part contends otherwise. Alvarez (97 PHIL. But before it could be confirmed. resignation. the heads of executive departments and bureaus. Jesus Aritao (LP) resigned his office when he filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman.

the President's appointment must be deemed subject to the general requirement that the same is to be with the consent of the CA.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Second. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. under a constitutional provision similar to ours. commissions or boards. with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. of inferior officers whose appointment is by law vested "in the President alone" that such consent is not required. but such appointment shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. It would fall then under the third group of officers mentioned in par. The President shall nominate and. Adapted. VII of the 1935 Constitution. all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. examining the provision of Sec. whether voluntary or compulsory. agencies. in the courts. Such being the case. VII. Carale. and Fourth. appoint the heads of the executive departments. that is. the appointment made by the President shall be with the consent of the CA. by law. he may be authorized by law to appoint. 10. so that his right to the office ceased when his appointment was rejected by the Commission. The Constitution is explicit that for officers of the first. the general rule is that "when a statute does not specify how an officer is to be appointed. Thus. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress. The Congress may. It is only in the case of the fourth group. (Take note of the case of Calderon v. petitioner's appointment as member of the Provincial Board was subject to the consent of the CA. and those whom. Third. or in the heads of departments. 3 of Sec. On the other hand. ambassadors. in the United States. 21(b) of the REC. that it is to be made by the President alone. second and third groups. it does not say that the appointment is not to be subject to the consent of the CA that is. we find that while it says that the President shall make the appointment. inferior officers whose appointments the Congress has by law vested in the President alone. 16. it must be by the President and with the consent of the Senate. 208 SCRA 254) (a) Heads of the executive departments Art. Sec. PAGE 231 . Art. those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint." In view of the foregoing. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. other public ministers and consuls.

Id. (ii) Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council (composed of the IBP representative..) (c) Officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of colonel or naval captain (because these are officers of a sizeable command enough to stage a coup) (Id. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. D. Sec. and another Commissioner for three years. IX. C. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Of the Members first appointed. without reappointment. professor of law. retired SC justice. without reappointment. and representative of the private sector. a Commissioner for five years. Of those first appointed. VII. 8. Id. 1. and the last Members for three years. without reappointment. the Chairman shall hold office for seven years. three Members shall hold office for seven years. Sec. Note the ex-officio members: Chief Justice. Of those first appointed. and representative of Congress) Art. Of those first appointed. two Members for five years. 1 (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners (of the Commission on Audit) shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointment for a term of seven years without reappointment. Sec. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for unexpired term of the predecessor.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (b) Ambassadors. the Chairman shall hold office for seven years. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for unexpired term of the predecessor. and another Commissioner for three years. (2) The regular members of the (Judicial and Bar) Council shall appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. other public ministers and consuls (Id. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. a Commissioner for five years.) (d) Other officers whose appointments are vested in the President in the Constitution: (i) Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions Art. (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners (of the Civil Service Commission) shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointment for a term of seven years without reappointment. (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners (of the Commission on Elections) shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointment for a term of seven years without reappointment. Sec. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for unexpired term of the predecessor. 1.. Secretary of Justice. B. the representative of the Integrated Bar PAGE 232 .

The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive department and legislative assembly. and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be included in the autonomous region. 9. Sec. and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Minda- Art. both of which shall be elective and representative of the constituent political units. 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 Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. XI. provided that only provinces. cities. and the representative of the private sector for one year. the professor of law for three years. nao. VIII. Until a law is passed.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition shall serve for four years. PAGE 233 . the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2) of Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution. 18. Sec. the retired Justice for two years. the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list. (iv) Regional Consultative Commission Art. 9. Sec. family. Upon recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council (a) Members of the Supreme Court and all other courts Art. The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose. X. Such appointments need no confirmation. XVIII. 7. The Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. Visayas. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national laws. general and military) (b) Ombudsman and his 5 deputies (for Luzon. Sec. (iii) Sectoral representatives Art. For the lower courts. The organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.

The meaning of #4 was touched upon in Sarmiento v Mison. or in the heads of departments. Sec. VII. the argument was the phrase. Sec. VII. by law. Those other officers lower in rank whose appointment is vested by law in the President (alone).g. 13 and 15 `Art. 1. The Congress may. he may be authorized by law to appoint. VII. 3(2)] 2. 16. xxx The Vice President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. commissions or boards. The President shall xxx also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law. "The Congress may. The SC dismissed this view however. 4.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Appointment of Vice-President as Member of the Cabinet Art. VII. vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone. Sec." (5) Limitations on appointing power of the President Art. 3. but such appointment shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Those vested by the Constitution on the President alone (e. Thus. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress. 13. Only after such law is passed does the necessity for confirmation no longer hold. Secs. vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President. appointment requires no confirmation Appointments solely by the President Art. appointment of VicePresident to the Cabinet) [Art. the Constitution should read "The Congress may. In arguing that even bureau chiefs needed confirmation even if they are of inferior rank. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. vest in the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone" meant that until a law is passed giving such appointing power to the President alone. 3. by law. then such appointment has to be confirmed. whether voluntary or compulsory. The phraseology is muddled. agencies. in the courts. saying that the inclusion of the word "alone" was an oversight. by law. and those whom. Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law. xxx Such PAGE 234 . VII. Sec.

But the issuance of 350 appointments in one night. 4 SCRA 1 (1962). PAGE 235 . (Ad interim appointments could either be "midnight". Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. be appointed as (i) members of the Constitutional Commissions. or the Office of the Ombudsman. if few.g. (iii) Secretaries. and up to the end of his "term" (June 30). may be undoubtedly permitted. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the President shall not. a. if made by the President before he steps down from office or recess. This provision seems to have overruled previous pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the validity of "midnight appointments". they should be made in the capacity of a "care-taker" doubly careful and prudent in making the selection. and he should not do acts that would obstruct the policies of his successor. 15. except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Said the court: After the proclamation of an incoming President. (iv) Undersecretaries. so as not to defeat the policies of the incoming administration.. Sec. or as Secretaries. during his "tenure". and the planned induction of almost all of them a few hours before the inauguration of the new President may be regarded as abuse of presidential prerogatives.g. Id. (ii) member of the Office of Ombudsman. the outgoing President is no more than a "caretaker" administrator duty bound to prepare for the orderly transition to the new President. Exception: Temporary appointments. (v) Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. Undersecretaries.) In Aytona v Castillo. a President (or Acting President) shall not make appointments. b. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointees qualifications. if made by the President when Congress is not in session. to executive positions. Postmaster) or (ii) endanger public safety (e. when continued vacancies therein will (1) prejudice public service (e. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections (2nd Monday of March). The filling up of vacancies in important posts. chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. the SC ruled that while "midnight appointments" are not illegal.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Chief of Staff). a President or Acting President shall not make appointments.

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.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Where the President makes ad-interim (i.. 16. the SC emphasized that the Aytona ruling does not declare all midnight appointments as invalid. Sec. were found to be judicious. that is. he is bound to be "prudent" to insure approval of his selection. (i) regular. but such appointment shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Regular and recess (ad-interim) appointments The procedure for confirmation has been discussed above under Constitutional Congressional Committees. is thus not invalid. xxx The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of Congress. whether voluntary or compulsory. is in session. Interim or recess appointments Art VI. VII. PAGE 236 . at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members. The circumstances of Jorge's appointment as Director of Lands in this case. To sketch: Appointments requiring confirmation are of two kinds. or (ii) during the recess of Congress (because the Commission shall meet only while Congress is in session [Art. 19. and where the names are to be submitted by his successor who may not wholly approve of his selections. midnight) appointments. except for the fact that it was made during the last few days of the old administration. 19]). Sec. to discharge such powers and functions as herein conferred upon it. VI. and that the ad interim appointment of the petitioner chief of police here. Sec. Congress.e. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session. Where the CA that will consider the appointees is different from that existing at the time of appointment. the Court emphasized the rule in Aytona that a prudently made midnight appointment so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointees' qualifications is not prohibited by law. In Jorge v Mayer. based on his 38 years of faithful service and confirmed by the CA before its adjournment. In Quisumbing v Tajanglangit. either by previous consultation with the CA or by explaining his reason thereafter. 10 SCRA 331 (1964). if the CA. the President should be "doubly careful in extending such appointment. Art. whose qualification and regularity were not disputed. 10 SCRA 446 (1964).

Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. or (b) There exists a vacancy. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective unless revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office. Sec. a President or Acting President shall not make appointments. on the other hand. appointment to which is vested in him by law. VII. Recess appointments. VII. par.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Regular appointments require confirmation before the appointee can take his post. Sec. absence or any other cause. 14-16 Art. Art. VII. Art. Sec. 15. but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. when: (a) The officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness. 17 The President may designate an officer already in the govt. service or any other competent person to perform the functions of any office in the executive branch. then the Office of the President issues a Commission. 16. whether voluntary or compulsory. PAGE 237 . Secs. xxx The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress. or until the next adjournment of Congress (unless meantime. VII. In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year. 14. except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. VII. at which point the appointee can assume his office. (6) Limitations on the appointing power of the Acting President Art. albeit temporarily. Sec. 16. The President nominates. it is confirmed by the Commission) (Art. need no confirmation to be effective. The appointment is effective until it is disapproved by the Commission on Appointments. Congress receives the nomination and forwards this to the CA for confirmation. Book III Sec. 2) Temporary Designations: Administrative Code of 1987.

and (b) As otherwise provided in this Constitution. infra. An absolute pardon is one extended w/o any strings attached.Pardon may be classified into absolute or conditional and plenary or partial.) Commutation is a reduction of sentence. so to speak. (People v Vera. Sec. or as otherwise provided in this Constitution. except : (a) In cases of impeachment. IX. It is a remission of guilt. (ii) commutations. from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed. and pardons. parole or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws. amnesty. a forgiveness of the offense. infra. Art.) It is the withholding of a sentence for an interval of time. and (iv) remit fines and forfeitures. A PAGE 238 . after conviction by final judgment. (Black) It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition UPDATED 1/23/96 /RAM (7) Executive clemencies Art. (People vs. the President may grant reprieves. Vera. Sec. after conviction by final judgment. a substitution of a less penalty for the one originally imposed. and (iii) pardons.) Cruz: Kinds of Pardon. and regulations shall be granted by the President without the favorable recommendation by the Commission (on Elections. rules. a temporary suspension of execution. commutations. 5. VII.-. (Black. which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed. The President may grant (i)reprieves. Except in cases of impeachment.) It is a remission of a part of the punishment. (People vs. Vera. It does not more than stay the execution of a sentence extended to a prisoner to afford him an opportunity to procure some amelioration of the sentence imposed.) Definitions Reprieve is a temporary relief from or postponement of execution of criminal penalty or sentence or a stay of execution. infra. viz. whereas a conditional pardon is one under w/c the convict is required to comply w/ certain requirements. and remit fines and forfeitures. It shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. No pardon.) Pardon is a permanent cancellation of sentence. C. a postponement of execution. 19. (Black.

are abolished upon the grant of pardon. Under the Probation Act. 65 P 56 (1937) Probation and Pardon are not coterminous. the restoration of the probationer to his civil rights takes places only after his final discharge after the period of his probation. 161 US 602). whereas partial pardon does not. and the convict must be exempted from service of sentence. He is not exempt from the entire punishment w/c the law inflicts. the probationer is in no true sense. granted by government generally to a class of persons who have been guilty usually of political offenses (treason. the probationer's case is not terminated by the mere fact that he is placed on probation. and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time. and where there was no previous availment of probation. In this sense. In absolute pardon. a free man. They are actually distinct and different from each other. 14 & 16) PAGE 239 . the pardonee has no option at all and must accept it whether he likes it or not. 3 (a).subject to the control of the probation officer and of the court. The probationer. including accessory disabilities. He is not finally and completely exonerated. Vera. nor are they the same. where there was no previous conviction for an offense punished by arresto mayor. the offender has the right to reject the same since he may feel that the condition imposed is more onerous than the penalty sought to be remitted. both in origin and nature. Where the pardon is conditional. (Black. remains in legal custody-. Brown v Walker. (Secs. PD 968. while probation is granted by the court after investigation by a probation officer only for cases where the penalty imposed does not exceed 6 years and 1 day (prision mayor). [Sec. as in pardon. But pardon is granted by the Chief Executive for any crime. there must be a final judgment of conviction. where the crime is not against the security of the State. prescribing the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspended. w/c is also not subject to acceptance by the offender. Amnesty is a sovereign act of oblivion for past acts. may be committed to prison to serve the sentence originally imposed upon him. including the accessory penalties. rebellion). he may be rearrested upon the non-fulfillment of the conditions of probation and. during the period of probation. (a) Pardon distinguished from probation People vs. without granting a pardon. and who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted. Notes: In both cases. when rearrested. In probation. Probation is a disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentence is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. In probation.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition plenary pardon extinguishes all the penalties imposed upon the offender. an absolute pardon is similar to commutation. But in the case of an absolute pardon. sedition.] Parole is the suspension of the sentence of a convict granted by a Parole Board after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence penalty. the sentence and its effects.

he must submit to periodic examination by the Board of Parole. that this is not accurate. 64 (i) of the Rev. charged petitioner with violation of the conditions of his parole. 3. subject to certain conditions. however. either plenary or partial. he is not really free because although he his released from the custody of the law. in parole. 14. Nagar lodged a complaint with the Board of Indeterminate Sentence. the case was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant.Manila of the crime of falsification of a public document and was sentenced. subject to such conditions as he may impose. the convict becomes a free man.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (b) Pardon distinguished from Parole Pardon may be granted by the Chief Executive under the Constitution and formerly the Administrative Code. petitioner Tesoro was convicted in the CFI. Tesoro vs. the petr was arrested and recommitted to the custody of the Dir. 11. 1935. to suspend sentences without pardon. parole. insofar as it confers upon the Chief Executive the power to grant and revoke paroles. remit fines. and not because parole is part of pardon. contends that sec. Adm. the petr was charged with the crime of adultery. Sec. Code. 68 Phil 154 (1939). 1937. action. sec. as the latter omitted to specify such power in connection with the powers granted therein to the President of the Philippines. Petr. conditional or unconditional. and upon the same facts supporting the crim. However. In Tesoro v Director of Prisons. even before service. Jose Nagar. or conditions. at any time after final judgment of conviction. Justice Fernando points out. of Prisons. granted the petitioner a parole. it is because the law grants him that power. in his judgment shall fail to comply with the condition. The Court said that parole is part of the pardoning power of the President. the SC dismissed the contention that because parole is not mentioned in the Constitution. Feb. then the power to grant parole is also deemed repealed. 1934. Gen. 28. 6. 10. His penalty was to expire on Oct. powers and duties: "To grant to convicted persons reprieves or pardons. which the latter accepted. One of the conditions was that he will not commit any other crime and will conduct himself in an orderly manner. VII of the Constitution. Art. Director of Prisons. 68 Phil 154 F: On Oct. In pardon. Later. the Gov. On Nov. Dec. of his pardon. or suspension of sentence. 1937. and order the discharge of any convicted person upon parole. 64(1) gives the Gov. 1938. has been impliedly repealed by Par." The aforementioned Constitutional provision provides: PAGE 240 . Gen the ff. by virtue of an order from the President. If ever the President has the power to grant parole. and to authorize the arrest and re-incarceration of any such person who. while parole is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law only after the convict has served the minimum term of his sentence.

HELD: NO. In the exercise of this incidental power. who. The power to pardon given the President by the Constitution. have been released conditionally by the Chief Executive. "upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. to secure the necessary assistance. upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. If the omission of the power of parole in the Constitution is to be construed as a denial thereof to the President.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition "The President shall have the power to grant reprieves. and thereafter. parole. As one of the conditions of his parole. The power to revoke paroles necessarily carries with it the power to investigate and to inquire into the conduct of the parolees. the President is not precluded by law or by the Constitution from making use of any agency of the govt. the Chief Executive is authorized to order "the arrest and re-incarceration of any such person who. HELD: YES. HELD: NO. The duty to report on the part of the petitioner implies a corresponding power on the part of the Board to inquire into his conduct and a fortiori to make recommendations to the President by whose authority it was acting. not his conviction by court. Thus. in his judgment. 64 (i). Where the determination of the violation of the conditional parole rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the Chief Executive. commutations. 4: W/N the courts can review the findings of the Pres. the courts will not interfere. 2: W/N the Board has legal authority to investigate the conduct of the petitioner. the effect would be to discharge unconditionally parolees. for all offenses. before the adoption of the Constitution. with any of his findings. after conviction. petitioner agreed to report to the executive secretary of the Board once a month during the first year of his parole. regarding the violation of the conditional parole. petitioner has placed himself under the supervision of the Board. petitioner agreed that he will not commit any other crime and will conduct himself in an orderly manner. ISSUE NO. By his consent to this condition. And under Sec. or suspension of sentence. if such power of revocation is to be rational and intelligent. shall fail to comply with the condition/s of his pardon. ISSUE NO. or even of any individual. ISSUE NO." ISSUE NO. of any other crime. once every 3 months. that was necessary in order that petitioner may be deemed to have violated his parole. 3: W/N judicial pronouncement to the effect that he has committed a crime is necessary before he can be properly adjudged as having violated his conditional parole. 1: W/N there has been a repeal." includes the power to grant and revoke paroles. ISSUE NO. HELD: NONE. except in cases of impeachment. By the terms of his parole. He shall have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly. his conditional parole also expires. and pardons. PAGE 241 . the mere commission. by way of review. 5: W/N upon the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment. and remit fines and forfeitures.

convicted of sedition w/c is the subject of an appeal. 64 (i) of the Rev. he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law. and the proper consequences of such breach. Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was released. HELD: NO. On Sept. The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon. When a conditional pardon is violated. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Torres was convicted of the crime of estafa (2 counts) and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay an indemnity. Petitioner claims he did not violate his conditional pardon since he has not been convicted by final judgment of the 20 counts of estafa nor of the crime of sedition. and a letter report from the NBI showing a long list of charges brought against the petitioner. 1979. Dir. or it may be a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under Art. Code. (Pp. Should this condition be violated. may be either a purely executive act. 159 of the RPC. the prisoner is placed in the same state in w/c he was at the time the pardon was granted. not subject to judicial scrutiny under Sec. On April 18. The Court cited 3 cases: Espuelas v. v. 2000. He also contends that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before he was arrested and recommitted to prison and thus deprived of due process. of Prisons and Sales v. 8. Because due process is not semper et ubique judicial process. He may be rearrested and recommitted to prison. 64 (i). the President cancelled the conditional pardon of the petitioner upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons. and because the conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded judicial due process in his trial and PAGE 242 . Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 F: Before 1979. Where the President opts to proceed under Sec. of Prisons. Adm. The maximum sentence would expire on Nov. the court should not consider the time during which the convict was at large by virtue of the pardon as time served on the original sentence. The record before the Board showed that petitioner had been charged with 20 counts of estafa. ISSUE: W/N 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. 2.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: NO. a conditional pardon was granted the petitioner by the President on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Phil. Tesoro v. 1986. xxx The rule is well-settled that. Tapel) This rule applies by analogy to conditional parole. no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary. 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. much less conviction therefor by final judgment of a court. Torres v. in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his conditional pardon. Dir. Adapted. RAC. Prov'l Warden of Bohol. in requiring the convict to undergo so much of the punishment imposed by his original sentence as he had not suffered at the time of his release.

