P. 1
Cases Political Law

Cases Political Law

|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by Juvy Lea Danila

More info:

Published by: Juvy Lea Danila on Sep 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/08/2011

pdf

text

original

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-49930 August 7, 1985 FRANCISCO MALONG and ROSALINA AQUINOMALONG petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, Lingayen Branch 11, Respondents. AQUINO, J.: This case is about the immunity from suit of the Philippine National Railways. The Malong spouses alleged in their complaint that on October 30, 1977 their son, Jaime Aquino, a paying passenger, was killed when he fell from a PNR train while it was between Tarlac and Capas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The tragedy occurred because Jaime had to sit near the door of a coach. The train was overloaded with passengers and baggage in view of the proximity of All Saints Day. The Malong spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay them damages totalling P136,370.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Upon the Solicitor General's motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint. It ruled that it had no jurisdiction because the PNR, being a government instrumentality, the action was a suit against the State (Sec. 16, Art. XV of the Constitution). The Malong spouses appealed to this Court pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The Manila Railroad Company, the PNR's predecessor, as a common carrier, was not immune from suit under Act No. 1510, its charter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The PNR charter, Republic Act No. 4156, as amended by Republic Act No. 6366 and Presidential Decree No. 741, provides that the PNR is a government instrumentality under government ownership during its 50-year term, 1964 to 2014. It is under the Office of the President of the Philippines. Republic Act No. 6366 provides: SECTION 1-a. Statement of policy. The Philippine National Railways, being a factor for socio-economic development and growth, shall be a part of the infrastructure program of the government and as such shall remain in and under government ownership during its corporate existence. The Philippine National Railways must be administered with the view of serving the interests of the public by providing them the maximum of service and, while aiming at its greatest utility by the public, the economy of operation must be ensured so that service can be rendered at the minimum passenger and freight prices possible. The charter also provides: SEC. 4. General powers. The Philippine National Railways shall have the following general powers: chanrobles virtual law library (a) To do all such other things and to transact all such business directly or indirectly necessary, incidental or conducive to the attainment of the purpose of the corporation; and chanrobles virtual law library

(b) Generally, to exercise all powers of a railroad corporation under the Corporation Law. (This refers to sections 81 to 102 of the Corporation Law on railroad corporations, not reproduced in the Corporation Code.) Section 36 of the Corporation Code provides that every corporation has the power to sue and be sued in its corporate name. Section 13(2) of the Corporation Law provides that every corporation has the power to sue and be sued in any court. A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends (Justice Holmes in Kawananakoa vs. Polyblank 205 U.S. 353, 51 L. ed. 834).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The public service would be hindered, and public safety endangered, if the supreme authority could be subjected to suit at the instance of every citizen and, consequently, controlled in the use and disposition of the means required for the proper administration of the Government (The Siren vs. U.S., 7 Wall. 152, 19 L. ed. 129). Did the State act in a sovereign capacity or in a corporate capacity when it organized the PNR for the purpose of engaging in transportation? Did it act differently when it organized the PNR as successor of the Manila Railroad Company? chanrobles virtual law library We hold that in the instant case the State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is no different from its predecessor, the Manila Railroad Company. The PNR did not become immune from suit. It did not remove itself from the operation of articles 1732 to 1766 of the Civil Code on common carriers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The correct rule is that "not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized." (Nat. Airports Corp. vs. Teodoro and Phil. Airlines, Inc., 91 Phil. 203, 206; Santos vs, Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 285; Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. USA, 104 Phil. 593.) chanrobles virtual law library Suits against State agencies with respect to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental capacity are not suits against the State (81 C.J.S. 1319). Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by the State for public purposes, but to engage in matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business rather than functions of a governmental or political character, are not regarded as suits against the State.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The latter is true, although the State may own the stock or property of such a corporation, for by engaging in business operations through a corporation the State divests itself so far of its sovereign character, and by implicating consents to suits against the corporation. (81 C.J. S. 1319.) The foregoing rule was applied to State Dock Commissions carrying on business relating to pilots, terminals and transportation (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. U.S., 27 Fed. 2nd 370) and to State Highway Commissions created to build public roads and given appropriations in advance to discharge obligations incurred in their behalf (Arkansas State Highway Commission vs. Dodge, 26 SW 2nd 879 and State Highway Commission of Missouri vs. Bates, 296 SW 418, cited in National Airports case).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The point is that when the government enters into a commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other private corporation (Bank of the U.S. vs. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. ed. 244, cited in Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company, et al., 73 Phil. 374, 388). The Manila Hotel case also relied on the following rulings:

chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library There is not one law for the sovereign and another for the subject. Stephens.184).. so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations. 705 and cases cited therein. etc. the rights and obligation of the contracting parties must be adjusted upon the same principles as if both contracting parties were private persons. the National Development Company is not immune from suit. It is an agency for the performance of purely corporate.. It does not exercise sovereign functions. proprietary or business functions (National Development Company vs. NDC Employees and Workers' Union. rtual law library Separate Opinions ABAD SANTOS. Both stand upon equality before the law. Like any private common carrier. 549). concurs in the result. Concepcion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Makasiar. Cuevas and Alampay. concurring: chanrobles virtual law library The claim that Philippine National Railways is immune from suit because it is an instrumentality of the government is so outlandish that it deserves scant consideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library It would be unjust if the heirs of the victim of an alleged negligence of the PNR employees could not sue the PNR for damages. JJ. Gutierrez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Other government agencies not enjoying immunity from suit are the Social Security System (Social Security System vs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library When the State acts in its proprietary capacity.. Costs against the Philippine National Railways.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SO ORDERED..chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Thus. concur.. Relova. 84 SCRA 223. 1978. De la Fuente. 121 Phil.By engaging in a particular business through the instrumentality of a corporation..Y. It is not performing any governmental function. the order of dismissal is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. All corporations organized by . Jr. Jr. and the sovereign is merged in the dealer. the PNR is subject to the obligations of persons engaged in that private enterprise. 703. It should be noted that in Philippine National Railways vs. National Development Company vs. Court of Appeals. Melencio-Herrera. Escolin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE. 120 SCRA 707) and the Philippine National Bank (Republic vs. it was held that the PNR funds could be garnished at the instance of a labor union. whenever the contract in any form comes before the courts. but when the sovereign engages in business and the conduct of business enterprises. and contracts with individuals. February 21. Tobias. L-31948. I concur both on express waiver by its charter and implied waiver by the contract of carriage.. July 25.1975. 1983.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Teehankee. contractor and suitor (People vs. 117 Phil. J.J. 26). August 19. 71 N. Plana. C. the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character. it is amenable to all the rules of law which bind private individuals. J. L-32387. Philippine National Bank. L-41299. Union de Maquinistas.66 SCRA 181.

No. But the Central Bank is not immune from suit for it also performs proprietary functions. G. They would deny justice to the people they are to serve. 55273-83. This Court in reinstating the case said.) . CIR.) Moreover. I 10 SCRA 456. 460. But that fact alone does not invest them with immunity from suit. the petitioners filed suit against the National Power Corporation for damages as a result of the opening of the floodgates of Angat Dam. In Rayo et at vs. Dec. The test whether or not an instrumentality of the government is immune from suit is well-known. (At p. (See National Shipyards and Steel Corp.A. et al. 19. Sec. (At p. 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 the petitioners. it has a personality of its own. The docket of this Court provides proof for this assertion. CIR. (R. 6395. In Rayo et at vs. 55273-83. 3 (D). (See National Shipyards and Steel Corp. National Power Corporation et al. concurring: The claim that Philippine National Railways is immune from suit because it is an instrumentality of the government is so outlandish that it deserves scant consideration. The trial court sustained the claim and dismissed the suit.chanrobles virtual law library I deplore the tendency to invoke immunity from suit on the part of the government corporations.) As a government owned and controlled corporation. August 31. The defendant invoked immunity from suit. L-17874. The docket of this Court provides proof for this assertion. vs. The defendant invoked immunity from suit. 6395. It is sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation. No. All corporations organized by the government are its instrumentality by the very reason of their creation. 1963.) Separate Opinions ABAD SANTOS.the government are its instrumentality by the very reason of their creation. It is sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation. 1963. 3 (D). L-17874. This Court in reinstating the case said.. put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter. G. et al. It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a governmental function with respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam. 1981. The trial court sustained the claim and dismissed the suit. I 10 SCRA 456. 1981. August 31. I deplore the tendency to invoke immunity from suit on the part of the government corporations.R.. vs. it has a personality of its own. National Power Corporation et al...R. put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter. 19. 8 SCRA 781. Sec. distinct and separate from that of the Government. (R. The Central Bank of the Philippines which theoretically formulates monetary policies is perhaps the best example of a corporation which is an instrumentality of the government. 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 the petitioners. 460. No. No.A. But the Central Bank is not immune from suit for it also performs proprietary functions. 8 SCRA 781. They would deny justice to the people they are to serve.) Moreover. The Central Bank of the Philippines which theoretically formulates monetary policies is perhaps the best example of a corporation which is an instrumentality of the government.. It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a governmental function with respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam. the petitioners filed suit against the National Power Corporation for damages as a result of the opening of the floodgates of Angat Dam. J. Dec.) As a government owned and controlled corporation. distinct and separate from that of the Government. The test whether or not an instrumentality of the government is immune from suit is well-known. But that fact alone does not invest them with immunity from suit.