The petitioners submitted their cases to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission (GAC). amnesty. Jimenez became aware of Procl. amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself. Pardon is a private act of the President w/c must be pleaded and proved by the person bec. 3.) 6. 8 which grants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be charged with an act penalized under the RPC in furtherance of resistance to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. it abolishes or forgives the punishment. (Barrioquinto v Fernandez. the Executive Dept. No. RAC. that is. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. the courts do not take judicial notice of it. and committed during the period Dec. amnesty may be granted even before trial. it overlooks and obliterates the offense with which the convict is charged that the person released stands precisely as though he had committed no offense. or (ii) to proceed against him under Art. class. In short. RPC which imposes the penalty of prision correccional minimum period. 8. Pardon can only be granted after conviction. (Cruz. sec. (id. Pardon does not require the concurrence of the Congress. to a group.) Barrioquinto et al v. 1941 to the date when each particular area of the Phil. Pardon is granted to individuals. Fernandez 82 Phil 642 F: Petitioners Jimenez and Barrioquinto were charged with murder. 2. PAGE 243 . That choice is an exercise of the executive prerogative and not subject to judicial scrutiny. amnesty. amnesty is a public act of w/c the courts take judicial notice. (c) Pardon distinguished from Amnesty 1. has 2 options: (i) to proceed against him under Sec. Pardon is usually granted for common crimes. on the ground that inasmuch as neither of the petitioners have admitted to committing the offense. infra. Jimenez was sentenced to life imprisonment. in proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon. 64 (i). The GAC returned their cases to the CFI-Zamboanga w/o deciding whether or not they are entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation. they cannot invoke the benefits of the amnesty. that is.) 5. for political crimes. 4. amnesty requires such concurrence. 1991 ed. RAC. 159. or community generally. Here. where the offense was actually committed was liberated from enemy control and occupation. Adapted. shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition conviction for the offense for w/c he was conditionally pardoned. is not afflicted with a constitutional vice. upon a convict who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. Philippine Political Law. the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under the RAC. 64 (i). Before the period for perfecting an appeal had expired.

on whether he has committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy. PAGE 244 . shows that the offense committed comes w/n the terms of said Amnesty Procl. ISSUE: W/N in order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Procl. either by the prosecution or the defense. or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. w/n he admits or confesses having committed the offense w/ w/c he is charged. once established by the evidence presented. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. For. the Commissions should. that is. while Amnesty is by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress. 1946. it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. it abolishes or forgives the punishment. While Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself. generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. either of the complainant or of the accused. while Amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses. because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation. It is not correct to say that "invocation of the benefits of the amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. if necessary or requested by the interested party. HELD: NO. cannot be punished as a criminal. of Sept." and it "in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence" (Art 36 RPC). which has the force of law. for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty. HELD: The right to the benefits of amnesty. he may be declared by the courts or the Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits of the amnesty. 7." or not. and decide whether he is entitled to the benefits of amnesty and to be "regarded as a patriot or hero who has rendered invaluable services to the nation. conduct summary hearing of the witnesses both for the complainants and the accused. It is sufficient that the evidence. Pardon is granted to one after conviction. Although the accused does not confess the imputation against him. or the right of suffrage. not only as innocent. in accordance with the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation. ISSUE: W/N the benefits of amnesty may be waived.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition HELD: Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned. but as a patriot or hero. because the courts take no notice thereof. cannot be waived. it is necessary as a condition precedent that he should admit having committed the criminal act with w/c he is charged and allege the amnesty as a defense. and for that reason it does "not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted.

in 1981. which is impossible because of double jeopardy. In 1973. even if the convict has already served his full sentence. In 1987. If so. Ford was able to pardon Nixon even without a trial. Notes: The fifth distinction bet. Adapted. Then. When an accused says that he has not committed a crime. it was made stricter: pardon could be granted only after "final" conviction. amnesty is a public act by the President and Congress. ---. and so must be impleaded in court. then.) Such was our law under the Jones Law of 1916. therefore that the effect of pardon retroacts to the day of the crime." Aside from extinguishing criminal liability. But under Art. It can be seen from several cases.o ---The 4th distinction (pardon is forward looking while amnesty is backward looking) is not accurate on the basis of decided cases. It is not simply forward-looking. thus going back to the rule under the Jones Law and the President could grant pardon anytime. which allows the President the power to grant pardon even before conviction (thus. would defeat the action. pardon can only be granted after final conviction. it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of those conditions. The case holds that pardon must be raised as a defense.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Dissenting Opinion: Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime. this implies that he has already been convicted. and so the court is enjoined to take judicial notice of it. he cannot have any use for amnesty. The error in the Barrioquinto ruling is that it borrowed this distinction from American law. and that he needs to invoke the pardon as a defense. because there may be accessory penalties that are perpetual in extent. a convict has been granted pardon. pardon and amnesty is that pardon is a private act of the President. Why would he still have to invoke it? This seems to contemplate a situation where he is being charged again of the same crime. once. as in this case. And under the Constitution. 89 of the RPC. absolute pardon extinguishes criminal liability. PAGE 245 . the phrase "after final conviction" was dropped. and that precisely he has been exempted from the penalty arising from conviction. if true. the phrase reads: "after conviction by final judgment. Pardon is still useful. this rule was changed: pardon could only be granted after conviction. It is also self-evident that where the Amnesty Proclamation imposes certain conditions. But under the 1935 Constitution. (supra) The 5th distinction (pardon is a private act while amnesty is a public act) is not true in Philippine law. A petition for amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. otherwise the court cannot take judicial notice of such pardon. pardon also works to remit fines and forfeitures paid in favor of the Government. The pleader has to confess the allegations against him before he is allowed to set out such facts as.

Sec. (d) Effects of Pardon In Cristobal v Labrador. Notwithstanding his conviction. Teofilo Santos was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor. 94 of CA 357. the voter whose right to vote was challenged in an exclusion proceeding because he had been convicted of estafa which carried the accessory penalty of disqualification from the right of suffrage. Palatino 72 Phil 441 F: Pelobello alleges that Palatino is disqualified from voting and being voted upon. 71 Phil 34 (1940). Cristobal filed a petition for the exclusion of Santos' name in from the list of voters in Malabon on the ground that the latter is disqualified under par. for then they would be restored to their political right(s) right away. he will be appointed for appointments only to positions w/c are clerical or manual in nature and involving no money or prop. Santos petitioned the Chief Executive for absolute pardon. Subsequently. except that with respect to the right to hold public office or employment. 94. Hence. xxx An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but it also removes all disabilities resulting from conviction. 94. (b). nor relieve the pardonee of civil liability and other claims pertaining to the private offended party. Upon appeal. to grant pardon: (1) that the power be exercised after conviction. [There would be no problem if they were pardoned beforehand. the disability is the result of conviction w/o w/c there would be no basis for the disqualification from voting. 71 Phil 34 (1940) F: On 3/15/30. He was confined in jail from 3/14/9/32 to 8/18/32." Bec. were both allowed to exercise their political right in view of the subsequent pardon granted them. Rizal and was municipal pres. his conviction was affirmed. granted his petition restoring him to his "full civil and political rights. Marinduque in 1940.. (2) that such power does not extend to cases of impeachment. Sec. He was later elected mayor of Torrijos. of this provision. the mayor-elect who was not allowed to take his oath because of a previous conviction. " it is absolute insofar as it "restores the resp. LC denied Cristobal's petition holding that Santos' pardon had the effect of excluding him from the disqualification created by par. and in Pellobello v Palatino. (b) of said law disqualifies the resp. to full civil and political rights. while the pardon extended is conditional in the sense that "he will be eligible for appointment only to positions w/c are clerical or manual in nature involving no money or prop. On 11/40. xxx In the present case. from 1934 to 1937. (b) of Sec. resp. par. It appears that Palatino was convicted by final judgment in 1912 of atentado contra la autoridad y sus agentes and sentenced to imprisonment. It is admitted that PAGE 246 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition But it does not automatically restore the public office forfeited. for falsification of a private document which likewise carried the accessory penalty of disqualification. In the present case. Pelobello v. The Election Code was approved.] Cristobal v Labrador." Adapted. The Pres. from voting for having been declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against prop. Santos continued to be a registered elector in Malabon. 72 Phil 441 (1941). HELD: There are 2 limitations upon the exercise of the constitutional prerogative of the Pres. responsibility. this petition for ceritorari.

16. remitting only the unexpired portion of the prison term and fine. the pardon having been granted after the election but before the date fixed by law for assuming office. Abes applied for registration as a voter but said application was denied. an absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. injunction. Under the circumstances of the case. he was not allowed to file his candidacy.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Palatino was granted by the Gov. Thus. As a result. 25. 1967. Without the pardon. injunction in CFI-Nueva Ecija. and that when granted after the term of imprisonment has expired. 1959 by virtue of a conditional pardon granted by the President. The SC adopts the broad view in Cristobal v. On Nov. granting arguendo. The SC. the President granted him absolute pardon and restored him to the enjoyment of full civil and political rights. Gen. "it is as though he was a registered voter even if on that day. Despite this. 24 SCRA 780. pointed out that. the President granted Abes an absolute and unconditional pardon and restored to him full civil and political rights. HELD: YES. he was not yet pardoned. because one of the requirements for the office was that the candidate be a qualified voter. after inquiry into the environmental facts. In Lacuna v Abes. Abes 24 SCRA 780 F: Mayor-elect Abes had been convicted of the crime of counterfeiting treasury warrants and sentenced to prision mayor and a fine. With the approach of the 1967 elections. Lacuna contends that the restoration of Abes' civil and pol. his maximum sentence would have been served on Oct. a conditional pardon in 1915. declaring Abes' eligibility to the position of mayor. he was proclaimed the fully elected mayor. 1940. Lacuna placed second. even if he was already granted pardon. on the day of the election. should be at liberty to atone the rigidity of law to the extent of relieving completely the party or parties concerned from the accessory and resultant disabilities of criminal conviction. After he had partially served his sentence. Thus the better view is not to unnecessarily restrict or impair the power of the Chief Executive who. PAGE 247 . pardon retroacted to the day of the crime. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislation. CFI dismissed the petition. and so was disqualified from the right of suffrage. 13. absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. Adapted. it is evident that the purpose in granting him absolute pardon was to enable him to assume the position in deference to the popular will. he was released on April 7. 1961. It is also proven that on Dec. On the same day that the hearing was held on the application for prelim. the petitioner was convicted of counterfeiting. Lacuna filed his petition for quo warranto with prelim. and the pardon was thus extended after the election but before the date fixed by the Election Code for assuming office. ISSUE: W/N the absolute pardon had the effect of removing the disqualification incident to criminal conviction under the then Election Code. Abes filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of mayor and later won. rights did not retroact to remove the disqualification existing anterior to the grant of the pardon. Labrador that subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. after pointing out that the law did not require that he be a registered voter but only a qualified voter at the day of election." Lacuna v.

and thereafter claimed she was entitled as a consequence to reinstatement as assistant city treasurer. Custorio). integrity and fair dealing. where a woman who was convicted of estafa through falsification of public documents was granted an absolute pardon. As laid down in the Pelobello case. Adapted. to 10 yrs.50) in a decision of the SB. 170 SCRA 190 A Pardoned Convict is not Entitled to Reinstatement to a Public Office. Treasurer of Calbayog City. The Ministry of Finance agreed to reinstate her w/o necessity of a new appointment provided this was done not earlier than PAGE 248 . Palatino. lest we lose track of the true character and purpose of the privilege. absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.500) and to indemnify the govt (P4. granted after election but before the date fixed by law for assuming office. to pay fine (P3. Marcos. The view consistently adopted in this jurisdiction is that the pardon's effects should not be unnecessarily limited as it would lead to the impairment of the pardoning power. the SC held that a pardon cannot mask the acts constituting the crime. "xxx subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution. as minimum. as maximum. should be at liberty to atone the rigidity of law to the extent of relieving completely the party or parties concerned from the accessory and resultant disabilities of criminal conviction. HELD: YES. prudent men will take into account in their subsequent dealings with the actor. Labrador. after inquiry into the environmental facts. the pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative action. These are "historical facts" which. She was convicted of estafa thru falsification of public documents and sentenced to 4 yrs. F: Petitioner Salvacion Monsanto was Asst. Thus the better view is not to unnecessarily restrict or impair the power of the Chief Executive who." Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty. Monsanto vs Factoran. she was granted absolute pardon and "restored to full civil and political rights" by then Pres. despite the public manifestation of mercy and forgiveness implicit in pardon. and 1 day of prision correcional. and that when granted after the term of imprisonment has expired. "ordinary. which was not contemplated in the Constitution (Cristobal v. But unless expressly grounded on the person's innocence.892. had the effect of removing the disqualifications prescribed by both the criminal and electoral codes.. While her case was pending appeal in the SC. that an absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from conviction. This must be constantly kept in mind. Pelobello v. Thus. In Monsanto vs Factoran. and 1 day of prision mayor. pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction. although such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. Mijares v. 170 SCRA 190. 2 mos.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition ISSUE: W/N a plenary pardon.

333 (1867) to the effect that in the eyes of the law. it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty. 4 Wall. integrity and fair dealing. However. although such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. w/ the result that the judgment of conviction of the SB (w/c entailed her temporary absolute disqualification from holding public office) became final. HELD: (1) Petitioner was granted pardon under the 1973 Consti. As her MFR was denied. law-abiding citizen. on 4/15/86. For whatever may have been the judicial dicta in the past. requiring final conviction as a condition for the grant by the Pres. While we are prepared to concede that pardon may remit all the penal consequences of a criminal indictment if only to give meaning to the fiat that a pardon. being a presidential prerogative. in considering her qualifications. it is immaterial when the pardon was granted. VV. Petitioner may apply for reappointment but. Accordingly. It subsists notwithstanding service of sentence. The 1987 Consti. However. we do not subscribe to the view that pardon blots out the guilt of an individual and that once he is absolved. reverted to the former rule. as amended. amnesty or commutation of sentence. (3) Nor can petitioner be exempted from the payment of the civil indemnity.. Petitioner's theory is that the gen. of pardon. xxx" (e) Sanctions for violations of conditional pardon Torres vs Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon. pardon does not ipso facto restore him to public office may have been forfeited by reason of the conviction. if for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon. She contended that w/o final judgment on conviction. the offender who is pardoned is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. Notes on the case: "Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly grounded on the person's innocence (w/c is rare). the Executive Dept. the new administration held that she was not entitled to automatic reinstatement on the basis of the pardon granted her. This must be constantly kept in mind lest we lose track of the true character and purpose of the privilege. we cannot perceive how pardon can produce such "moral changes" as to equate a pardoned convict in character and conduct w/ one who has constantly maintained the mark of a good. w/c. By accepting the pardon. should not be circumscribed by legislative action.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition the date of her pardon. for the result would be the same. the facts constituting her conviction should be taken into account to determine whether she can again be entrusted w/ public funds. the accessory penalty of forfeiture of office did not attach. has 2 options: (i) to proceed PAGE 249 . petitioner brought this action to the SC. impliedly authorized it to be granted even before conviction. the petitioner is deemed to have abondoned her appeal. she was extended clemency while her case was still pending in the SC. rule on pardon does not apply to her bec. (2) The modern trend of authorities reject the unduly broad language of Ex Parte Garland. he should be treated as if he were innocent. by deleting the requirement that pardon could be granted only after final conviction.

issued a resolution granting executive clemency to Ocampo. precluded finality as executory of the DILG order. The Const. Loan was claimed to be disadvantageous to the govt. Llamas filed petition claiming that executive clemency could only be granted by the Pres. PAGE 250 .. the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under the RAC. and remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases. shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. F: Pet. "after conviction by final judgment" applies solely to crim. of RA 3019 and meted a penalty of 90 days suspension. upon a convict who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. Ocampo was found guilty by DILG of a viol. in crim. of Tarlac who assumed the position of gov. w/c cases executive clemency may be exercised by the Pres. Here. the power of the President to grant executive clemency in administrative cases refers only to administrative cases in the Executive branch and not in the Judicial or Legislative branches of the govt. commutations and pardons. the different Executive departments are mere adjuncts of the President. may substitute her decision for that of her subordinate. which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses. as chairman and his brother-inlaw as executive director. If the President can grant reprieves. It is in this sense that the alleged executive clemency was granted." But. Administrative conviction was based on complaint filed by petitioners and others charging Ocampo w/ executing loan agreement w/ Lingkod Tarlac Foundation for the amount of P20M. does not distinguish bet. or (ii) to proceed against him under Art. Sec. w/c is a non-stock and non-profit org. RPC which imposes the penalty of prision correccional minimum period. 202 SCRA 844 (1991) "Conviction" may be used in either a criminal case or in an administrative case. Adapted. or admin. MFR by Ocampo was denied by DILG. However. cases. order" wherein he signified intention to continue in office at his residence in the belief that pendency of appeal to the Exec. trustee and secretary. the President in the exercise of her power of supervision and control over all executive departments. cases. headed by the gov. (f) Does pardoning power apply to administrative cases? Llamas vs Executive Secretary. w/ the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. with much more reason can she grant executive clemency in administrative cases. Their acts are presumptively the acts of the President until countermanded or reprobated by her. he himself describes the governor as one "convicted in an admin. case. cases. when Gov. W/o ruling on the MFR. Llamas was Vice-Gov. That choice is an exercise of the executive prerogative and not subject to judicial scrutiny. the Exec. Ocampo issued "admin. 64(i). RAC. In this case. It is clearly within the power of the President not only to grant "executive clemency" but also to reverse or modify a ruling issued by a subordinate against an erring public official. On 3/19/91. 159. HELD: According to petitioner.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition against him under Sec. case" and thus actually concedes that "conviction" may be used either in a crim. Under the doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. where a reconsideration of the facts alleged would support the same. not in admin. Sec.

53.In meritorious cases and upon recommendation of the (Civil Service) Commission. This objective cannot be expected to meet with full success without the goodwill and cooperation of the Hukbalahaps who have become more embittered by their capture. Subtitle A. Administrative Code of 1987 Sec.-. The SC agreed with the Sandiganbayan that in fact the petitioners were expressly disqualified from amnesty. They claimed that they had been granted amnesty by President Marcos. The avowed practical objective of the amnesty is to secure pledge of loyalty and obedience to the constituted authorities and encourage resumption of lawful pursuits and occupation. subject to such terms and conditions as he may impose in the interest of the service (g) Who may avail of amnesty? Tolentino vs Catoy 82 Phil 300 (1948) F: Petitioner was a Hukbalahap who was found guilty of illegal assembly in furtherance of the Hukbalahap designs. it stands to reason that those who fell into the clutches of the law have a better claim to clemency for the remaining portion of a punishment fixed for the same offense. Title I. sent a petition to the President for his release under the provisions of the proclamation. Petitioner who was already serving his sentence. No. the majority of the Court believe that by its context and pervading spirit the proclamation extends to all members of the Hukbalahap. 53. The acts for which they were convicted PAGE 251 . etc. 76 granting amnesty to leaders and members of the Hukbalahap. He then went to court and filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. It makes no exception when it announces that the amnesty is proclaimed in favor of the leaders and members of the associations known as the Hukbalahap and Pambansang Kaisahan ng Magbubukid (PKM). HELD : Though some members of the Court question the applicability of Amnesty Proclamation No. prosecution and incarceration.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Sec." If total punishment is foregone in favor of Hukbalahaps who succeeded in evading arrest. Pardon includes amnesty. Fundamentally and in their utmost effect. Book V. Chapter 7. The Sandiganbayan claimed that the benefits of amnesty were never available to petitioners under PD 1182. Macaga-an vs People 152 SCRA 430 Petitioners were charged and convicted of estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents by the Sandiganbayan. No action was taken on his petition. the President may commute or remove administrative penalties or disabilities imposed upon officers or employees in disciplinary cases. pardon and amnesty are synonymous. Removal of Administrative Penalties or Disabilities. Pardon and amnesty are both construed most strictly against the state. the President issued Proc. sedition. 76 to Hukbalahaps already undergoing sentence upon the date of its promulgation. No compelling reason is apparent for excluding Hukbalahaps of any class or condition from its object which is "to forgive and forego the prosecution of the crimes of rebellion. Adapted. After the judgment was promulgated.

People. et. the only def. among others. (86 P 219). plead that said commission was in pursuance of the resistance movement and perpetrated against persons who aided the enemy during the Japanese occupation. BARLONGAY CASE: Vera vs. either of the complainant or the accused. shows that the offense committed comes w/in the terms of said Amnesty Procl. and allege the amnesty as a defense. 7 SCRA 152 (1963) Amnesty cannot be invoked. if proved. No. in view of the legal issue involved. the Commission ordered that the case be remanded to the court of origin for trial. In fact. it is not necessary that he should. it is sufficient that the evidence. w/c actually tried it. in its decision held that it could not take cognizance of the case. citing in support of their submission. as in this case. F: In the CFI-Quezon. vs. petitioners appealed to the CA w/c certified the appeal to us. ISSUE: W/n persons invoking the benefit of amnesty should first admit having committed the crime of w/c they are accused. could be invoked only by defs. A MFR was filed by petitioners but was denied. imposes certain conditions. where the accused actually denies the commission of the offense charged. al vs. admit having committed the criminal act or offense w/ w/c he is charged. wherein we held that-"It is rank inconsistency for appellant to justify an act or seek forgiveness for an act. and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a crime. as a condition precedent. on the ground that the benefits of the Amnesty Procl. From this order of the Commission. which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which. etc. the Commission. Hence.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition were ordinary crimes without any political complexion and consisting only of diversion of public funds to private profit. (82 P642. admitting the commission of the crime. it is not necessary for them to admit the commission of the crime charged. al. s. were charged w/ the complex crime of kidnapping w/ murder of Amadeo Lozanes. The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. instead of admitting the killing of the deceased Lozanes. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime." (italics supplied. Llanita. During the hearing. it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. of the Pres. according to him. who took the witness stand. Where an amnesty procl. categorically denied it. Upon petitioners' motion. invoking the benefits of Amnesty Procl.) to the effect that "in order to entitle a person to the benefits of Amnesty Procl. of 1946. among others. Petitioners contend that to be entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Procl. al. HELD: But said cases have been superseded and deemed overruled by the subsequent cases of Peo. he cannot have any use for amnesty. The amnesty proclamation covered only acts in the furtherance of resistance to duly constituted authorities of the Republic. the case was referred to the Eight Guerrilla Amnesty Commission. none of the petitioners admitted having committed the crime charged.. in a criminal case who. et. he has not committed. the case of Barrioquinto. petitioners Vera.) PAGE 252 .. et. Vera. Consequently. 8. would bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation. Fernandez.

Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. but due to the rivalry bet. shall within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension. Upon the initiative of the President. otherwise he shall be released. the Commission do not bring the case w/in the terms of the Amnesty Procl. Sec. for a period not exceeding sixty days. if not in session. The Supreme Court may review. PAGE 253 . before conviction. invasion or rebellion. the facts established bef. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function.Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. shall. in the same manner. The President shall be the Commander-in. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. All persons. and the Vera's Guerrilla of petitioners. the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. 18. he may. which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. when the public safety requires it. the Congress may. Sec. to w/c he belonged. (8) Powers as commander-in-chief Art. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. Art. The Congress. In case of invasion or rebellion. voting jointly.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition At any rate. III. xxx As found by the Commission. the killing of the deceased (Lozanes) was not in furtherance of the resistance movement. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guild is strong. 1. and whenever it becomes necessary. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. RAM. The Congress. Excessive bail shall not be required. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. may revoke such proclamation or suspension. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. xxx Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. The suspension of the privilege shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Art. VII. suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. 13. 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. Sec. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days. be bailable by sufficient sureties. by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. the Hunter's Guerrilla. VIII.

The public safety requires the suspension. VIII. Such persons suspected of the above crimes can be arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest. Requisites: 1. invasion or rebellion. or c. par. The suspension of the privilege of the writ applies only to persons "judicially charged" for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion (Art. Effects of the suspension of the privilege 1. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Govt. b. He may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The "privilege of the writ" is that portion of the writ requiring the detaining officer to show cause why he should not be tested. the Constitution does not regulate its exercise radically Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus A "writ of habeas corpus" is an order from the court commanding a detaining officer to inform the court (i) if he has the person in custody. Subject to: Art. not the writ itself. 2. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. He may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Call out the AFP to prevent lawless violence This is merely a police measure meant to quell disorder. and (ii) what his basis in detaining that person.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition As Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. He may proclaim martial law over the entire Philippines or any part thereof. PAGE 254 . There must be an invasion or rebellion. 18. Sec. the President has the following powers: a. 1 par. 5). VII. Sec. As such. Note that it is the privilege that is suspended. and 2.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

"Judicially charged" as used in the Constitution is imprecise. For if one were already judicially charged, his detention would be legal and so he could no longer petition for habeas corpus. Habeas corpus precisely contemplates a situation in which a person is being detained without being charged in court. Thus, the provision should read "one who is suspected of complicity in" the two crimes above. As a general rule, no person could be arrested without a warrant of arrest (validly issued upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, (cf. Art. III, Sec. 2), unless (i) the arrest was made in connection with a crime committed in the presence of the detaining officer, or (ii) the privilege of the writ was suspended. If the public officer arrests him without a warrant, the officer becomes liable for "arbitrary detention" under Art. 124 of the RPC, and a petition for habeas corpus can be filed to seek his release. The suspension of the privilege does not make the arrest without warrant legal. But the military is, in effect, enabled to make the arrest, anyway since, with the suspension of the privilege, there is no remedy available against such unlawful arrest (arbitrary detention). The arrest without warrant is justified by the emergency situation and the difficulty in applying for a warrant considering the time and the number of persons to be arrested. But the crime for which he is arrested must be one related to rebellion or the invasion. As to other crimes, the suspension of the privilege does not apply. 2. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days, or otherwise he shall be released. (Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 6). In other words, the public officer can detain a person without warrant of arrest, but he can only do so for 72 hours. Before the lapse of 72 hours, an information must have been filed in the proper court charging him of the offense for which he was arrested. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the detainee wants a preliminary investigation to be first conducted by the fiscal, he must sign a waiver of the effects of Art. 125. (delay in the delivery of detained persons) The effect of the suspension of the privilege, therefore, is only to extend the periods during which he can be detained without a warrant. Under Art. 125, as amended by EO 272, the public officer can only detain him for 12, 18 or 36 hours depending on the gravity of the offense of which he is charged; within this time, he must be judicially charged, otherwise, he must be released. When the privilege is suspended, the period is extended to 72 hours. What happens if he is not judicially charged nor released after 72 hours? The public officer becomes liable under Art. 125 for "delay in the delivery of detained persons." As to the detainee, it is submitted that he or someone else in his behalf can file a petition for habeas corpus. For even if the suspension has a lifetime of 60 days in general, as to that person, the suspension only has an effectivity of 72 hours, so that after this time, the suspension is lifted as to him. 3. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. (Art. III, Sec. 13)

PAGE 255

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Art. III, Sec. 13. xxx The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of HC is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. This new provision abrogates the ruling in Morales v Ponce- Enrile which held the contrary. Proclaim Martial Law Requisites: 1. There must be an invasion or rebellion, and 2. Public safety requires the proclamation of martial law all over the Philippines or any part thereof. Effects of the proclamation of martial law The President can: 1. Legislate 2. Order the arrest of people who obstruct the war effort. But the following cannot be done (Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 4) 1. Suspend the operation of the Constitution. 2. Supplant the functioning of the civil courts and the legislative assemblies. The principle is that martial law is proclaimed only because the courts and other civil institutions like Congress have been shut down. It should not happen that martial law is declared in order to shut down the civil institutions. 3. Confer jurisdiction upon military courts and agencies over civilians, where civil courts are unable to function. This is the "open court" doctrine which holds that civilians cannot be tried by military courts if the civil courts are open and functioning. But if the civil courts are not functioning, then civilians can be tried by the military courts. Martial laws usually contemplates a case where the courts are already closed and the civil institutions have already crumbled, that is a "theater of war." If the courts are still open, the President can just suspend the privilege and achieve the same effect. 4. Automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This overrules the holding in Aquino v Ponce-Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 (1974), that when the President proclaims martial law, he also impliedly suspends the privilege of the writ.

PAGE 256

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Under the present rule, the President can still suspend the privilege even as he proclaim martial law, but he must so suspend expressly. The Role of Congress a. When the President proclaims martial law or suspends the privilege of the writ, such proclamation or suspension shall be effective for a period of 60 days, unless sooner revoked by the Congress. b. Upon such proclamation or suspension, Congress shall convene at once. If it is not in session, it shall convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call within 24 hours following the proclamation or suspension. c. Within 48 hours from the proclamation or the suspension, the President shall submit a report, in person or in writing, to the Congress (meeting in joint session of the action he has taken). d. The Congress shall then vote jointly, by an absolute majority. It has two options: (i) To revoke such proclamation or suspension. When it so revokes, the President cannot set aside (or veto) the revocation as he normally would do in the case of bills. If Congress does not do anything, the measure will expire anyway in 60 days. So the revocation must be made before the lapse of 60 days from the date the measure was taken. (ii) To extend it beyond the 60-day period of its validity. Congress can only so extend the proclamation or suspension upon the initiative of the President. The period need not be 60 days; it could be more, as Congress would determine, based on the persistence of the emergency. If Congress fails to act before the measure expires, it can no longer extend it until the President again redeclares the measure, for how do one extend something that has already lapsed? Note that Congress cannot "validate" the proclamation or suspension, because it is already valid. It is thus restricted to the 2 measures above. If Congress extends the measure, but before the period of extension lapses, the requirements for the proclamation or suspension no longer exist, Congress can lift the extension, since the power to confer implies the power to take back. If Congress does not review or lift the order, this can be reviewed by the Supreme Court pursuant to the next section. The Role of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filled by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of (a) the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ, or (b) the extension thereof. It must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. (Art. VII, Sec. 18 par. 3)
PAGE 257

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

This is because judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2) The jurisdiction of the SC may be invoked in a proper case. A petition for habeas corpus is one such case. When a person is arrested without a warrant for complicity in the rebellion or invasion, he or someone else in his behalf has the standing to question the validity of the proclamation or suspension. But before the SC can decide on the legality of his detention, it must first pass upon the validity of the proclamation or suspension. The test to be used by the Supreme Court in so reviewing the act of the President in proclaiming or suspending, or the act of Congress in extending, is the test of arbitrariness which seeks to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the measure. The question is not whether the President or Congress acted correctly, but whether he acted arbitrarily in that the action had no basis in fact. Deciding on whether the act was arbitrary amounts to a determination of whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which is now made part of judicial power by Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par. 2. This curbs radically the application of the political question doctrine. This test was taken from the case of Lansang v Garcia, 42 SCRA 446 (1971). The issue there raised was whether in suspending the privilege of the writ in 1971, Marcos had a basis for doing so. The SC, in considering the fact that the President based his decision on (a) the Senate report on the condition in Central Luzon and (b) a closed door briefing by the military showing the extent of subversion, concluded that the President did not act arbitrarily. One may disagree with his appreciation of the facts, but one cannot say that it is without basis. [In this case of Lansang vs. Garcia, the SC held unanimously that it has the authority to inquire into the existence of the factual basis in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof. This holding of the SC is now found in Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3.] With this test and the new provisions in the 1987 Constitution, the case of Garcia-Padilla v Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 472 (1983), is, at last, overruled, and may it be so always. In that case, the SC held that the President's proclamation of martial law is beyond judicial review, and that the citizen can only trust that the President acts in good faith. The cases of Barcelon v Baker and Montenegro v Castaneda, which ruled that the validity of the suspension of the privilege was a political question, are likewise buried in the grave of judicial history. There are 4 ways, then, for the proclamation or suspension to be lifted: 1) Lifting by the President himself 2) Revocation by Congress 3) Nullification by the Supreme Court 4) Operation of law after 60 days

PAGE 258

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

Military Trial of Civilians Void Even Under Martial Law, If Civil Courts Are Open. (Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 5.). In Aquino vs Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546, the SC upheld the power of the President to create military tribunals authorized to try not only military personnel but also civilians even if at that time civil courts were open and functioning, thus rejecting the "open court" theory. The SC there held: "Martial law creates an exception to the general rule of exclusive subjection to the civil jurisdiction, and renders offenses against the laws of war, as well as those of a civil character, triable by military tribunals. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process. The immunity of civilians from military jurisdiction, must, however, give way in areas governed by martial law. xxx In the case of Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144, the Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2 decision was reversed. According to the SC, civilians who are placed on trial for civil offenses under general law are entitled to trial by judicial process. Since we are not enemy-occupied territory nor are we under a military govt. and even on the premise that martial law continues in force, the military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for civil offenses committed by them which are properly cognizable by the civil courts that have remained open and have been regularly functioning. The assertion of military authority over civilians cannot rest on the President's power as Commander in Chief or on any theory of martial law. As long as civil courts remain open and are regularly functioning, military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them and which are properly cognizable by civil courts. To hold otherwise is a violation of the right to due process. "The presiding officer at a court martial is not a judge whose objectivity and independence are protected by tenure and undiminshed salary and nurtured by the judicial tradition, but is a military officer. Substantially different rules of evidence and procedure apply in military trials. Apart from these differences, the suggestion of the possibility of influence on the actions of the court-martial by the officer who convenes it, selects its members and the counsel on both sides, and who usually has direct command and authority over its members is a pervasive one in military laws, despite strenuous efforts to eliminate the danger. (9) Emergency powers Art. VI, Sec. 23. xxx (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. This grant of emergency power to the President is different from the Commander-inChief clause. When the President acts under the Commander-in-Chief clause, he acts under a constitutional grant of military power, which may include the law-making power. But when the President acts under the emergency power, he acts under a Congressional delegation of lawmaking power.

PAGE 259

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition

The scope of the grant is such "powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy." Under the 1935 Constitution, this was construed the power to issue rules and regulations to carry out the declared policy. The 1987 Constitution, it is submitted, does not change the scope. "Power necessary and proper" should mean legislative power, because Congress is only allowed to delegate legislative power, being its only inherent power. Its other powers are only granted to it by the Constitution, and so it cannot delegate what has only been delegated to it. This power is (1) for a limited period, and (2) subject to such restrictions as Congress may provide. The power ceases (a) upon being withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, or, if Congress fails to adopt such resolution, (b) upon the next (voluntary) adjournment of Congress. For the fact that Congress is able to meet in session uninterruptedly and adjourn of its own will proves that the emergency no longer exists is to justify the delegation. This rule or the termination of the grant of emergency powers is based on decided cases, which in turn became Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the 1973 Constitution. In Araneta v Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368 (1949), the Congress granted the President emergency powers to fix rentals of houses. After the war, Congress held a special session. The SC held that the emergency power lasted only until Congress held its regular session. The fact that Congress could now meet meant that there was no emergency anymore that would justify the delegation. In the cases of Rodriguez v Treasurero, involving the law made by Pres. Quirino appropriating the sum of money for the operation of the government; Barredo v COMELEC, involving another law made by Pres. Quirino appropriating an amount to defray the expenses for an election, and Guevarra v Collector of Customs, involving a regulation of export, the SC held that the emergency power that enabled the President to legislate ceased the moment Congress could meet in regular session. At the very least, said the SC in Rodriguez v Gella, 92 Phil 603 (1953), it should cease upon the approval of a resolution by Congress terminating such grant. In this case, the Congress enacted a bill precisely terminating the grant of emergency power, but this was vetoed by the President. The SC ruled that the vetoed bill should be deemed a resolution that terminates the grant. Araneta v Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368 (1949) F:
The petitions challenge the validity of EOs of the Pres. avowedly issued in virtue of CA 671. They rest their case chiefly on the proposition that the Emergency Powers Act (CA 671) has ceased to have any force and effect.