Municipality of Taytay. and TERESITA L. TOLENTINO. respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA. DE LA ROSA and JOSE M. DE LEON. ROMEO C. MARIO C. JOSE C. in his capacity as OIC Mayor of the Municipality of Taytay.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. ESGUERRA. TIGAS. No. ANA.R. in his capacity as OIC Governor of the Province of Rizal. ROSENDO S. SALAMAT. 78059 August 31. MAGNO. FLORENTINO G. REMIGIO M. RICARDO Z. Rizal. TEODORO V. Province of Rizal. J. petitioners. HON. TOLENTINO. DE LEON. MEDINA. LACANIENTA. PAZ.: An original action for Prohibition instituted by petitioners seeking to enjoin respondents from replacing them from their respective positions as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores. vs. BENJAMIN B. STA. HON. ROGELIO J. RESURRECCION. . ANGEL S. 1987 ALFREDO M.

1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8. February 9. That said memorandum was further deciminated (sic) to all concerned the following day. 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 be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen. Taytay. 1986. their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7. 1986 was signed by me personally on February 8. respondent OIC Governor signed a Memorandum." or up to June 7. Before us now. petitioner Alfredo M. Sta. Tolentino as members of the Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. 1987. Ricardo Z. Rizal.1987. which provided: SECTION 2. 222. as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores. promulgated on March 25. 1988. de la Rosa and Jose M.As required by the Court." Also on February 8. 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. On February 9. Ana. respectively. Rizal. I among others. Mario C. On the other hand. In the Barangay elections held on May 17. That as being OIC Governor of the Province of Rizal and in the performance of my duties thereof. March 23. 222). 1987. Rizal under Batas Pambansa Blg. petitioner Alfredo M. respondents submitted their Comment on the Petition. respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. That the above cited memorandum dated December 1. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain and the other petitioners Angel S. 1986 designating respondents Remigio M. Paz and Teresita L. Medina. Roberto S. respondents rely on Section 2. Taytay. 1986. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NONE. 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. Metro Manila. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores. By reason of the foregoing provision. 1987. Lacanienta Teodoro V. It is also their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Pasig. if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25. Salamat. Rogelio J. and that the provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted provision of the Provisional Constitution. The designation made by the OIC Governor was "by authority of the Minister of Local Government. Tolentino. have signed as I did sign the unnumbered memorandum ordering the replacement of all the barangay officials of all the barangay(s) in the Municipality of Taytay. Tigas. the pertinent portions of which read: xxx xxx xxx That I am the OIC Governor of Rizal having been appointed as such on March 20. Resurreccion. . petitioners pray that the subject Memoranda of February 8. Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of the aforequoted provision and not because their term of six years had not yet expired. de Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1. 1987.1986. and petitioner's their Reply to respondents' Comment. antedated December 1. 1982. otherwise known as the Barangay Election Act of 1982. Jose C. Article III of the Provisional Constitution. That the Memoranda had been antedated is evidenced by the Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor.

Article III. respectively. the issue for resolution is whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on February 25. 4 Relevantly. shall be three years . and (2) the Writ of Prohibition is granted enjoining respondents perpetually from proceeding with the ouster/take-over of petitioners' positions subject of this Petition..1986 to which it was ante dated. 1987. Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law. . Jr. executive orders.. Contrary to the stand of respondents. Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading. Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor. pursuant to Section 3. respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2. thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Section 8. Padilla. the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. 3 and limits the President's power to "general supervision" over local governments. 1987 is ostensibly still within the one-year deadline. and the same should.. the aforequoted provision in the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27. Without costs. Having become inoperative. Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. 1 Since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution. Paras. repealed or revoked. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2. we find nothing inconsistent between the term of six (6) years for elective Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution.Examining the said provision. Bidin and Cortes. the term of office of six (6) years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 5 should still govern. 8. Gutierrez. Yap. WHEREFORE.. 1987. 3. may continue in office but should vacate their positions upon the occurrence of any of the events mentioned. The term of office of elective local officials. of Barangay Dolores. the 1987 Constitution ensures the autonomy of local governments and of political subdivisions of which the barangays form a part. Gancayco. proclamations letters of instructions. be considered as still operative. reading: Sec. and other executive issuances not inconsistent. Thus. therefore. By that date. which shall be determined by law. (1) The Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Governor on February 8. as elective officials under the 1973 Constitution. 2 Similarly. except barangay officials. are both declared to be of no legal force and effect. Rizal. SECTION 27. All existing laws. Article X of the same 1987 Constitution further provides in part: Sec. But while February 8. we hold that February 8. should be considered as the effective date of replacement and not December 1. there has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials. Feliciano. Fernan. Petitioners must now be held to have acquired security of tenure specially considering that the Barangay Election Act of 1982 declares it "a policy of the State to guarantee and promote the autonomy of the barangays to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities. with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended. JJ. 1977. in keeping with the dictates of justice. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. Taytay. therefore. Narvasa. 1987 designating respondents as the Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen. SO ORDERED. therefore. concur. there should be no question that petitioners. decrees.