HELD: CA 671 became inoperative when Congress met in regular session on 5/25/46, and the EOs were issued w/o authority of law.

PAGE 260

Petitioners seek to invalidate said EOs. The assertion that new legislation is needed to repeal the act would not be in harmony w/ the Consti. to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency. it may at least be considered as a concurrent resolution of the Congress formally declaring the termination of the emergency powers. Rodriguez v Gella. it might not be able to recall them except by a 2/3 vote. has been vetoed by the Pres. provides that any law passed by virtue thereof should be "for a limited period. CA 671 was approved declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war involving the Phils. The intention of the Act has to be sought for in its nature. Congress repealed all the Emergency Powers Acts of the Pres. the Constitution and the cases. and is contrary to the principle that the legislature is deemed to have full knowledge of the constitutional scope of its powers. and did not thereby become a regular statute. negative and uncertain. and the Congress might not be able to override the veto.) The Congress passed House Bill 727 declaring that "was has long ended" and that the "need for the grant of such unusual powers to the Pres. indefinite. would lead to the anomalous. It appears that in 1952. The opposite theory would make the law repugnant to the Consti. the Pres. and even if it would. the purpose to be subserved. RAM. VI of the 1935 Consti. "that w/c was intended to meet a temporary emergency may become permanent law. either. [Art. "while Congress while delegate its powers by a simple majority. To contend that the Bill needed presidential acquiescence to produce effect. VI. in order to justify the delegation of emergency powers. otherwise such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment of Congress. the SC decided that said emergency powers ceased as early as 1945.." for Congress might not enact the repeal.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition CA 671 does not in term fix the duration of its effectiveness. etc. 23 (2)] states that the emergency powers shall cease upon the next adjournment of Congress unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of Congress whereas the cases tell us that the emergency powers shall cease upon resumption of session. floods. Art. It has to pass a resolution withdrawing such emergency powers." In 1949. the repeal might not meet w/ the approval of the Pres. this would create the anomaly that. issued EOs 545 and 546 (for appropriation of funds for public works and for relief in the provinces and cities visited by typhoons. Sec. while Congress might delegate its powers by simple majority. Further. it might not be able to recall them except by 2/3 vote. If a new and different law were necessary to terminate the delegation. However. HELD: Although House Bill 727. the object to be accomplished. PAGE 261 . xxx Adapted." and for that reason . the period for the delegation would be unlimited. To reconcile the two. and authorizing the Pres. if not absurd situation that. Emergency. and its relation to the Consti. this was vetoed by the Pres. I believe that it would not be enough for Congress to just resume session in order that the emergency powers shall cease. has disappeared. The Consti." The words "limited period" are beyond question intended to mean restrictive in duration." It is to be presumed that CA 671 was approved w/ this limitation in view. xxx. Barlongay: Notice the apparent inconsistency bet.. 92 Phil 603 (1953) F: On 12/16/41. "must be temporary or it can not be said to be an emergency. Here. the issue again is w/n CA 671 is still effective.

related technical services and supplies. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. IN BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. and other: Provided. the Philippines has diplomatic relations. further. river controls. APPROPRIATING THE NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFORE. where the same are not obtainable within the Philippines at competitive prices as well as part of the peso costs. VII. which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt. as may be necessary and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. portworks. school buildings. to enable the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to finance. That in the case of roads. Republic Act 4860 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES TO OBTAIN SUCH FOREIGN LOANS AND CREDITS. either directly or through any government office. or other international organizations. the amount shall not exceed seventy per cent of the loan. credits and indebtedness with foreign governments. That at least seventy-five per cent shall be spent for purposes of projects which are revenue-producing and self-liquidating. airports and power. with whom. irrigation. within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. water works and artesian wells. AND TO GUARANTEE. development of fishing industry. airports. housing. construction and improvement of highways and bridges. or belonging to countries with which. foreign financial institutions. agency or instrumentality or any government-owned or controlled corporation. The President of the Philippines is hereby authorized in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines to contract such loans. 1. air navigation facilities. industrial. ports and harbors. PAGE 262 . agencies or instrumentalities of such foreign governments. other than working capital and operational expenses not exceeding twenty per cent of the loan: Provided. AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO FINANCE APPROVED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES OR PROJECTS. FOREIGN LOANS OBTAINED OR BONDS ISSUED BY CORPORATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES INCLUDING THOSE INCURRED FOR PURPOSES OF RELENDING TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. or government-owned or controlled corporations. OR TO INCUR SUCH FOREIGN INDEBTEDNESS. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public. river control and drainage. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. and containing other matters provided by law. That such foreign loans shall be used to meet the foreign exchange requirements or liabilities incurred in connection with said development projects to cover the cost of equipment. agricultural or other economic development purposes or projects authorized by law: Provided. Sec. such as electrification. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. telecommunication. bridges. 21. Sec. submit to Congress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government. The Monetary Board shall. Art. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Sec. irrigation. 20.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (10) Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans Art. XII.

the cash capital requirements of the Land Bank . for the purposes hereinbefore stated. The total amount of loans. recommended by the National Economic Council and the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines. including the rehabilitation and modernization of the Philippine National Railways. at least sixty-six and two-thirds per centum of the outstanding and paid-up capital of which is held by Filipinos at the time the loan is incurred. and others: Provided. The President of the Philippines is.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The authority of the President of the Philippines as herein provided shall include the power to issue. dated May 26. as well as the guarantees extended. likewise. credits and indebtedness incurred under this Act shall not exceed two hundred fifty million in the fiscal year of the approval of this Act. The loans/ or bonded indebtedness of government-owned or controlled corporations which may be guaranteed by the President under this Act shall include those incurred by government-owned or controlled financial institutions for the purpose of re-lending to the private sector and the total amount thereof shall not be more than five hundred million United States dollars or its equivalent in other foreign currencies at the exchange rate prevailing at the time the guarantee is made: Provided. 2. as amended by Executive Order No. That the governmentowned or controlled financial institutions shall re-lend the proceeds of such loans and/ or bonded indebtedness to Filipinos or to Filipino-owned or controlled corporations and partnerships. and governed by. development of the fishing industry. ports and harbors. That at least seventy five per cent shall be spent for purposes or projects which are revenue-producing and self-liquidating. The implementation of this Act shall be subject to. 4. That during anytime that any amount of the loan remains outstanding. prescribing procedures for the planning of development finances. credits and indebtedness under the preceding section shall be incurred only for particular projects in accordance with the approved economic program of the Government and after the plans for such projects shall have been prepared by the offices or agencies concerned. 1957. construction and/ or improvement of highways. credits and PAGE 263 . and two hundred fifty million every fiscal year thereafter. iron and nickel exploitation and development. upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. plus an additional special penalty of two per centum on the total amount due. excluding interests. housing. credits and indebtedness. hereby authorized. housing. 1966. however. credits and indebtedness contracted. the issuance of government securities. bonds for sale in the international markets the income from which shall be fully tax exempt in the Philippines. and the disbursement of proceeds and creating the Fiscal Policy Council and the Technical Committee on Development Finance. which are hereby adopted by reference and made an integral part of this Act. which the President of the Philippines is authorized to incur under this Act shall not exceed one billion United States dollars or its equivalent in other foreign currencies at the exchange rate prevailing at the time the loans. waterworks and artesian wells. irrigation. failure to meet with the capital ownership requirement shall make the entire loan immediately due and demandable. Sec. That the total loans. corporations owned or controlled by the Government of the Philippines for industrial. foreign loans extended directly to. to report to the Congress the amount of loans. the provisions of Executive Order 236. and approved by the President of the Philippines. Sec. All loans. electrification. however. telecommunication. within thirty days after the opening of every regular session. credits and indebtedness are incurred: Provided. agricultural or other economic development purposes or projects authorized by law. school buildings. river control and drainage. and the purposes and projects for which the loans. all in United States dollars or its equivalent in other currencies. or bonds for sale in international markets issued by. to guarantee. construction and/or improvement of highways. 5. 236. 3. together with all penalties and interests. Sec. such as those mentioned in Section one of this Act. dated February 13. airports. not inconsistent with this Act. air navigation. such proportion to be maintained until such time as the loan is fully paid: Provided. Sec. It shall be the duty of the President.

on the other hand. The Senate. 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. What used to be a statutory grant of power is now a constitutional grant which Congress cannot take away. to cover the payment of the principal and interest on such loans. is granted the right to share in the treaty-making power of the President by concurring with him with the right to amend. Sec. At any rate. Approved. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Congress may. which was first introduced in the 1973 Constitution. provide guidelines for contracting or guaranteeing foreign loans. 2. Treaty distinguished from executive agreements Executive agreements entered into by the President need no concurrence.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition indebtedness were incurred. VII. (11) Powers over foreign affairs (a) Treaty-making power Art. although the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Does Congress have to be consulted by the President when he contracts or guarantees foreign loans that increase the foreign debt of the country? The affirmative view cites Art. and have these rules enforced through the Monetary Board. 6. and stronger view. when it speaks of the power of the SC to review final judgments of lower courts in cases in PAGE 264 . September 8. as well as such loans which may be reloaned to Filipino-owned or controlled corporations and similar purposes. it says so specifically. when the Constitution intends to include executive agreements. Sec. but only regulate. he is the logical choice as the nation's spokesman in foreign relations. the present power. But that Congress has prior approval is a totally different issue. The Congress shall appropriate the necessary amount of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated. credits or indebtedness as and when they shall become due. and the guarantees extended. Sec. VI. Sec. 24 which holds that all bills authorizing increase of the public debt must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives. By reason of the President's unique position as head of state. is that the President does not need prior approval by Congress because the Constitution places the power to check the President's power on the Monetary Board and not on Congress. 1966. 21. 5. VIII. was based on RA 4860 or the Foreign Loan Act. of course. as in Art. 7. The negative. The reason is that although executive agreements are a kind of international agreements. Sec. par.

the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the Commissioner of Customs and ordered the aforementioned bonds to be cancelled and withdrawn. Examples of treaties are an agreement on tax. in the making of "treaties". distinct and different from "executive agreements. Some shipments came from Japan and others from HK. from 8/5 to 9/7/54. the SC in Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading. in the meantime. The USAFFE Veterans contended that the money delivered by the US were straight payments for military services and that therefore there was nothing to return to the US and nothing to consider as a loan. released to the consignees on surety bonds. Govt. Eastern was the consignee of several shipment of onion and garlic w/c arrived at the port of Mla. On review. vs Treasurer 105 Phil 1030 F: The central issue in this case concerns the validity of the Romulo-Snyder Agreement (1950) whereby the Phil. In holding that treaties are formal documents which require ratification with approval of the Senate. while executive agreements become binding through executive action without need of a vote by the Senate. there is no requirement of concurrence. said that the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is that a treaty is an international agreement involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international arrangements of a permanent character. the same seeks to implement an Executive Agreement-. Adm. the seizure and forfeiture of the goods imported from Japan cannot be justified under EO 238. 1363 (f) of the Rev. HELD: The concurrence of said House of Congress is required by the Consti. and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature.the goods having been. the goods thus imported were seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings for alleged violations of Sec. the National Defense Forces of the Philippines. extradition. in ten annual installments. Code. 3 SCRA 351 (1961)." which may be validly entered into w/o such concurrence. alliance. Commissioner of Customs vs. in relation to the said circulars.w/c agreement. w/c are. [The court went on to distinguish a treaty from an executive agreement. is of dubious validity xxx owing to the fact that our Senate had not concurred in the making of said Executive Agreement. mostfavored nation clause. copyright. 44 and 45 for the release thereof.extending the effectivity of our Trade and Financial Agreements w/ Japan-. undertook to return to the US Govt. a total of $35 M dollars advanced by the US to. but unexpended by. tariff rates. Inasmuch as none of the shipments had the certificate required by CB Circulars Nos. Eastern Sea Trading. international or executive agreement. 3 SCRA 351 F: Resp. They PAGE 265 . According to the CTA.] The agreement in question. being merely an executive agreement. Said goods were then declared forfeited in favor of the govt by the Commissioner of Customs-. is in question. Examples of executive agreements are agreements relating to postal conventions. however.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. not only bec. USAFFE Veterans Assn. RAM. while an executive agreement is an international agreement embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-established national policies and traditions.

over international relations. Congress specifically authorized the President to obtain such indebtedness w/ the Govt of the US. is a treaty internationally although as an executive agreement. This 2nd category usually includes money agreements relating to the settlement of pecuniary claims of citizens. it entered into a further agreement with the govt. The distinction between an executive agreement and a treaty is purely a constitutional one and has no international legal significance. As to the contention that the agreement lacks ratification by the Senate.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition also contended that the Romulo-Synder Agreement was void for lack of authority of the officers who concluded the same. arguendo. CIR vs Gotamco 148 SCRA 36 F: The World Health Organization (WHO) is an international organization which has a regional office in Manila. it was held that the yearly appropriations by Congress of funds as compliance with the agreement constituted ratification. It must be noted that a treaty is not the only form that an international agreement may assume. and (2) agreements entered into in pursuance of acts of Congress. But even if there was no ratification. it is hereby maintained that the Romulo-Snyder Agreement was legally and validly entered into to conform to the second category. there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. In this case. WHO informed the bidders that it was exempt from the payment of PAGE 266 . The agreement was never submitted to the Senate for concurrence. executive agreements may be entered into with other states and are effective even without the concurrence of the Senate. Nature of Executive Agreements : There are 2 classes : (1) agreements made purely as executive acts affecting external relations and independent of or without legislative authorization. exempting it from paying duties on any importation of materials and fixtures required for the construction. He had power to contract loans under RA 213 amending RA 16. Such arrangement therefore includes the obligation to return the unexpended amounts. Pres. In the case of Altman vs US. 18. 1946. When it decided to construct a building to house its own offices. which may be termed as presidential agreements. The agreement is not a "treaty" as the term is used in the Constitution. it was held that an international compact negotiated between the representatives of two sovereign nations and made in the name and or behalf of the contracting parties and dealing with important commercial relations between the two countries. HELD: The funds involved have been consistently regarded as funds advanced and to be subsequently accounted for. Even assuming. its agencies or instrumentalities. Adapted. that there was no legislative authorization. From the point of view of international law. One of the provisions is that WHO shall be exempt from all direct and indirect taxes. it is not technically a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. Quirino approved the negotiations. The Romulo-Snyder Agreement may fall under any of these two classes. the agreement would still be valid. or Congressional-Executive Agreements. It enjoys privileges and immunities which are defined in the Host Agreement entered into between the Philippines and the said organization. Consequently. For the grant of treaty making power to the Executive and the Senate does not exhaust the power of the govt. for precisely on Sept.

contending that the Host Agreement is null and void. the SC upheld the President's power to order the deportation of an alien under Sec. to deport aliens and. and petitioners w/ having attempted to bribe officers of the Phil. It is claimed that for the power to deport aliens be exercised. licenses and taxes and that their bids should not include such items. there must be a legislation authorizing the same. after previous determination by the Bd. and of having clandestinely remitted the same to HK. 9 SCRA 27 (1963) F: On 5/12/52. of the ancillary power to investigate. to issue a warrant to carry out a final order based on a finding of guilt. Gotamco. The CIR questions the entitlement of the WHO to tax exemption.w/c provision was expressly declared exempted from the repealing PAGE 267 . 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. the authority to deport undesirable aliens. the Commissioner of Immigration was empowered to effect the arrest and expulsion of an alien. order the deportation if he thinks he is undesirable to national interest. however. even during the pendency of the case. Sp Pros. the legislature did not intend to delimit or concentrate the exercise of the power to deport on the Immigration Commissioner alone. However. and US Governments in order to evade prosecution for said unauthorized purchase of US dollars. consequently. the Deportation Board w/ having purchased dollars in the total sum of $130. He may. Qua Chee Gan vs. not having been ratified by the Philippine Senate. less formal types of international agreements may be entered into by the Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence of the legislative body. Following the filing of said deportation charges. 79 SCRA 17 (1976). In Go Tek v Deportation Board. the payment of 3% contractor's tax. can deport an alien-. on the ground that such power is vested in the Legislature. the delegation to the Deportation Bd. the SC declared that while the Deportation Board has no power to issue a warrant of arrest issued upon the filing of formal charges against certain alien for the purpose of taking him in custody to answer those charges. The Host Agreement comes within the latter category. xxx but merely lays down the procedure to be observed should there be deportation proceedings. w/o having the necessary license from the CB. This decision to deport. the Pres. Galang charged petitioners bef. He need not wait for the pending case to end in conviction. While it may really be contended that Sec. the CIR demanded from its contractor. (b) Deportation of undesirable aliens In Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board. HELD : While treaties are required to be ratified by the Senate. Deportation Board. Adapted. 52 of CA 613 did not expressly confer on the Pres. 9 SCRA 27 (1959). is an act of State. the fact that such a procedure was provided for bef. It is a valid and binding international agreement even without the concurrence of the Philippine Senate.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition all fees.000. a warrant for the arrest of said aliens was issued by the presiding officers of the Deportation Bd. W/ the enactment of this law. it has the power delegated by the President. said the Court. of the existence of ground or grounds therefor. HELD: Under CA 613. xxx Petitioners contest the power of the Pres.

. pursuant to Sec. upon recommendation of the Bd. obviously has the power to order the arrest of the deportee. HELD: The President's power to deport aliens derives from Sec. certainly. and inferentially a ratification. The intention is to give the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien's residence in the country is so undesirable as to affect or inure the security. or interest of the State. Under the present and existing laws. contending that he could only be deported on grounds enumerated in Sec. 37 of CA 613.-. The Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts w/c warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed in an investigation. 79 SCRA 17 (1977) F: Petitioner was arrested for possession of fake dollars and prosecuted under Art. official functions requiring the exercised of discretion and judgement may not be so delegated. The contention xxx that the arrest of a foreigner is necessary to carry into effect the power of deportation is valid only when there is already an order of deportation. the curtailment of the liberty of such person is warranted. 168 RPC. of Commissioners. 69 of the RAC w/c provides for "a prior investigation. Deportation Board. But. by the legislature of the existence of such power in the Executive. under Sec. VV. therefore. welfare. The CFI-Mla sustained his contention. 69 of RAC.-. Go Tek vs. (12) Power over legislation (a) Message to Congress PAGE 268 . He filed a petition for prohibition against the Deportation Board. after due investigation.is a clear indication of the recognition. 37 (3) of the Immigration Law (of w/c possession of fake dollars is not) and only after conviction.Conceding w/o deciding that the Pres. At the same time. Power to order arrest of alien may not be delegated to Deportation Board by President. and (2) by the Commissioner of Immigration. The exercise of the power to order the arrest of an individual demands the exercise of discretion by the one issuing the same.Sec. during the investigation. Adm.The President's power of investigation may be delegated. can personally order the arrest of alien.. President's power of investigation may be delegated to the Deportation Board.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition effect of Immigration Act of 1940-. conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent xxx the Deportation Board has been conducting the investigation as the authorized agent of the Pres. Code w/c does not specify the grounds for deportation of aliens but only provides that it be ordered after due investigation. RAM. it is not indispensable that the alien be arrested. deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected in 2 ways: (1) by order of the Pres. deportation proceedings were brought against him. xxx And authorities are to the effect that while ministerial duties may be delegated. yet such power cannot be delegated by him to the Deportation Board. xxx Power to arrest aliens. 69 of the RAC does not provide for the exercise of the power to arrest. To carry out the order of deportation. to determine whether under specific circumstances. 69 of the Rev. This is clear from a reading of Sec. the Pres.

In such cases. If. he can influence the course of legislation that Congress can take during the regular session. If he approves the same. 23. the President reveals the priorities of the government. This gives the President an actual hand in legislation. otherwise. which contains his proposals for legislation. Sec. (c) Veto power Art. The President shall submit to Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular session. Sec. or tariff bill. he shall veto it and return the same with his objection to the House where it originated. be presented to the President. 22. VI. all bills must be approved by the President before they become law. Sec. together with the objections. As a general rule.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. it shall become a law. to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. and (c) receipts from revenue-raising measures. revenue. VII. which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. Through this speech. it shall be sent. before it becomes a law. two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. after such reconsideration. a budget of expenditures and sources of financing. The budget is the plan indicating the (a) expenditures of the government. except when (i) the veto of the President is overridden by 2/3 vote. therefore. (b) sources of financing. he shall sign it. including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. He may also appear before it at any other time. (See Legislative Power of Congress) PAGE 269 . Every 4th Monday of July. Through the budget. 27 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall. the President delivers the State of the Nation Address. otherwise. as the basis of the general appropriations bill. and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. and (ii) the bill passed is the special law to elect the President and Vice-President. it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof. This budget is the upper limit of the appropriations bill to be passed by Congress. the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays. but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object. (b) Prepare and submit the budget Art. and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House. However. his course of action is only to approve it or veto it as a whole. VII.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (d) Emergency Power Art. The reason for the delegation is the highly technical nature of international commerce. by law. 23. the SC ruled that the President. the Congress. PAGE 270 . VI. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. VI. 28. and the need to constantly and with relative ease adapt the rates to prevailing commercial standards. an employee of the Air Force was laid off due to an adverse decision of a Senate Committee made upon the insistence of Pres. for a limited period. In a resolution in Carillo v Marcos. xxx (2) In times of war or other national emergency. (April 1981) and in the latest case of In re Bermudez (October 1986). The singular importance of the Presidency and his high visibility. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress. (See Previous Notes) (e) Fixing of tariff rates Art. (13) Immunity from suit The SC has affirmed time and again the doctrine of the President's immunity from suit. authorize the President. xxx The Congress may. Nixon. tonnage and wharfage dues. whether in office or not. but which decision was later found to be baseless. the Court said that it is "elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe. import and export quotas. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. is absolutely immune from liability for his official acts. by law. 2. In the US case of Nixon v Fitzgerald. The distraction that suits would bring to such an important official laden with enormous responsibility. Sec. tariff rates. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof." A related doctrine is the President's "immunity from liability". Sec. The Court gave three reasons for such immunity: 1. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. may.

1986 election. 5 of Art. Marcos. Marcos and Vice-Pres. xxx" Claiming that the said provision is not clear as to whom it refers. of April 4. w/c provides: "Sec. Laurel and elected Pres. HELD: This petition is dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. quotes the first par. is for purposes of synchronization of elections. Res. 5. RAM. the SC ruled that Cabinet members and senior aides sued for the same act as in Nixon v Fitzgerald only enjoy "qualified immunity. Soliven vs Makasiar. Carillo vs. among the present incumbent Pres." This immunity is less than absolute. Barlongay: Q: Does the President's immunity from suit extend to his alter egos? A: No. VV. enjoying as he does immunity from suit. Bermudez. In re: Saturnino V. Beltran vs Makasiar 167 SCRA 393 PAGE 271 . The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7. 1992. They are allowed to show in a preliminary manner that the claim is unsubstantial.. the petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent Pres. 1981 The President as such cannot be sued. but the validity of his acts can be tested by an action against the other executive officials or such independent constitutional agencies as the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. of Sec. 145 SCRA 160 F: In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no respondents. he then asks the Court "to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who. Aquino and it is equally elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. The consequence that the President might hesitate at the moment of greatest peril to the nation if he knows that he would be held liable later on. Tolentino being referred to under the said provision. Prescinding from the petitioner's lack of capacity to sue. however. petitioner. More importantly. In Harlow v Fitzgerald. hereby extended to noon of June 30. as a lawyer. VIII of the proposed 1986 Consti. Aquino and Vice-Pres. it is elementary that this Court assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition 3. and yet it would enable them to defeat unsubstantiated claims without resorting to trial.

undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations. President Nixon refused to release information concerning the Watergate scandal. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by another person. Moreover. aside from requiring all of the officeholder's time. (14) Executive Privilege In the case of US vs Nixon. nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications. bringing her under the TC's jurisdiction." The US SC held his refusal invalid. declaring that neither the doctrine of separation of powers. diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. So long as the act was done during his term. He contended that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the President's filing of her complaint-affidavit. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. also demands undivided attention. RAM. not by any other person in the President's behalf. One of the issues was whether the President may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit. pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office. Barlongay: Q: Does the President's immunity from suit extend even beyond his term? A: Yes. The President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. However. there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. But this privilege of immunity from suit. it is difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for inspection with all the protection that the court will be obliged to provide. Thus. unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. without more. claiming what he called "executive privilege.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition F: This is the libel case involving Beltran's allegations that President Aquino was hiding under her bed. Vice President PAGE 272 . since by testifying on the witness stand. HELD: The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction. According to Beltran. when the privilege depends solely on the broad. a confrontation with other values arise. This would be an indirect way of defeating her privilege of immunity from suit. an accused in a criminal case where the President is a complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against the accused. she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution. can sustain an absolute. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. Absent a claim of need to protect military. she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. considering that being the Chief Executive is a job that. 2.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. execute its laws. canvass (i. and consecrate to myself to the service of the Nation. 3. the regular election for President and VicePresident shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice. but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes (tie). Id. 4. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass. The persons having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected." (In case of affirmation. or Vice-President. sitting en banc. Such appointment requires no confirmation.) PAGE 273 . shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. one of them shall forth with be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members of Congress.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition a. Id. VII. The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. shall be transmitted to the Congress. tally the certificates of canvass) the votes. and the Congress. The Supreme Court.. Sec.. Before they enter on the execution of their office. not later than thirty days after the day of election (w/c is the 2nd Tuesday of June).e. Sec. the Vice-President or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines. 5. Unless otherwise provided by law. term and oath Art. the President of the Senate shall. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.. and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. and qualifications of the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. 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. upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law. preserve and defend its Constitution. Qualifications. voting separately. directed to the President of the Senate. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. duly certified by the board of canvassers of each provinces or city. do justice to every man. last sentence will be omitted.President. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. Sec. election. So help me God. the President. returns. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives in joint public session.

VII. Vice-President. and their deputies or assistants shall not. Succession Such Art. The reason is that the Vice-President does not have real functions when the President is around. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Sec. c. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice. during said tenure. d. Art. or as Secretaries. Sec. Sec. voting separately. or the Office of the Ombudsman. Sec. The President shall have an official residence. 13. VII.President during the term for which he was elected. Prohibitions Art. appointment requires no confirmation. there is no Acting Vice-President spoken of. Note that in case the vacancy occurs in both the offices of President and Vice-President. chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. They shall not received during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. VI. 9. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increased was approved. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions. They shall not. or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision. xxx The Vice-President may be appointed as member of the Cabinet. or in any franchise. participate in any business.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition b. Undersecretaries. who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both houses. PAGE 274 . They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. Privilege and salary Art. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. agency or instrumentality thereof. hold any other office or employment during their tenure. including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. or be financially interested in any contract with. 3. The President. 6. the Members of the Cabinet. unless otherwise provided in this Constitution. VII. directly or indirectly practice any other profession.

but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution. but not by impeachment. The President. the Members of the Constitutional Commissions.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition When a vacancy occurs in both offices. graft and corruption. Sec. the successor is not elected anymore. (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. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. The Committee. culpable violation of the Constitution. trial. after hearing. e. (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. 2-3 Art. shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral. or betrayal or public trust. and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. Secs. the Vice-President. (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof. XI. f. and punishment according to law. 2. treason. Art. on impeachment for. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House. XI. Removal Art. and by a majority vote of all its Members. other high crimes. the Members of the Supreme Court. but shall not vote. XI. 3. together with the corresponding resolution. the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When sitting for that purpose. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days. but merely chosen from the Congress. the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment. and conviction of. the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. Functions PAGE 275 . All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. bribery. When the President of the Philippines is on trial. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. Sec. and the Ombudsman may be removed from office. or override its contrary resolution. the Vice-President is elected in a special election. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. If the vacancy occurs only in the Vice-Presidency. and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

or resignation of the Acting President. permanent disability. within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration. or resignation of both the President and Vice-President. or resignation of the President. by law. he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. the President of the Senate or. within forty-eight hours. should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. For that purpose. in case of his inability. if it is not in session. removal from office. the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. VII. provide who shall serve as President in case of death. If the Congress. 8 and 11 Art. VII. within twelve days after it is required to assemble. Art. In case of death. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. appointment requires no confirmation. the Congress shall decide the issue. removal from office. Secs. Sec. permanent disability. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. 8. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. voting separately. Sec. 3. otherwise.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (1) Right of succession Art. the VicePresident shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. In case of death. Meanwhile. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. xxx The Vice-President may be appointed as member of the Cabinet. or if not in session. the Vice-President shall act as President. VII. in accordance with its rules and without need of call. The Congress shall. the Congress shall convene. and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President. permanent disability. and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary. such powers and duties shall be discharged by the VicePresident as Acting President. Such PAGE 276 . determines by a twothirds vote of both Houses. Sec. 11. when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists. Thereafter. (2) Membership in Cabinet Art. VII.

) (8) The members of the SC and all lower courts have security of tenure. VIII. [Art. IX. Sec. Cruz: To maintain the independence of the Judiciary.) (9) They shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. VIII.) (7) The SC has exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts. 2. the following safeguards have been embodied in the Consti: (1) The SC is a constitutional body. 2.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition UPDATED 1/24/96 RAM C. 6. 11. Sec. It cannot be abolished nor may its membership or the manner of its meetings be changed by mere legislation. two departments (Executive and Legislative) are considered as active. 30. (Art. VIII. The Judicial Department Barlongay: Of the three departments of government. Sec. VIII. Sec. 4 (1)] (2) The members of the judiciary are not subject to confirmation by the CA. Sec.) (5) The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be increased by law w/o its advice and concurrence. Sec. (Art. Sec. 12.) (4) The SC may not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate jurisdiction as prescribed in Art. VIII. VI. (Art. On the other hand. (3) The members of the SC may not be removed except by impeachment. Sec. 5 of the Consti.) PAGE 277 . (Art. (Art. the Judiciary is considered as passive.) (6) The SC now has administrative supervision over all lower courts and their personnel. (Id. It is passive in the sense that it has to wait for a case to be filed before it can act. w/c cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciary. (Art. X.

provided the security of tenure is not undermined. or operation of presidential decrees. five. VIII. and in no case. (Art. Regional Trial Courts. in divisions of three. that no doctrine or principle or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.] (13) Only the SC may order the temporary detail of judges. [Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (10) The salaries of judges may not be reduced during their continuance in office. instructions. 10. 4. VIII.) (12) The SC alone may initiate rules of court. (Art. or seven Members. are established by law. Composition The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. international or executive agreement. or law. and other regulations. par. on the other hand. Sec. 5 (3)] (14) The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.) (11) The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. proclamations. application. [Art. ordinances. VIII. 1. without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. orders. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. Metropolitan Trial Courts. en banc. Sec. Sec. Creation The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 1. It may sit en banc or its discretion. VIII. 3. 5 (5). which shall be heard by the Supreme Court.) The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. The Supreme Court a. VIII. [Art. Municipal Trial Courts. When the required number is not obtained. (Art. The lower courts (Court of Appeals. [Art. the case shall be decided en banc: Provided. including those involving the constitutionality. 4(1)] PAGE 278 . and so could be abolished by law. As such it cannot be abolished by the Congress for the power to destroy only resides in the one who has the power to create. VIII. VIII. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Composition Art. Sec. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. VIII. 5 (6)] 1.

This prompted the framers to eliminate one phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" in 1956. 5 or 7 members (or 5. it does not violate the concept of a "one Supreme Court" because. Sec. 80 Phil 297 (1948). There is but one Supreme Court whose membership appointments are permanent. But the reality was that the dockets were crowded. This "one Supreme Court" doctrine is strengthened by the provision that "when the required number (in a division) is not obtained. because although it sits in divisions. "unless otherwise provided by law. Vargas filed a motion assailing the constitutionality of People's Court Act w/c provides that any justice of the SC who held any office or position under the Phil Exec. the case shall be decided en banc: provided. 3 or 2 divisions made up of 3. the Supreme Court was composed of eleven (11) justices in all. not only was the discretion retained. if it sat on divisions. Mode of Sitting It may sit en banc. the divisions of the SC do not diminish its authority. In 1987. At present. [Art. it remains and co-functions as one body. in 1973. the SC sits either en banc or in 3 divisions. but also the divisions were increased. 80 Phil 297 (1948) F: Pet. fifteen (15) Justices. Vargas v Rilloraza. 5 or 7 members. it provided in the Judiciary Act of 1948 the rule that the SC may only sit en banc. One Supreme Court When the SC sits in divisions. according the United States v Limsiongco.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Under the 1935 Constitution. There may be 5." Congress decided against allowing the SC to sit in 2 divisions on the theory that there is only one Supreme Court. the rule was that the SC may sit en banc or in 2 divisions. 4(3)] Strict Composition In Vargas v Rilloraza. Sec. And so. that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. is unconstitutional. the SC held that the temporary designation of judges of the CFI and the Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court to constitute a quorum due to disqualification of some of the justices. and in effect leave the decision to the SC on whether to sit en banc or in 2 divisions. 3 or 2 divisions). respectively. 41 Phil 94 (1920). or in its discretion. [Art. Commission or under the govt called PAGE 279 . 4(1)] In 1935. in divisions of 3. VIII. VIII.

Republic or any branch. is nothing short of depriving the court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law. Commission and the Phil. the Pres. having none of the disqualification set forth in the above law. Exec. or bec. his vote would count as much as any regular justice. Sec. the requisite number of justices necessary to constitute a quorom in any case is not present. (5) The (Judicial and Bar) Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. or on account of illness. (This was under the 1935 Constitution w/c required confirmation from the Commission on Appointments.. cadastral judges. To disqualify any of these constitutional component member of the courtespecially as in this case. as may be necessary to sit temporarily as justice of the SC in order to form a quorom. sec. Sec. may designate such no. If on account of such disqualification. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. judges at large of CFI. of any of the grounds of disqualification of judges. Such appointments need no confirmation. A member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age. w/ the consent of the CA. (2) The designation provided (a CFI-judge to sit as a SC justice if the SC does not have the required quorum) is repugnant to the constitutional requirement that members be appointed by the Pres.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Phil. Judicial and Bar Council Id. For the lower courts. there is no escaping the fact that he would be participating in the deliberations and acts of the SC and if allowed to do so. 7. Id. PAGE 280 . b. 8. It would seem evident that if Congress could disqualify members of SC in taking part in the hearing and determination of certain "collaboration" cases. xxx Adapted. the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list. it could extend the disqualification to other cases. (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.) It will result in a situation wherein 6 members sitting will not be appointed and confirmed in accordance w/ the Consti. in R 126. instrumentality or agency thereof. (3) However brief or temporary may be the action or participation of a judge designated. Appointment and qualifications Art. 9. 13 hereof in w/c the accused is a person who held any office or position under either both the Phil..in a treason case. Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power. and must have been for fifteen years or m ore a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. VIII. a majority of them-. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. may not sit and vote in any case brought to that court under sec. absence of temporary disability. HELD: (1) Congress does not have the power to add to the existing grounds for disqualification of a justice of the SC. of judges of the CFI. Sec. 1 of the ROC. Republic.

(Art. Is the imposition of income tax on the salary of the Justices and Judges a diminution of their salary as prohibited by the Constitution? Under the 1935 Constitution (Art. But it may be increased by law. During their continuance in office. Sec. 10. and so there can be no conflict of interest. XVIII. for such would be a diminution of their salary. Salary Art. PAGE 281 . 9). and [three] this will promote the independence of the Judiciary.) The salary of lower court judges is not initially fixed by the Constitution but by the law. [two] the Judiciary plays no part in the passage of the law increasing their salary unlike the Congress and the Executive. to take effect at once. Sec. 17.000 and the Associate Justices shall receive P 204. 7(3)] c. VIII. or practice of law in the Philippines (id.000 each. Sec. Sec.) (3) At least 15 years of experience as a judge of lower court. which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. in contravention of the Constitution. VIII. integrity." In Perfecto v Meer. VIII.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Qualifications (1) Natural-born citizen [Art. their salary shall not be decreased. 85 Phil 552 (1950). the CJ shall receive an annual salary of P 240. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme court and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. Reasons are: [one] the Constitution does not prohibit it. the SC ruled that salaries of judges were not subject to income tax.) (4) Of proven competence.) During their continuance in office. 10. VIII. probity and independence [Art. This happened after Justice Perfecto refused to pay the assessment of income tax made upon him by the Collector. 7(1)] (2) At least 40 years of age (id. VIII. Sec. Sec. their salary shall not be decreased. it was provided that the members of the Judiciary "shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law. (Art. Unless the Congress provides otherwise.