So that is the date of the ratification" and that "the canvass thereafter [of the votes] is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. THE PRESIDENT. may we now put to a vote the original formulation of the committee as indicated in Section 12. Aquino. MAAMBONG. CJ. The proposed amendment would be to delete the words "its ratification and in lieu thereof insert the words "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. after "constitutions. we regret that we cannot accept the second proposed amendment after the word "constitutions" because the committee ." The committee accepts the first proposed amendment.. the committee would suggest that we take up first his amendment to the first sentence as originally formulated." This view was actually proposed at the Constitutional Commission deliberations. the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on that same date. holds that by virtue of the provision of Article XVIII." The record of the deliberations and the voting is reproduced hereinbelow: 1 MR. concurring: The main issue resolved in the judgment at bar is whether the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2. Corazon C. MAAMBONG. MR. The thrust of the dissent is that the Constitution should be deemed to "take effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained and not at the time the people cast their votes to approve or reject it." And on the last line. If Commissioner Davide is going to propose an additional sentence. delete the words "its ratification" and in lieu thereof insert the following-. unequivocal and express intent of the Constitutional Conunission in unanimously approving (by thirty-five votes in favor and none against) the aforequoted Section 27 of Transitory Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution was that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. MR. Commissioner Davide is recognized. 1987. The Court's decision. It shows that the clear. the date that the plebiscite for its ratification was held or whether it took effect on February 11." And the second amendment would be: After the word "constitutions." the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2. Just a moment. 1987. However." MR. Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution that it "shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose. DAVIDE." add the following: "AND THEIR AMENDMENTS. the date its ratification was proclaimed per Proclamation No. with the lone dissent of Mr.Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE. Madam President. On line 2. unless there are other commissioners who would like to present amendments. Madam President. Justice Sarmiento. Madam President. We are now ready to comment on that proposed amendment." The record of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Commission fully supports the Court's judgment. but was withdrawn by its proponent in the face of the "overwhelming" contrary view that the Constitution "will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite. "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. 58 of the President of the Philippines. DAVIDE. 1987. May I propose the following amendments." add the words" AND THEIR AMENDMENTS.

in fact. FR. Madam President. the committee regrets that it cannot accept the second sentence which the Gentleman is proposing. Commissioner Bernas is recognized. DAVIDE. DAVIDE. Madam President. and it says that there will be a proclamation by the President that the Constitution has been ratified." MR. the votes show that the Constitution was ratified and there should be no need to wait for any proclamation on the part of the President. MR. BERNAS. Madam President. FR. the committee feels that the second proposed amendment in the form of a new sentence would not be exactly necessary and the committee feels that it would be too much for us to impose a time frame on the President to make the proclamation. in the approved Article on the Executive. there is a provision which says that the President shall make certain that all laws shall be faithfully complied. The effectivity of the Constitution should commence on the date of the ratification. It would be too much to impose on the President a time frame within which she will make that declaration. may I request that I be allowed to read the second amendment so the Commission would be able to appreciate the change in the first. With that understanding. MR. I think. MAAMBONG. . I will not insist on the second sentence. l will not insist on the second. MAAMBONG. Madam President. I have a suspicion that was put in there precisely to give the President some kind of leeway on whether to announce the ratification or not. Madam President.feels that when we talk of all previous Constitutions. MR. MR. In that particular case. BERNAS. I would ask the committee to reconsider its acceptance of the amendment which makes the effectivity of the new Constitution dependent upon the proclamation of the President. MAAMBONG. not on the date of the proclamation of the President. the reason the amendments of 1976 were effective upon the proclamation of the President was that the draft presented to the people said that the amendment will be effective upon the proclamation made by the President. THE PRESIDENT. I am prepared to withdraw the same on the assumption that there will be an immediate proclamation of the results by the President. the President will naturally comply with the law in accordance with the provisions in the Article on the Executive which we have cited. Madam President. Would the Gentleman answer a few clarificatory questions? FR. As we would recall. What is confusing. The second sentence will read: "THE PROCLAMATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN FIVE DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE CANVASS BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH PLEBISCITE. Madam President." MR. But. With that explanation. we should not make this dependent on the action of the President since this will be a manifestation of the act of the people to be done under the supervision of the COMELEC and it should be the COMELEC who should make the announcement that. It would be assumed that the President would immediately do that after the results shall have been canvassed by the COMELEC. we can now do that. Yes. When we approve this first sentence. Therefore. MAAMBONG. MR. after conferring with our chairman. necessarily it includes "AND THEIR AMENDMENTS. BERNAS. MR. Therefore. The Gentleman will agree that a date has to be fixed as to exactly when the Constitution is supposed to be ratified. MR. Willingly. is what happened in 1976 when the amendments of 1976 were ratified. DAVIDE. Madam President. MAAMBONG. DAVIDE.