Sec. and so when it did. 6 Aware of this ruling. shall be exempt from the payment of income tax. 93 Phil 696 (1953). d. to contend that the old ruling in Perfecto and Endencia is thereby deemed revived.) But the Court struck this statute down as unconstitutional when as in the previous case. 6 of 1973. 6 that: Art. Sec. such power being lodged in the judicial branch. But the SC this time did not uphold the old ruling. that is. It anchored its decision on the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission. 10 when originally presented to the body. VIII. There was a plan to insert a similar provision as that found in Art. judges and justices must pay their share in the burden of maintaining the government. Sec. VIII. VIII. 6. Sec. (Sec. Art. XV. This provision in the 1973 Constitution. A draft of the present Art. But when this draft was discussed on second reading. Congress passed a law providing that the constitutional provision against the diminution of salaries of members of the judiciary should not be interpreted to mean an exemption from income tax. the Court ruled that under the 1987 Constitution. Compare the 1973 Constitution. is not found in the 1987 Constitution. it violated the separation of powers under the Constitution. self-defensive ruling. XV. So this express exemption was deleted from Art. but through oversight. including constitutional officers. Yet. thereby avoiding a SC contrary. Not exempt from income tax In Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue. the framers of the 1973 Constitution clearly provided in Art. (July 1987). The SC ruling invalidating the statute was based on the reason that the legislature had no power to interpret the Constitution. Judge Endencia refused to pay his taxes. however. the SC concluded. No salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or employee. the salaries of members of the Judiciary are not exempt from taxes. expressly exempted the salary of judges from taxation. prompting some judges including Nitafan. Sec. Security of Tenure PAGE 282 . 10. 10 and so it was when the draft was adopted by the body. Sec. XV. Sec. 13. the reason being that like any other citizen. thereby giving the SC an opportunity to make the pronouncement in the case of Endencia v David.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Responding to this.. RA 590. the sentiment was against the exemption. the intent was clear to have one. and so it must be read into the Constitution. the constitutional commission failed to insert one. on the legislative history of the present Art.

as far as incumbent justices and judges are concerned. Reorganization It is highly doubtful if this provision applies to the SC. while there can be no claim to security of tenure where the office no longer exists. and ultimately reorganized by Congress. the SC be consulted and that its view be accorded fullest consideration. The test is whether the abolition is in GF.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. on the ground that it contravened the security of tenure of judges. the effect on the incumbent is one of separation. Since the SC is a creation of the Constitution and not of Congress.. Sec. in the implementation of the law it would be in keeping w/ the spirit of the Consti. removal and the abolition of office. Accordingly. (2) However." HELD: The imputation of lack of GF disregards the fact that the Act was the product of careful study and deliberation not only by the BP but also by a Presidential study committee (composed of the Chief Justice and Minister of Justice as co-chairmen. only incumbents are involved. 2. w/ a new one and provided that upon the completion of the reorganization by the Pres. VIII. Neither is there intrusion into the appointing process bec. that.. This is not rendering advisory opinion bec. w/ the exception of the SC and the SB. w/c authorizes the Pres. The power to reorganize involves the power to create and destroy. it may not be created nor destroyed. the courts affected "shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office. 144 of BP 129 replaced the existing court system. there is no question of law involved. Sec. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years. Alba. or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. In either case.) The study group called attention to the clogged dockets of the courts and the possible worsening of the situation as a result of population growth and rising expectations. or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. 41. the lack of merit of the petition becomes apparent. to fix the compensation of those who would be appointed under it "along the guidelines set forth in LOI No. and the adverse effect of this on the developmental programs of the govt. w/ members drawn from the SC and Ministry of Justice. xxx No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members." Petitioner. in their effect there is no difference bet. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. It was this problem w/c the Act seeks to solve. They sought to bolster their claim by imputing lack of GF in the enactment of the Act and by characterizing it as an undue delegation of legislative power bec. xxx [T]he abolition of an office is w/in the competence of a legislative body if done in GF. of Sec. judge of the city court of Olangapo. as amended by PD 1597. PAGE 283 . Id. pursuant to PD 985. 93. As that element is present in the enactment of BP 129. and 7 members of the Bar questioned the validity of the Act in an action for prohibition. 11. 112 SCRA 294 (1982) F: Sec. De la Lallana vs.

XI. or regulation is in question. international or executive agreement. or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Jurisdiction (1) The Power of Judicial Review Art. Members of the SC cannot be removed except by impeachment. or betrayal of public trust. because the ultimate effect of either is to remove him from office. other high crimes. VIII. Removal Art. e. modify. and conviction of. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. VIII. instruction. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law. Fiscal Autonomy Art. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. VV. 11. See procedure for impeachment under Other Powers of Congress. Art. pursuant to PD 985. 5. treason. culpable violation of the Constitution. or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. reverse. the provisions of Sec. 2. presidential decree. Thus. 3. order. Sec. Sec. xxx (2) Review. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. VIII. 41 that the Pres. after approval. f. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and. bribery. law. a SC justice cannot be charged in a criminal case or a disbarment proceeding. PAGE 284 . or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. as amended by PD 1597" constitutes a sufficient ground. Sec. and thus circumvent the provision on impeachment. 93. proclamation. revise. The xxx Members of the Supreme Court xxx may be removed from office. but not by impeachment. graft and corruption.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (3) As to the charge of undue delegation. ordinance. shall be automatically and regularly released. Sec. on impeachment for. should fix the compensation of those who will be appointed to the new courts "along the guidelines set forth in LOI No. g.

and This is the classical definition of judicial power that contemplates a case where the party-plaintiff has a cause of action against the party-defendant. In justifying the power of judicial review." The extent to which it exercises this function. it is merely performing a duty imposed upon it by the Constitution. VIII. Angara contended that the deadline set by the National Assembly was controlling. that it acts as the mechanism that implements the "supremacy of the Constitution. which right was violated by the defendant.) Scope of the Judicial Power Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to: (Art. filed a motion of protest (complaint) on 8 December 1935. ruled for Ynsua. Laurel pointed out that when the court allocated constitutional boundaries. Determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Sec. Laurel. on the other hand set the 9 December 1935 as the deadline for the filing of election protest. has been limited by the political question doctrine. the National Assembly adopted a resolution that "all members-elect. (1) Power of Judicial Review Angara v Electoral Commission. par. 2. Ynsua. 1. Sec. J. It simply carries out the solemn and sacred obligations imposed upon it by the constitution to determine conflicting claims and to establish for the parties the rights which the PAGE 285 . it neither asserts supremacy. As early as Angara v Electoral Tribunal. VIII. the SC held that when it performs his checking function of the co-equal branches. 63 Phil 139 (1936). in view of the constitutional provision granting the electoral Commission jurisdiction over election protests. Who prevailed? HELD: The SC. This was entertained by the Electoral Commission. thereby resulting in injury. through J. however. (Art. 1. thereby upholding the authority of the Electoral Commission. par. with no election protest filed on or before 3 December 1935 are deemed elected. involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 2) 1. a constitutional body. F: In 1935. that is. who lost to Angara. the plaintiff has a right corresponding to the defendant's obligation. nor annuls the acts of the legislature." The Electoral Commission. Settle actual controversies. 1.

and (4) a constitutional question that is the very lis mota of the case. whether the rules of the Batasan enabling it to shelve a complaint for impeachment against the President is constitutional. According to the court. a valid resignation as to authorized the Batasan to pass a Snap Election Law? The Court could have validly issued an injunction to stop the COMELEC from proceeding with the preparations for the election. citing its delay in deciding the case and the sentiments of the people that developed in the meantime as reason for its inaction. Even then. In Romulo v Yniguez. we see another trend of judicial review. Teehankee was of the view that as there were less than ten votes for declaring BP 883 unconstitutional.. and that the ultimate result of the case was to question the decision of the Batasan to shelve the case.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition constitution grants to them. J. the petitions should be dismissed. which was conditioned on the election.. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution. what at first was a legal question became a political question because it was overtaken by events. 140 SCRA 455. [In this case. and 5 Justices voted to declare the statute unconstitutional. no 7 Justices voted to dismiss the petitions. 66 Phil 56 (1937). Political Questions In PBA v COMELEC.e. While the petition is directed at the Committee on Justice. a matter. Human PAGE 286 .) is really a political question when viewed in a broader context (i.e. Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review In People v Vera. J. this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties. that is solely committed to that department. we see a reversal of judicial review. proclamation and assumption into office by the elected President. (2) an appropriate case. Is the resignation submitted by Marcos. infra. Narrowed as its function is in this manner. xxx Adapted. But it did not. that the case was filed against the Speaker of a co-equal branch to compel him by mandamus to recall the complaint from the archive. What seems like a legal question when viewed in isolation (namely. Laurel laid down the doctrine that judicial review can only be exercised in an actual case and controversy. an unavoidable question.) Said the SC: By denying Mitra's motion to recall the resolution of impeachment. justice or expediency of legislation. the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom. The case was clearly a justiciable controversy. i. Exec. This places the matter beyond review by this Court. and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Sec. (3) a constitutional question raised at the earliest possible time. This means (1) a party with a personal and substantial interest. In accordance w/ Javellana vs. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. the BP in effect confirmed the action of its committee dismissing the resolution. ) VV: A Court which does not issue an injunction to enjoin an official act when it could have issued one is actually deciding the case in favor of the validity of the act. Failure to issue an injunction is as much an exercise of judicial review. a.

If so.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Rights and Good Govt. w/ the work of a legislative committee would be tantamount to an intereference w/ the work of the legislature itself. it is actually directed at the BP bec. that it spoke of appellate review of "final judgment of inferior PAGE 287 . This issue said the SC. the SC passed on the validity of the rules to erase doubts that may still be entertained. All courts can exercise judicial review The review power of the SC implies that it has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of lower courts on cases with constitutional issues. Dumlao v COMELEC (95 SCRA 392) F: Section 4 of BP 52 provided that any retired elective local official who had received retirement pay to which he was entitled under the law and who have been 65 years old at the commencement of the term of office to which he sought to be elected. their decision being always reviewable by the SC. the committee's action. which provided for the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. RA 2616.M. was claimed to be unconstitutional. claiming that this was directed at him as former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. dismissing the resolution of impeachment. was approved by the BP. no petition for his disqualification having been filed and (b) the action was a request for advisory opinion. 3 SCRA 696 (1961). HELD: The SC held that (a) he had no standing. the SC upheld the validity "because of paramount public interest". could be resolved by the CFI in the ejectment case filed before it by the evictees of the estate. b. inferior courts have original jurisdiction over constitutional cases although they decide the case only at first instance. since he had not been injured by the operation of the law. despite the really political nature of the question. declaring that the legislative purpose of infusing younger blood in local government was valid. And yet. Q: What is the effect of the expanded jurisdiction on the political question doctrine? A: The doctrine still exists but has been reduced in scope. Tuason & Co. In J. for instance an RTC can rule on the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Law. since the 1935 Constitution contemplated that inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality issues. an interference by the judicial dept. Yet. Thus. was not qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he had retired. Dumlao filed for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the law. Indeed. Barlongay: Q: What are the two aspects of political questions? A: (1) those questions that are left to the people in their sovereign capacity (2) matters w/c are lodged in the other branches of govt. v CA.. Adapted.

The 2/3 vote of the SC required by Sec. Obviously. Said the court: The Consti. Ynot vs. then the lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. how the prohibition of the interprovincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter. (2) There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals (except where there at least 7 yrs. challenging the consitutionality of the EO. The EO defined the prohibition. The measures struck him at PAGE 288 . considering that they can be killed any where. it could be easily circumsbcribed by simply killing the animal. dead meat. reverse. banning the transporting of carabaos from one province to another. modify or affirm final judgments of lower courts in constitutional cases. VII restricted the decisions of that Court only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited. the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander. The 2/3 vote of the SC. modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari. He brought an action for replevin. that since it has jurisdiction to review. As for the carabeef. lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. the prohibition is made to apply to it as otherwise. were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond w/c was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. In Ynot v IAC 148 SCRA 659. old if male and 11 yrs old if female upon the issuance of the necessary permit) the EO will be conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. 10 of Art. reverse. 148 SCRA 659 (1987) F: Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been transported from Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. The 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. convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment. contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving the constitutionality of any treaty or law. Its decision was affirmed by the IAC. as the law or rules of court may provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. of the 1935 Consti. 10. for it speaks of appellate review of the final judgment of inferior courts.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition courts" in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. not to be flippant. Perhaps so. any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill them there. so says the EO. IAC. Art. w/c was carried out forthright. The SC then struck down the law for being arbitrary and for unduly delegating legislative power. it should follow that there is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as. w/ no less difficulty in on province than in another. however. HELD: (1) Under the provision granting the SC jurisdiction to "review. We do not see. However. revise. required by Sec. VIII.. the SC reversed the RTC's holding that it had no authority to rule on the validity of EO 626-A. Hence this petition for review. revise. (3) In the instant case. conditions only decisions of that court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court pointed out. in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. retaining the carabao in one province will not prevent their slaughter there.

thus denying him elementary fair play. "[t]here is before us an actual controversy whether the petrochemical plant should remain in Bataan or should be transferred to Batangas. and all that the citizen can do is trust in the good faith of the President. so that when the President says that there is a need for such proclamation. (2) Judicial Review and political questions. Art. or anyone else in his behalf). VII. As enunciated in Tanada v Cuenco. Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Said the court. national interest notwithstanding. VIII. supra. Beyond this. and whether its feedstock originally of naphtha only should be changed to naphtha and/ or liquified petroleum gas as the approved amended application of the BPC.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition once and pounced upon the petitioner w/o giving him a chance to be heard. Sec. whether or not it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion for the BOI to yield to the wishes of the investor. one in respect to which full discretionary capacity is given to the other branches of the government. the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension. the Supreme Court continues to invoke it as in Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines v Aquino. in an appropriate proceeding (like a habeas corpus petition). 191 SCRA 288 In this case. his words are binding on the Courts. Art. now Luzon Petrochemical Corp. 18 authorizes the SC to review. Indeed. filed by a citizen (who. however. under the Rules of Court. as already noted in the Commander-in-Chief power of the President above. that the political question doctrine has been completely abrogated by the Constitution. Sec. the court ruled that it has a constitutional duty to step into the controversy and determine the paramount issue. (LPC). such that if those cases where the SC invoked the doctrine were decided now it would have to decide the case on its merits. It is submitted that what the Constitution overrules is only the ruling in Garcia Padilla v Ponce-Enrile. In re Bermudez and Marcos vs Manglapus. It does not mean. And in the light of the categorical admission of the BOI that it is the investor who has the final choice of the site and the decision on the feedstock. xxx VV. could be the detainee himself. shows. Garcia vs BOI. the political question doctrine is not a dead issue. The second aspect of the definition of judicial power modifies the political question doctrine. In fact. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. where the SC held that the question on the validity of the proclamation of martial law is beyond judicial review. PAGE 289 . 1. a political question is one to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

13 provide that. or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. PAGE 290 . (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or In People v Daniel. No cogent advantage to the government has been shown by this transfer. Sec. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (2) Review." The distinction bet. Indeed. whenever the CA should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life imprisonment should be imposed. the CA is not prohibited from rendering judgment but from "entering judgment. Section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 and the present Rule 124. Dissenting : The decision of the BOI may be extremely unwise and inadvisable. VIII. there would be no judgment for SC to review. This is a repudiation of the independent policy of the government expressed in numerous laws and the Constitution to run its own affairs and the way it deems best for the national interest. and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereto to this Court for review. X. 5 (2) (d) [now Art." Unless the CA renders judgment and imposes the penalty of death or reclusion perpetua. explained: Art." Chief Justice Castro. "the said court shall refrain from entering judgment thereon. 5. (3) Jurisdiction over criminal cases where penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua Art. with comprehensive written analysis of the evidence and discussion of the law involved (should) render judgment expressly and explicitly imposing the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua as the circumstances warrant. In other words. reverse.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Supreme Court held that the BOI committed a grave abuse of discretion in approving the transfer of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas and authorizing the change of feedstock from naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG for the main reason that the final say is in the investor all other circumstances to the contrary notwithstanding. should the CA be of the opinion that the penalty of death or reclusion perpetua should be imposed in any criminal case appealed to it where the penalty imposed by the trial court is less than reclusion perpetua. Sec. for that reason annul the BOI's action or prohibit it from acting on the manner that lies within its particular sphere of competence. modify. both being rape cases where the trial court imposed lesser penalties because of misappreciation of the aggravating and qualifying circumstances and on appeal the penalty was increased. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: higher. and shall forthwith certify the case brought before it on appeal. 86 SCRA 511 (1978) and as affirmed in People v Ramos. revise. 88 SCRA 466 (1979). 5 (2) (d)] provides that the SC shall have appellate jurisdiction over "final judgements and decrees of inferior courts" in criminal in w/c the "penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. Adapted. for the Court is not a judge of the wisdom and soundness of the actions of the two other co-equal branches of the Government. but the SC may not. the said Court. Sec." which that it is not prohibited from rendering judgment. The majority opinion held that "henceforth. refrain from entering judgment. VIII. the two is well established. but only of their legality and constitutionality. for the majority. Sec.