Madam President." what would be. THE PRESIDENT. MR. MR. for instance. If there should be any need for presidential proclamation. I support the stand of Commissioner Bernas because it is really the date of the casting of the "yes" votes that is the date of the ratification of the Constitution The announcement merely confirms the ratification even if the results are released two or three days after. MR. But it is necessary that there be a body which will make the formal announcement of the results of the plebiscite. Thank you. That cannot be the date of reckoning because it is a plebiscite all over the country. because "ratification" is the act of saying "yes" is done when one casts his ballot. Commissioner Nolledo is recognized. I would say that the ratification of the Constitution is on the date the votes were supposed to have been cast. Madam President. xxx xxx xxx MR. MAAMBONG. BERNAS. 1987. Madam President. on January 19. Does Commissioner Regalado want to contribute? MR. Thank you. I think it is a fundamental principle in political law. because an announcement is a mere confirmation The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. We present the Constitution to a plebiscite. Madam President. BERNAS. THE PRESIDENT. if he is insisting on his amendment. 1987. it would not depend on the actual issuance of the results by the Commission on Elections which will be doing the canvass? That is immaterial Madam President FR. the people exercise their right to vote. that proclamation will merely confirm the act of ratification. Commissioner Davide. Madam President. BERNAS. The date would be the casting of the ballots. MR. NOLLEDO. I am insisting on the amendment because I cannot subscribe to the view of Commissioner Bernas. MAAMBONG. MR. Madam President. Let us go to the mechanics of the whole thing. REGALADO. Madam President. DAVIDE. In other words. Madam President. I beg to disagree with Commissioner Davide. in clear terms. We do not split the moment of casting by each of the voters.FR. MR. that the date of the ratification is reckoned from the date of the casting of the ballots. if the President were to say that the plebiscite would be held. Yes. BERNAS. Actually and technically speaking. NOLLEDO. the date when the Constitution is supposed to be ratified or not ratified. because the canvass thereafter is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the President is . as the case may be? FR. and I opted for the President. then the votes are canvassed by the Commission on Elections. MAAMBONG. I was precisely going to state the same support for Commissioner Bernas. MAAMBONG. It would not. Madam President? FR. even in civil law. we would like to know from the proponent. With that statement of Commissioner Bernas. So that is the date of the ratification. it would be all right if it would be upon the announcement of the results of the canvass conducted by the COMELEC or the results of the plebiscite held all over the country. If we delete the suggested amendment which says: "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. So it is either the President or the COMELEC itself upon the completion of the canvass of the results of the plebiscite. then the date for the effectivity of the new Constitution would be January 19. So it is the date of the plebiscite itself.

BERNAS. Yes. MR. MR. Madam President. My next question which is the final one is: After the Commision on Elections has declared the results of the canvass. will there be a necessity for the President to make a proclamation of the results of the canvass as submitted by the Commission on Elections? FR. THE PRESIDENT. But nevertheless. which is January 17. no matter what time of day or night. I am in favor of the Davide amendment because we have to fix a date for the effectivity of the Constitution. MR. THE PRESIDENT. say. Madam President. because the Civil Code says a day has 24 hours. the children of Filipino mothers or anybody born on the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. MAAMBONG. Madam President. Madam President. There would be because it is the Commission on Elections which makes the official announcement of the results. in favor of the Davide amendment. BERNAS. I would say there would be no necessity. safely say that whatever date is the publication of the results of the canvass by the COMELEC retroacts to the date of the plebiscite? FR. the President may or may not make the proclamation whether the Constitution has been ratified or not. the President may make the proclamation. FR.merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. And if what he says contradicts what the Commission on Elections says. MR. MR. MAAMBONG. BERNAS. 10 days or a month. I am. MR. are natural-born citizens. Commissioner Lerum is recognized.So that even if the votes are cast in the morning. . It is the Commission on Elections which announces the results. MAAMBONG. With the theory of the Commissioner. Commissioner Maambong is recognized. LERUM. I would say that the proclamation made by the President would be immaterial because under the law. I thank the Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Guingona is recognized. the Constitution is really effective from the previous midnight. Madam President. MAAMBONG. THE PRESIDENT. BERNAS. may I be recognized. MR. the President may. BERNAS. MR. MAAMBONG. therefore. would there be a necessity for the Commission on Elections to declare the results of the canvass? FR. MR. the administration of all election laws is under an independent Commission on Elections. MR. I would only add that when we say that the date of effectivity is on the day of the casting of the votes. therefore. it would have no effect. what happens to the obligations and rights that accrue upon the approval of the Constitution? So I think we must have a definite date. LERUM. So that when we adopted the new rule on citizenship. GUINGONA. Suppose the announcement is delayed by. MAAMBONG. MAAMBONG. Could we. FR. what we mean is that the Constitution takes effect on every single minute and every single second of that day. 1973. In other words.

May we now hear Vice-President Padilla. We ask for a vote. MR. PADILLA. We will now ask once more Commissioner Davide if he is insisting on his amendment MR.MR. MR. therefore. apart from the fact that the provision on the drafting or amendment of the Constitution provides that a constitution becomes effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast. we are now ready to vote on the original provision as stated by the committee. DAVIDE. (Several Members raised their hands. effective. Even in civil law. MR. be it the COMELEC or the President. please raise their hand. MR. say. VOTING THE PRESIDENT. MAAMBONG. In view of the explanation and overwhelming tyranny of the opinion that it will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite. I am against the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide and I support the view of Commissioner Bernas and the others because the ratification of the Constitution is on the date the people. Commissioner Maambong is recognized MR. The committee will read again the formulation indicated in the original committee report as Section 12. GUINGONA. Madam President. Therefore. RAMA. the validity does not begin on the date of ratification but it retroacts from the date the contract was executed. And that is the date when the Constitution takes effect. MR.) . the date of the Constitution as ratified should retroact to the date that the people have cast their affirmative votes in favor of the Constitution. between an agent and a third person and that contract is confirmed or ratified by the principal. MAAMBONG. Whoever makes the announcement as to the result of the plebiscite. by a majority vote. Thank you. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. THE PRESIDENT. At the end of the day of election or plebiscite. MAAMBONG. Madam President. would announce that a majority of the votes cast on a given date was in favor of the Constitution. Madam President. THE PRESIDENT. have cast their votes in favor of the Constitution. Commissioner Concepcion is recognized. because there would be no definite date if we depend upon the canvassing by the COMELEC. although I would not say from the very beginning of the date of election because as of that time it is impossible to determine whether there is a majority. I am withdrawing my amendment on the assumption that any of the following bodies the Office of the President or the COMELEC will make the formal announcement of the results. So that is the time when the new Constitution will be considered ratified and. THE PRESIDENT. I think it is precisely the proposal of Commissioner Bernas which speaks of the date (of ratification that would have a definite date. As many as are in favor. Madam President. Madam President. if there is a contract. CONCEPCION. the determination is made as of that time-the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held on such and such a date. Thank you. Mention was made about the need for having a definite date.