"Entry of judgment" presupposes a final judgment-. 4. shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. Vice-President. 1793. who had obtained the largest number of votes for said office. refrain from entering judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review. "all proceedings taken by it are a nullity". Sec. 7 Art. 18. Petitioner Lopez then instituted this Original Action to prevent the PET from hearing and deciding the aforementioned election contest. returns. (5) Article VII.A. No. the Court after discussion of the evidence and the law involved. Sec. xxx xxx The Supreme Court. 3 Art. Roxas. creating said Tribunal. 16. His closest opponent. ROC. then filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) an election protest contesting the election of petitioner herein as VP upon the ground that it was not he.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The phrase "entering judgment" is not to be equated w/ an "entry of judgment" as the latter is understood in R36 in relation to Sec. VII. xxx xxx The Supreme Court may review. A judgment in a crim. PAGE 291 . and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing..final in the sense that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court or appellate court w/in the reglamentary period. 4. 13. sitting en banc. and may promulgate its rule for the purpose. 8. R 124. and qualifications of the President. Sec. has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. It is only then that there is a judgment w/c is to be entered or recorded in the book of entries of judgments. shall render judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher as the circumstances warrant. R 121 and Sec. resp. or the def. or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. 18. Lopez vs. case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal. is "unconstitutional" and that. xxx Whenever the Court of Appeals should be of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher should be imposed in a case. VII. 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. upon the ground that R. Sec. 17 SCRA 756 (1966) F: In 1965. par. the 2 Houses of Congress in joint session proclaimed petitioner Fernando Lopez elected to the Office of the Vice-President of the Philippines. Gerardo Roxas. but said resp. par. (4) Article VII. Rule 124. Sec.

1793 has conferred upon such court an additional exclusive original jurisdiction. prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. brief. By providing that the PET "shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other 10 Members of the SC". Moreover. nor the appointment of an officer. 1793 is unconstitutional HELD: NO. any decision. has the effect of giving a defeated candidate the legal right to contest judicially the election of the President-elect or the VP-elect. returns and qualifications' of members of the Senate and those of the House of Representatives. It has merely conferred upon the SC the functions of a PET. R. Adapted. the Congress has not. and. order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of the copy thereof. such as the power to "judge all contests relating to the election. Sec. VIII. creating the PET. PAGE 292 .A. The authority of the PET to declare who has the better right to office does not abridge constitutional tenure. xxx But while the jurisdiction of courts is a matter of legislative apportionment.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition ISSUE: Whether R. IX. hence. Sec. R. through R. The Congress shall have the power the define. If the evidence introduced in the election protest shows that the person really elected is the protestant. Said law is constitutional. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.A 1793. he can claim no abridgment thereof. 1793. respectively. Art. only. encroached upon the appointing power of the Executive. It constitutes neither the creation of an office.A. VIII of the Constitution vests in the judicial branch of the government. It cannot decrease the constitutionally set jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A. Section 1. 7 Art. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. not the person declared elected by Congress. the Constitution sets certain limitations on this prerogative: 1. then the latter had legally no constitutional tenure whatsoever. so much as the Constitution confers upon some other agency. although the functions peculiar to said Tribunal are more limited in scope than those of the SC in the exercise of its ordinary functions.A. (6) Article IX. h. It has not created a new and separate court. but the entirety or "all" of said power. 2. The PET is not inferior to the SC since it is the same court. A. which is vested by the Constitution solely in the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. Sec. not merely some specified or limited judicial power. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law. except. Congressional Power over Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Art. or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. 7. in the imposition of new duties upon the SC.

par. 4. owner of Bayview Plaza Hotel wherein the former would operate the hotel for a minimum of 3 mos. (Art. Inc. Sec. corporations and/or the assets thereof." The President. 31 of Procl. the original jurisdiction of the SC is concurrent with the RTC and in the case of the special civil actions. 50 w/c sought to the expeditious privatization of government assets. sale or disposition of assets transferred to it. or until such time that the said properties are sold to MSI or other third parties by DBP. HELD: Section 31 of Proclamation No. 5-A prohibited courts and administrative agencies from issuing any restraining order or injunction against the Asset Privatization Trust in connection with the acquisition. not being inconsistent with the Constitution and not having been repealed or revoked by Congress. issued said Proclamation to prevent courts from interfering in the discharge of the Executive Department of its task of carrying out the expeditious disposition and privatization of certain govt. 3. xxx.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (It may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. Thus. nor against any purchaser of assets sold by the Trust to prevent such purchaser from taking possession of any assets purchased by him. absent any grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on its part. vs CA F: Mantruste (MSI) entered into an interim lease agreement w/ DBP. The CA nullified the lower court's decision for being violative of Sec. Art. The properties were subsequently awarded to the MakatiAgro Trading and La Filipina Corp. Said Section does not infringe any provision of the Constitution. 50-A. has remained operative. Sec. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. in the exercise of her legislative power under the Freedom Constitution. VI. Subsequently. 30. 2. The Bayview Hotel properties were among the govt assets identified for privatization and were consequently transferred from DBP to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) for disposition. 5. It can increase the original jurisdiction of the SC (pursuant to its general power). under the Rules of Court. 2) Mantruste Systems.) 2. the Pres. issued Procl. MSI filed a complaint for the issuance of a restraining order enjoining APT from approving the winning bid and awarding the Bayview property to private petitioners and from ejecting MSI from the property or from terminating the contract of lease. It cannot increase the constitutionally set appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It does not impair the inherent power of the courts "to settle actual controversies which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the govt. PAGE 293 . It cannot pass a law reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. It can make the jurisdiction of the SC concurrent with lower courts (pursuant to its general power). This proclamation. with the CA. VI.

or (i) regulation. or (d) toll. the discharge of its functions and the implementation of its decisions in connection with the acquisition. the truth is that under the system of separation or powers.) is made concurrent with RTCs by law (Judiciary Act of 1948). the powers of the courts over the other branches and instrumentalities of government is limited to the determination of whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the exercise of their authority and in the performance of their assigned tasks. Sec. (h) ordinance. reverse. (5) Cases in w/c only an error or question of law is involved.) The first case (ambassadors. (f) order. or (e) any penalty imposed in relation thereto. nor block. (2) Cases questioning the legality of an (a) tax. (3) Cases in which the jurisdiction of lower courts is in issue. or (ii) petition for review on certiorari. Adapted. (b) international and executive agreement. which must be filed with the RTC (In Re Bermudez said so too. The Supreme Court's Jurisdiction A) Original jurisdiction [Art. (c) assessment. etc. (4) Criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. prohibition. and yet gave due course to the petition. B) Appellate Jurisdiction The Supreme Court shall have the power to review. (3) Sufficiency of factual basis of proclamation of martial law and suspension of privilege of writ of HC Note that the SC does not have jurisdiction over declaratory relief cases. as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. (d) presidential decree. modify. (b) impost. PAGE 294 . (g) instruction. mandamus. or affirm on (i) ordinary appeal. sale. (e) proclamation. (2) Petitions for certiorari. quo warranto and habeas corpus. Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the APT. revise. 5(1)] (1) Cases affecting ambassadors. (c) law or statute. (6) Orders of the Constitutional Commissions. The second case (special civil actions) is concurrent with the CA and the RTC.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition While the judicial power may appear to be pervasive. with respect to inferior bodies. other public ministers and consuls. by an injunction. or disposition of assets transferred to it. final judgment and orders of lower courts in the following cases: (1) Cases questioning the constitutionality or validity of any (a) treaty. VIII.

constitutionality. 2. 17 [3(i)] and Sec. makes all cases decided by the RTC. are appealable to the SC by petition for review on certiorari. Petition for review on certiorari This is not discretionary on the SC. This is unlike the ordinary appeal taken where the penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher. and the decision of the CA is then raised to the SC by petition for review on certiorari on pure questions of law. mode provided for in Rule 45. before the SC can reopen the case on appeal. VIII. Sec. the SC can pass on both questions of fact and law. 2) The four other cases falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the SC (viz. 17. if the petition shows no merit on its face. except those made directly appealable to the SC by (i) the Constitution. Under this mode. the review is automatic. when the resolution of the main issue depends on a controverted question of fact. Naturalization and denaturalization cases under the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Sec. 17 [4(4)]of the Judiciary Act of 1948. appealable to the CA. 5(3). Judiciary Act of 1948). Ordinary appeal This is obligatory on the courts. 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948) Certiorari PAGE 295 . However." (Art. is limited to pure questions of law. par. so the appellant possesses this "as a matter of right". Naturalization and denaturalization cases do not fall under any of the exceptions. for in this case. It has the authority not to give due course to the petition. (Sec. 14. although not so punished. tax. (ii) BP 129 and (iii) Sec. But the case is different when death is imposed because the worst that could happen on automatic appeal is that the judgment is affirmed. the case must be appealed to the CA on both. jurisdiction and pure questions of law). in Sec. 17) used to be directly appealable to the SC. in cases involving constitutionality. including those involving other offenses which. precisely by voluntarily making the appeal. arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion (to ensure uniformity of decision). The reason why it is not automatic in the first case (reclusion perpetua) is that on appeal.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in two ways: 1. or jurisdiction. the appellate court may increase the penalty imposed by the trial court (to death) so that the convict must first waive his right against double jeopardy. (Sec. questions of fact and law. The Constitution now provides that "no petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. But this is deemed to have been amended by the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129) which. All other cases can be appealed to the SC using this mode. The other case is the automatic review by the SC of criminal cases where the death penalty is imposed. tax. Thus. Ordinary appeal to the SC is allowed by law in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The certiorari referred to in 5(1) (when the SC exercises original jurisdiction) is the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (5) Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary Art. 5. interest (2) Temporarily assign judges to other stations in the public Art. by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. (3) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid miscarriage of justice [Art. hence outside the jurisdiction of the SC and cannot be investigated by it as if he were a lower court judge. VIII. (b) excess of jurisdiction. Sec. he is still an administrative official. (a) lack of jurisdiction. VIII. Sec. Otherwise. the SC held that although the Commissioner of Land Registration is given the rank of judge of the CFI. Administrative powers (1) Supervision of lower courts Art. In Noblejas v Teehankee. where the issue raised is "error of judgment" or error of law. or order their dismissal. The Supreme Court shall have the xxx power (to) PAGE 296 . VIII. i." that is. Sec. Sec. VIII. VIII. 5 (4)] (4) Discipline of lower court judges Art. 5. 11. The certiorari referred to in 5(2) (when the SC exercises appellate jurisdiction) is certiorari as an ordinary mode of appeal. or (c) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. the SC would be performing a non-judicial work. Sec. where the question raised is a "jurisdictional question. xxx The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. The Supreme Court shall have the xxx power (to) xxx (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

(ii) be uniform for all courts of the same grade. 5(4)] 2. VIII. Sec. its judicial function: 1. and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction. Sec. and (iii) not diminish. until otherwise provided by law. in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice. and (e) legal assistance to the underprivileged. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. Limitations to this power: Such rules shall (i) provide simplified and inexpensive procedure. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. for the speedy disposition of cases. (d) the Integrated Bar. though not exactly constituting. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. increase or modify substantive rights. Art. pleading. practice. Power of Congress to repeal Rules of Court Article XVIII. and procedure in all courts. increase. (c) the administration to the practice of law. j. Rule making .Promulgate rules concerning (a) the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. 10. PAGE 297 . Rights of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. practice and procedure in all courts. the admission to the practice of law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court. 5. and shall not diminish. the Integrated Bar. or modify substantive rights. VIII. Rule making Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition xxx (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Sec. (b) pleading. Order a change of venue or place of trial. judiciary acts. (not in VV's revised outline) Co-Judicial powers Aside from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court mentioned above the following are its other powers related to.

This is no longer true in 1987. 14. 57 Phil 600 (1932) PAGE 298 .. Thus. xxx The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens. Thus: Art. save in cases prescribed by law. 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. Thus.) k. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days form its filing. [Art.. Sec. VII. No quasi-judicial and administrative work of judges Generally: No non-judicial work for judges. As a general rule. VIII. In 1935. The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. Congress could lower it to 70%. members of the judiciary shall only have judicial functions. that the Rules of Court. in Meralco v Pasay Transportation Co. VIII. 5(5)] It is on the basis of this power. for this is a non-judicial work. XII. 57 Phil 600 (1932). the SC held that justices of the SC could not be constituted into a Board of Arbitration to determine reasonable compensation for the use of a bridge. 3 thereof. in line with the separation of powers principle of the Constitution. (par. as affirmed in the case of In re Cunanan. Sec. 18. Practice of Professions Art. the Congress was given the power to alter. Sec. Sec. 12. the Bar. Martial Law Art. supplement or modify the Rules of Court.judicial and administrative work for judges.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the SC. Legal Aid Office were adopted. No quasi. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. Meralco v Pasay Transportation Co. IBP. Rule-making power and the corollary power of amending the rules are now lodged exclusively on the SC. The Supreme Court may review. if the SC set the passing grade in the bar at 75%. provided this has no retroactive effect.

thus alleviating jail congestion and improving local jail conditions. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence. He can only render assistance to such committee to help promote the laudable purposes of said committee. even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over courts. 39 SCRA 106 (1971). resp. Before accepting the appointment. will violate the Constitution. Judge Manzano. HELD: Such committee performs administrative functions. 856 created the Provincial/City Committees on Justice to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees. RAM. In Garcia v Macaraig. xxx In Re : Rodolfo Manzano 166 SCRA 246 F: EO No. to recommend revision of any law or regulation which is believed prejudicial to the proper administration of criminal justice. but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of his judicial duties. the decision of a majority of whom shall be final. At the time of his appointment. to act in that capacity. fiscal or judge who may be found to have committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and refer the same to proper authority for proper action. Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in such committee. it sought the opinion of the SC as to the propriety of such appointment. Exceptions: Constitutionally appointed non-judicial functions of the Supreme Court a. In this case. Adapted. the Supreme Court is constrained to deny his request that he be allowed to serve therein. was the chief of Technical Staff of the DOJ and concurrently member of the Board of Pardons and Parole. Executive Judge Of Ilocos Norte was appointed as member of said Committee. The Constitution provides: PAGE 299 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The issue concerns the legal right of the members of the SC. Act as Presidential Electoral Tribunal While Congress acts as the National Board of Canvassers for the Presidential election. the Supreme Court acts as the Electoral Tribunal for such election. Among the functions of said committee are to receive complaints against any apprehending officer. jail warden. the SC said that it did not look with favor at the practice of long standing of judges being detailed with the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary. resp. the members of the courts shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. sitting as a board of arbitrators. HELD: The SC and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected w/ the administering of judicial functions. particularly those involving the poor and indigent ones. Under the Constitution. Macaraig was appointed to one of the newly-created CFI branches w/ station at Calamba Laguna. The basis of this rule is the separation of powers.

when there is an electoral contest already. Sec. 4. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. then the SC becomes the sole judge. 3(6)] b. Sec. 7. It was challenged in the case of Lopez v Roxas. VIII. and other regulations. international or executive agreement. within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress. or operation of presidential decrees. and qualifications of the President or Vice-President. five. without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. Manner of sitting and votes required Art. submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary. When the required number is not obtained. The Supreme Court shall. but the proclamation. VII. 4. in divisions of three. [Art. XI. shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to election. en banc. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. reasoning that it did not constitute the SC as a separate body but only added to its powers the power to be the judge of election contests. including those involving the constitutionality. proclamations. instructions. VIII. par. l. Chief Justice as presiding officer in impeachment trial of the President. returns. c. Sec. The 1935 Constitution did not provide this power. last par. Sec. Chief Justice as Chairman of the Judicial and Bar Council. that no doctrine or principle or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. application.) This means that before the proclamation by the Congress of the winner. Congress is the judge of any electoral issue. Art. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. It may sit en banc or its discretion. ordinances. the case shall be decided en banc: Provided. this is no longer a problem.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition "The Supreme Court. 4. VII. but the SC upheld the law. Sec. orders. m. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. Report on the judiciary Art. 17 SCRA 756 (1966). (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. or law. sitting en banc. With the express provision in Art. or seven Members." (Art. PAGE 300 . and in no case. And so RA 1793 gave the SC the power to act as judge in presidential electoral contests. 16.

or the necessary majority cannot be had. [Id. [Id. Sec. 7. the case shall be re-heard.. the case shall be reheard. 18. Cases involving the (a) constitutionality. (b) application.Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion. VII. and if on rehearing no decision is reached. and on all incidental matters.. The court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal. or 7 members.. 11.-.When the court en banc is equally divided in opinion. n. Sec. [Id.. 4(1)] The following cases shall be heard by the SC en banc: 1.. and if on rehearing no decision is reached. 3 Sec.) 8. Requirement as to decisions PAGE 301 . 4(3)] 6. 5. Sec. Sec. in appealed cases. Actions instituted by citizen to test the validity of a proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ. Cases or matters heard by a division where the required number of votes to decide or resolve (the majority of those who took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Sec. ordinances and other regulations. [Art. Decision if opinion is equally divided. and in no case less than 3 members) is not met. Sec. 3. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. VII. Sec. (Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition The Supreme Court may sit en banc or in its discretion.. 4(2)] 4. Sec. All other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard by the SC en banc. [Id.-. Sec. Administrative disciplinary cases involving judges of lower courts. (Art. international or executive agreement or law. proclamations. Sec. in divisions of 3.) 7. 4. Cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. or (c) operation of presidential decrees. (Id. 4(2)] 3. 4(2)] 2. To modify or reverse a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division. instructions. the judgement or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. the petition or motion shall be denied. orders. 4(3)] 5. [Id.) Rule 56. par. Rule 125. VIII. Sec. 11 Sec. the judgment of conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused acquitted. the action shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the court. or the necessary majority cannot be had. 11.

after deliberations by the group) is to emphasize that the SC is one body. The lack of certification serves as an evidence of failure to observe the certification requirement but it would not have the effect of invalidating the decision. so that the decision of the case is by the court itself and not the ponente. Consing V CA 177 SCRA 14 (1989) ISSUE: W/N absence of certification by the Court of Appeals renders that decision invalid. or dissented. Sandiganbayan and CTA. Art.. Sec. are reached after consultation with the members of the court sitting en banc or in a division before the case is assigned to a member thereof for decision writing. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. albeit collegiate. The certification requirement imposed by the 1987 constitution was meant to ensure the implementation of the constitutional requirement that decisions of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts. 13. Secs. The writer of the opinion is merely the spokesman of the body. Any Member who took no part. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. The absence would not necessarily mean that the case submitted for decision had not been reached in consultation before being assigned to one member for the writing of the opinion of the court since the regular performance of official duty is presumed. Voting Votes required to "render a decision or resolution" PAGE 302 . 14. VIII.e. HELD: NO. VIII. Sec. such as the CA. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. VIII. 13-14 Deliberations Art. or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. The reason for the requirement that the decision must be reached "in consulta" (i. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

and majority of 8 is 5. since quorum of 15 is 8. The lowest possible votes needed to render a decision is 5. the case shall be decided en banc. B) In divisions Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved (a) with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. and (b) 10 votes to impose or affirm the death penalty (by internal rules of the SC.] a. the consultation) on the issues in the case. there can be no valid business to begin with.e. VIII. [Art. the necessary majority cannot be mustered. No doctrine or principle of law laid by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. 4(3)] a. 11. (See effect of failure to reach a majority below. For it may happen that he has already made up his mind on how to decide and influence the outcome of the case. and (ii) voted thereon. 4(2) and Sec. [Art. If only 6 are present. But one who expressly inhibited or is disqualified from taking part (for instance because of conflict of interest) is not included. There must be a quorum before a valid decision can be made. d. 3 votes are needed regardless of whether 5. b. no quorum. In division of 3 members. If only 3. however. 4. In case. then there is no decision rendered. e. The presumption of constitutionality of laws under the Judiciary Act of 1948. In a division of 5 members. One who was present but kept silent during the deliberations and did not vote is still included in the counting for the purpose of determining the majority. f. or 3 are c. Sec. overrules the requirement of (a) 10 votes (2/3) to declare a law unconstitutional under 1973 (a constitutional requirement). the majority if all are present is 4. present. b. For an abstention is really a form of casting a vote with its own repercussions on the outcome of the case. and (b) in no case without the concurrence of at least 3 of such members. One who abstained is deemed to have voted for the purpose of computing the majority vote needed. PAGE 303 . Sec. 3 votes are needed.) This provision thus. When the required number is not obtained. Without a quorum. This number may increase as the number of justices present increase. although constitutionally 8 votes were enough). remains valid..POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition A) En banc Concurrence of a majority of the members who (i) actually took part in the deliberations (i. In a division of 7 members. 4. c. 3. If only 5 or 4. VIII.