1987 of their successors could no longer produce any legal force and effect. plebiscite day. as indeed they provided for multifarious transitory provisions in twenty six sections of Article XVIII. 1987 and they were all appointed on or before January 31. as follows: SECTION 2. etc. I entertain serious doubts whether or not that cut-off period began on February 2. 1987. is incorrect. they would have so provided for in the Transitory Article. To my mind the 1987 constitution took effect on February 11. as now expressly declared by the Court. Our difference is that whereas I would make that right commence on February 25. 1987. after the deadline set by the Freedom Constitution. 1986 must be deemed to have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution on the same date February 2. 1987 . 1987. CRUZ. 1987 as the effective date of the Constitution. having acquired security of tenure under the new Constitution. While the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring on March 25. The official records of the Court show that the appointments of the seven Court of Appeals Justices were transmitted to this Court on February 1. Hence. While I agree that the one-year deadline prescribed by Section 2. respondent OIC Governor could no longer exercise the power to replace petitioners in their positions as Barangay Captain and Councilmen. SARMIENTO.) The results show 35 votes in favor and none against. 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. please raise their hand. It should be stated for the record that the reported date of the appointments. I yield to that better view and agree with her ponencia completely. 1987. In her quiet and restrained manner. when the new Constitution was ratified. if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25. . I note that it in effect affirms my dissents in the De la Serna. 1987. this period was shortened by the ratification and effectivity on February 2. 71 provincial fiscals and 55 city fiscals reported extended (by) the President on February 2. that: (1) the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25. was cut short by the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. 1987 and (2) by and after said date. Justice Herrera would opt for February 2. 3 (Similarly. 1987. . 1986. J. Had the intention of the framers of the Constitution been otherwise. Section 12 is approved.. absent any saying clause to the contrary in the Transitory Article of the Constitution.As many as are against. 1987. 1987 and transmitted to the Department on February 1. the date the same was proclaimed ratified pursuant to Proclamation No. the date of the plebiscite held to approve the new Charter. Duquing and Bayas cases.) It is also a matter of record that since February 2. 2 The Court next holds as a consequence of its declaration at bar that the Constitution took effect on the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on February 2. February 2. where I submitted that the local OICs may no longer be summarily replaced. could be open to serious questions. Article VIII of the Constitution which require prior endorsement thereof by the Judicial and Bar Council created under the Constitution. 1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised. Zamora. 1992 for purposes of synchronization of elections.g. 1987. the attempted replacement of petitioners by respondent OIC Governor's designation on February 8.." in view of the provisions of Sections 8 (1) and 9. as to the statement in the dissent that "the appointments of some seven Court of Appeals Justices. With due respect to the majority I register this dissent. and I am delighted to concur. 1987. J. no appointments to the Judiciary have been extended by the President. . Dissenting. pending the constitution of the Judicial and Bar Council. (No Member raised his hand. A final note of clarification. e. 1987 of the Constitution. She has written another persuasive opinion. extension of the six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President to noon of June 30. the records of the Department of Justice likewise show that the appointment papers of the last batch of provincial and city fiscals signed by the President in completion of the reorganization of the prosecution service were made on January 31. and not February 2. the continued exercise of legislative powers by the incumbent President until the convening of the first Congress. Justice Herrera is able to prove her point with more telling effect than the tones of thunder. Article III of the Provisional Constitution with respect to the tenure of government functionaries. concurring. 58 of the President of the Philippines. February 2. indicating that the Chief Executive has likewise considered February 2. 1987.

first and foremost. we have invariably reckoned the effectivity of the Constitution as well as the amendments thereto from the date it is proclaimed ratified. Manguera. 1976. 1102. and a representative of the private sector. the appointments of some seven Court of Appeals Justices. in particular. except as herein provided. had not. the Secretary of Justice. And this was so notwithstanding Section 16. a professor of law. Justice. Article VIII. 71 provincial fiscals.I rely. when the will of the people as of that time. as follows: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 9 of the said 1976 amendments. xxx xxx xxx Sec. the date our decision in Javellana v. Since 1973. of the 1973 Constitution. shall supersede the Constitution of nineteen-hundred and thirty. I have no doubt that between February 2. It shall be noted that under Amendment No. . proclaiming the ratification of the 1976 amendments submitted in the plebiscite of October 16. and 55 city fiscals the President reportedly extended on February 2. the date Proclamation No." was issued. On October 27.plebiscite held Oct. and February 11. and could not have been. The Proclamation states. For it cannot be logically said that Constitution was ratified during such a plebiscite. now Chief Justice. 1 Under Sections 8 (1) and 9. 16-17. 8. 1976. Such appointments need no confirmation. (I)A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman.five and all amendments thereto. on the language of the 1987 Charter itself. Executive Secretary. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and. 9. and a representative of the Congress as ex oficio Members. vet determined. 1973. "Announcing the Ratification by the Filipino People of the Constitution Proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. 1987 the government performed acts that would have been valid under the Provisional Constitution but would otherwise have been void under the 1987 Charter. and not at the time the people cast their votes to approve or reject it. 27. thus: Sec. 1973. inter alia. 16. I hereby proclaim all the amendments embodied in this certificate as duly ratified by the Filipino people in the referendum. then President Marcos promulgated Proclamation no. 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. 2 we held that the 1973 Constitution became in force and effect on January 17. although Mr. xxx xxx xxx such appointments could be open to serious questions. thus: SEC. a representative of the Integrated Bar. By virtue-of the powers vested in me by law. of the l987 Constitution. 1595. It is my reading of this provision that the Constitution takes effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained.17. a retired Member of the Supreme Court. 3 became final. In Magtoto v. Other than that. This Constitution shag take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions. that. 1976 and are therefore effective and in full force and effect as of this date. moreover. 1987. pragmatic considerations compel me to take the view. Teehankee would push its effectivity date further to April 17. I recall. Article XVII.