4 voted for its validity. and the reasoned opinion in support of the ruling. applies only to decisions on the merit by a court of record. (ii) Cases where the lower court declared a law. If a case is on appeal. the ruling. and 3 abstained. no majority is still had. this judgment is deemed affirmed pursuant to the general rule above. unconstitutional: the judgment is reversed. In any of these cases. 5 voted the law unconstitutional. pursuant to the presumption of constitutionality under Sec. the following are the effects: a. this rule is addressed to the one to whom the writing of the opinion was assigned after consultation. the ponente. summary and non-technical. (Art. the case must be raised to the court en banc. there is no decision and so the law remains valid. Effect of failure to muster the necessary majority: If the necessary majority cannot be had.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition d. then the case is deemed dismissed. 121 SCRA 205 (1983). Sec. If the case is an original petition. 14. etc. the Ministry of Labor being an administrative agency with quasi-judicial functions. when the votes cannot be mustered. Section 14. 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. VIII. it was held that the Order of the Deputy Minister of Labor did not contain a statement of facts and conclusions of law is not covered by the constitutional requirement because it is not a decision of a court of record. that is. In the case by other courts. (If the lower court declared the law as not unconstitutional. the judgment appealed from is deemed affirmed except: (i) Criminal cases where the judgment is that of conviction: the conviction is reversed. and the accused is acquitted. If upon rehearing. if 12 are present.) (Thus. the case is again reheard. Administrative Code of 1987 PAGE 304 .) b. The rule requiring statement of the relevant facts. Decisions on the merit. and the validity of the law is deemed sustained. In Valladolid v Inciong. Writing of the decision No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. the issues. this rule is addressed to the judge. Book VII.) In the case of the SC and lower collegiate court. with rules of procedure mandated to be non-litigious. based on the following rulings of the SC: a. Chapter 3.

as it held in Prudential Bank v. as where a case is patently w/o merit. 158 SCRA 646.-. thus: PAGE 305 . In Bacolod Murcia Milling Co. v Henares. Minute Resolution Cruz: 1: In justifying the so-called minute resolution. or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected. 107 Phil. (b) Reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights. CA. such as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. the SC ruled that orders of a court on an incidental matter (in this case. Castro." And neither does the rule apply to administrative cases decided by the SC itself. provided a legal basis is given. the SC said in Borromeo v.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Section 14. the order imposing the payment of attorney's fees) need not state the legal basis of the ruling. 560 (1960). where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord w/ the facts of the case and the applicable laws. and one of competent jurisdiction. x x x x The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's legal rights. and (d) A finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing. Balatbat. b. 38 SCRA 489 (1971) Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedure principles. Decision. It has ample discretion to formulate decisions and/ or minute resolutions. Administrative due process includes: (a) The right to notice. (c) A tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality. xxx Air Manila vs. The resolution denying due course or dismissing a petition always gives the legal basis. depending on its evaluation of a case.Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor. where the issues raised are factual in nature. where it is clear from the records that the petitions were filed merely to forsetall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance w/ the rules. 186 SCRA "The SC disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory. be it actual or constructive.

Now. as in this case. or (c) abstained from a decision or resolution. 2. the purpose is to enable the party to find out the reason for the action taken. In an administrative case. which is a decision not to give due course to the petition. PAGE 306 . as the basis for the assignment of error. this is important for appeal or motion for reconsideration purposes. or (b) dissented. even those who took no part in the deliberations but were present. It does not apply. but is similar to a dismissal of a petition for review. VIII. 51 SCRA 369 (1973). and those who abstained are required to write their reasons for these are really forms of casting their vote. VIII. since they did not really participate. specially those who would spend days preparing pages of briefs. For courts lower than the SC.) The past practice used to be that when the appellate court denied a petition for review. it simply did so in a Minute Resolution. This aggrieved many a lawyer.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition "No constitutional provision is disregarded in the SC's Minute Resolution denying a motion for reconsideration 'for lack of merit. Sec. not required to vote. only to find out that all their effort was answered by a one-liner "Dismissed for lack of basis". Dissenters and Abstainers In the case of a decision on the merits.' as a ground for denial is legal basis. stating that the case was dismissed for lack of basis. the issues raised therein having been previously duly considered and passed upon. This prompted the framers of the 1987 Constitution to force the Court to at least write down the legal basis for the denial. 'Lack of merit. if a member (a) took no part. without stating the legal basis therefor. (The dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus is not a decision on the merits. said resolution stated the legal basis for the denial. only those who dissented were required to write an opinion. The legal reason for the dismissal must be written.) This rule applies to a dismissal of a motion for reconsideration of a "decision on the merits". he must state his reason therefor. 14. Those who inhibited themselves are. therefore. and even the SC itself. to a dismissal of a motion for reconsideration of a previous dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. neither is a skimpy one-liner is allowed. of course. This means that while a fully detailed decision is not required.) Before. or denied a MFR. the constitutional mandate that 'no *** motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be *** denied without stating the legal basis therefor is inapplicable. Petitions for review and motions for reconsideration No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied. And even if it were. par. and. Sec. (Art. (Art. adhered faithfully to the constitutional requirement. said the SC in Mendoza v CFI. 13. Procedurally.

brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court. 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. xxx (par. The legal effect of the lapse. unless reduced by the Supreme Court. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. 12-14 Art. XVIII. before the ratification of this Constitution. xxx xxx The Supreme Court may review. shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination. adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. of the applicable period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the courts. XVIII. VII. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period. PAGE 307 . Sec. 15. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period. and three months for all other lower courts. Secs. without further delay. 12. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.) Art. the court. twelve months for all lower collegiate courts. Art. A similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.. 13. Sec. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period. within one year after the ratification of this Constitution. Sec. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter. and. Congress need not explain its action since it has been delegated the legislative power by the people. and served upon the parties. without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof. Sec. since the SC is not an elective branch it must explain the reason being its ultimate source of authority. The Supreme Court shall. shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable. VIII.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Theoretically. o. 18. Id. 3 thereof. Mandatory period for deciding cases Art.

15(2)] Mandatory period in the Supreme Court: 24 months [Art. since he would not be able to certify that he has resolved all cases submitted to him in 90 days and (b) he is subject to administrative sanctions. stating the reason for such inaction. 14. Then the court must decide without any further delay. a certification is required that the period has lapsed without any decision being made. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4). Sec. it is as if these cases were filed after February 2. when the applicable period lapses after such ratification. Sec. 15(4)] In other words. VII. 15(3) . a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding Judge shall forthwith be issued. and served upon the parties. VIII. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has been rendered or issued within said period. Sec. VIII. and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter. Sec. 1987. Sec. The consequences are on the judge: (a) he could not draw out his salary.) But what happens if the judge or court fails to meet the deadline anyway? The Constitution provides: Upon the expiration of the corresponding period." [Art. 15 (3)] Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period.(4) shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution. 15(1)] A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. A) Cases filed after February 2. Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution. 1. PAGE 308 . XVIII. par. Sec. VIII. 18. 1987 but expire after this date The provisions of Art. Sec. VIII. [Art. Sec. VIII. (Art. the court. brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. failure to decide the case [for reasons other than the inability to reach the necessary majority] has no consequence on the case. Sec. Thus. B) Cases filed before February 2. 1987 All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided within twenty-four months counted from the date of submission. [Art. when the applicable period lapses after such ratification.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Id.. VIII. 14) In other words. [Art. without prejudice to such responsibility (administrative disciplinary action against the judge or justices) shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination without further delay. (Art. 15(1)] Except: A proper case questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege which must be decided 30 days from filing.

) The Supreme Court shall. Qualifications and appointment Art. 1987 The legal effect of the lapse.. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at list three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. A similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. within 1 year from February 2. A member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age.(2) Art. 13. Id. The laws are the Judiciary Act of 1948 and BP 129. (Art. Sec. (2) the Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts. VIII. 1987 adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the SC or lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. VIII.. XVIII. Composition The composition of lower courts shall be provided by law. 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. XVIII. Sec. (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. the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list. Sec. (Art. (5) The (Judicial and Bar) Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. Id. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. 7 (1) . Sec. 9. 7. but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar. of the applicable period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the courts. before the ratification of this Constitution.) 2. Lower courts a. Such appointments need no confirmation. shall be determined by the SC as soon as practicable. 8.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition C) Cases that expired before February 2. Sec. For the lower courts. Qualifications Lower Collegiate Court (Court of Appeals) PAGE 309 . 12. Sec.

VIII. [Art.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition (1) No person shall be appointed member of any lower collegiate court unless he is a naturalborn citizen. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. The power of Congress to reorganize lower courts has been upheld by the SC prior to 1987. probity and independence. 2. VIII. or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Sec.. Id. probity. 7(3)] Lower Courts (1) The Congress shall prescribe qualifications of judges of lower courts. Sec. the SC by failing to muster the 2/3 vote required then to declare a law unconstitutional in effect sustained the validity of the law passed by Congress abolishing the offices of "judges-at-large" and "cadastral judges" and the consequent removal of judges occupying these posts. Sec. VIII. VIII. c. [Art. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years. Noting that the purpose of the law was to promote the independence of the judiciary (by avoiding forum-shopping). VIII. Congressional power to reorganize and security of tenure Art. Salary Art. integrity. it held that an PAGE 310 . their salary shall not be decreased. 51 OG 147 (1955). . xxx No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. 7(1)] and a member of Philippine Bar. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme court and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. (2) The Congress shall prescribe qualifications of judges of lower courts. During their continuance in office. VIII. 7(2)] (2) He must be a person of proven competence. Sec. 7(3)] b. 10. Sec. integrity. Sec. or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. [Art. Sec. [Art. but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine bar. 11. [Art. and independence. 7(2)] (3) A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence. In Ocampo v Secretary of Justice. Sec. VIII.

The SC reiterated that there can be no claim for security of tenure where the office no longer exists. supra. One compromise view is that Congress has the power to pass a reorganization law concerning the lower courts.M. 11. 112 SCRA 294 (1982). e. Sec. there is in effect a " constitutional conferment of original jurisdiction on the lower courts in those five cases for which the Supreme Court is granted appellate jurisdiction in 5(2). on the ground that the abolition of an office." as here used. As ruled in J. 1. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. In De La Llana v Alba.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition abolition of an office made in good faith does not violate security of tenure. Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Sec. VIII. VIII. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years. or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. That there was good faith was shown by the fact that the Act was the product of careful study and deliberation by the Batasan and the Presidential study committee. and that the abolition of office is not removal. the membership of which includes SC justices. Security of tenure presupposes the continued existence of the office from which one was removed not removal from an office that has been abolished in good faith and not merely partisan political reasons. although their effects may be the same." PAGE 311 . Cruz: "Judges of lower court. Tuason & Co. or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Removal Art. and was the means to upgrade the administration of justice in the Philippines. is within the competence of the legislature if done in good faith. but it can only take effect until the post has been vacated by the incumbent judge. the SC again upheld the Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129). Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. includes justices of the Sandiganbayan. It is doubtful whether these rulings remain valid in toto in view of the new express provision prohibiting a reorganization law that undermines the security of tenure of the Judiciary. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. This rule casts much doubt on the legality of the presidential decree making them removable only by the legislature through the process of impeachment. v CA and in Ynot v IAC. Jurisdiction Art. d.

13) For obvious reasons. g. For trial and inferior courts. the only time it convenes as one body is to take up matters of administration. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. like the Court of Appeals. no problem arises since only one judge is involved. judge. judgments of lower courts. except that the decision can now be appealed to the SC. The trial and inferior courts.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Under the provision granting the SC jurisdiction "to review. the law provides that it sits only in divisions when deciding cases. Inferior Courts. Sec.Failure to decide has no consequence on the decision of the court. modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or Rules of Court may provide.-.-. Sec. reverse. The Court is not ousted of its jurisdiction. of course. revise. Voting For collegiate courts. VIII. 14. Requirements as to preparation of decisions Art. (Art. Mandatory period for deciding PAGE 312 . f. do not have this problem since there is only one Deliberations The same requirements (for consulta) shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.The same rules apply. Manner of sitting The Court of Appeals sits in divisions when it hears cases. but the judge suffers administrative consequences. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. this requirement does not apply to the trial and inferior courts. VIII. Effect of failure to muster the necessary majority Court of Appeals.

12. before the ratification of this Constitution. Secs. Mandatory Period Lower collegiate courts: 12 months. and. Sec. Id. A similar plan shall be adopted for all special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Art. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. The Supreme Court shall. aside from using the word "must" (not "shall" as in 1973) in Sec. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4). Sec. XVIII. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period. 12-14 Art. 15. 14. unless reduced by the Supreme Court. unless reduced by the SC Other lower courts: 3 months. and three months for all other lower courts. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period. when the applicable period lapses after such ratification. and served upon the parties.. a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter. VIII. without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof. The legal effect of the lapse. 13. shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as practicable. within one year after the ratification of this Constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Art. Id. unless reduced by the SC Overruled : The Constitution now explicitly provides in Sec. Sec. shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination. The case of Marcelino PAGE 313 . (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court. 15 (1). Sec.. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period. without further delay. XVIII. of the applicable period for the decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for adjudication by the courts. brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution. twelve months for all lower collegiate courts. adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity of this Constitution. 15 (1) that the periods are mandatory. the court.

3. 121 SCRA 51 (1983). Cruz: It should be noted that. The constitutional provision refers to rendition of judgement which refers to the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court. Cruz. The Judicial and Bar Council Art. without prejudice to any responsibility that may attach to the judge. But judgement was promulgated after lapse of 90 days from the day the case was submitted for decision. The court must still resolve the case w/o further delay. Adapted. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman. (2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members. although decision within the maximum period is now mandatory. Of the Members PAGE 314 . is thus now. De Roma vs CA 152 SCRA 205 The CA decided the case beyond the 12 month period prescribed by the 1973 Constitution.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition v Cruz. failure to arrive at the same will not divest the court of jurisdiction. VIII. and a representative of the private sector. W/N constitutional provision is mandatory. overruled. unlike the old rule when the decision appealed was deemed automatically affirmed and the petition was deemed automatically dismissed as a result of the inaction of the court. a retired Member of the Supreme Court. Constitutional provisions are directory. Said provision in the Constitution was merely directory and failure to decide on time would not deprive the corresponding courts of jurisdiction or render their decisions invalid. where they refer to matters merely procedural. But failure to decide a case within 90 days constitute a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. ISSUE: W/N trial court lost jurisdiction over the case for failure to decide the same within 90 days from submission thereof. 8. the Secretary of Justice. a professor of law. Sec." it is evident that the period prescribed is subject to modification by the SC under its prerogative power to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts. By the phrase "unless reduced by the Supreme Court. HELD: No to both. 121 SCRA 51 F: Judgement in a criminal case was rendered before the clerk of court within 85 days after the case was concluded. xxx Marcelino vs. a representative of the Integrated Bar. which held that the periods in the 1973 Constitution were only directory.

Sec. the professor of law for three years. Ex-officio members [Art. Salary Ex-officio members For obvious reasons this does not apply since the position in the Council is good only while the person is the occupant of the office. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings. VIII. 8(1)] (4) Representative of the Integrated Bar (5) Professor of Law (6) Retired member of the SC (7) Representative of private sector Secretary ex-officio [Art. Sec. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. Sec. 8(3)] Clerk of the SC.4 years PAGE 315 .POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition first appointed. VIII. VIII. 8(1)] (1) Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman (2) Secretary of Justice (3) Representative of Congress Regular members [Art. (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. the retired Justice for two years. But the term of those initially appointed shall be staggered in the following way so as to create continuity in the council: IBP representative . The term of the regular members is 4 years. and the representative of the private sector for one year. Regular members [Art. Sec. the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years. 8(2)] The regular members shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. who shall keep a record of its proceedings Appointment. (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. Tenure. VIII. It may exercise such other function and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

VIII. UPDATED 1/27/96 REVISED 4/13/96 RAM PAGE 316 . Such other functions and duties as the SC may assign [Art. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. VIII. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 deputies. 9) 4. after approval. [Art. VIII. XI. VIII. The SC shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Updated and Enlarged by RAM April 1996 Revised Edition Law professor . 3. 8(5)] Sec. 8(4)] Functions 1. Sec.2 years Private sector . shall be automatically and regularly released. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and. Automatic release of appropriation for the judiciary Art. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary [Art. Sec. 3.3 years Retired justice . 8(5)] 2. Sec.1 year Regular members shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the SC. (Art. Sec.