104 itself (as well as Resolutions Nos. on January 30. in its Resolutions Numbered Three. 1981 of the Amendments to the Constitution Embodied in Batas Pambansa Blg. Third Regular Session. We have. 105. the then Chief Executive issued Proclamation no. 643). The Resolution of Both Houses (of Congress) in Joint Session on the March 11. 112 and 113. the proposed amendment shall take effect on the date the incumbent President/Prime Minister shall proclaim its ratification. Sitting as a Constituent Assembly. albeit Resolutions Nos. which states. which parented these amendments. in declaring the said amendments duly approved.." provides. 1981. that: The proposed amendments shall take effect on the date the President of the Philippines shall proclaim that they have been ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite held for the purpose. I and 2 of the Batasang Pambansa. Proposed by the Batasang Pambansa. the Amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines. shad canvass and proclaim the result of the plebiscite using the certificates submitted to it. further declared them "[e]ffective and in full force and in effect as of the date of this Proclamation. for Ratification or Rejection.shall become valid as part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held pursuant to Section 2. On April 1. "Proclaiming the Ratification by the Filipino People of the Amendments of Section 7.. Article XVI of the Constitution. but not later than three months from the approval of the amendments. "Proclaiming the Ratification in the Plebiscite of January 27. 1984. as amended. dated December 18. Batas Pambansa Blg. "An Act to Submit to the Filipino People. It shall be noted that under Resolution No.are therefore effective and in full force and effect as of the date of this Proclamation. 1947 plebiscite called pursuant to Republic Act No. and that said amendment is hereby declared to take effect immediately." It states that the amendments: . 104. in this connection." The Proclamation. 1946. 7. 122 and Declaring Them Therefore Effective and in Full Force and Effect. that under Resolutions Nos. 111. of the Amendments to the Constitution Embodied in Batasang Pambansa Resolutions Nos. as follows: SEC. 1947 Resolution makes no mention of a retroactive application. Two. 1980. 105. . 73 and the Resolution of Both Houses (of Congress) adopted on September 18. 1959.These amendments shall take effect after the incumbent President shall have proclaimed that they have been ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the referendum-plebiscite. 1979. sitting en banc. and One. 21. and 113 provide. Article X of the Constitution" (lengthening the terms of office of judges and justices). and to Appropriate Funds Therefore. 110 and 112 and Section 9. . that: These amendments shall be valid as a part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election/plebiscite at which it is submitted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. Batas Blg. finally.1947." It shall be noted. On April 7. 122. 2077 was issued "Proclaiming the Ratification in the Plebiscite of April 7.. The Commission on Elections. Sitting as a Constituent Assembly. 110. duly authenticated and certified by the Board of Canvassers of each province or city. 1980. together with the election for local officials. It carries out Resolution no. Proclamation No. 111. Proclamation No. was adopted on April 9. the same: . . The Proclamation provides: [t]he above-quoted amendment has been duly ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite held. 2332. The April 9. That a Constitution or amendments thereto take effect upon proclamation of their ratification and not at the time of the plebiscite is a view that is not peculiar to the Marcos era. On the other hand.

Ignalaga 5 in which we declared. 1987. I submit that our ruling in Ponsica v. 58 of the President of the Philippines. Commissioner Davide is recognized. Madam President. in point of fact. concurring: The main issue resolved in the judgment at bar is whether the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2. Madam President. may we now put to a vote the original formulation of the committee as indicated in Section 12." The record of the deliberations and the voting is reproduced hereinbelow: 1 MR. the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on that same date. at Malacanang Palace: . MR. if we did." The record of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Commission fully supports the Court's judgment. I am therefore of the opinion. in passing. . the 1987 Constitution not being then as yet in force. with the lone dissent of Mr." This view was actually proposed at the Constitutional Commission deliberations. 1987. Aquino.. consistent with the views expressed above. So that is the date of the ratification" and that "the canvass thereafter [of the votes] is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. the date its ratification was proclaimed per Proclamation No. In any event. 1987. Justice Sarmiento. MAAMBONG. when the incumbent President (Mrs. As I stated.." the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2.. has been duly ratified by the Filipino people and is therefore effective and in full force and effect. Corazon C. 4 the 1987 Constitution. that the challenged dismissals done on February 8. 1987. but was withdrawn by its proponent in the face of the "overwhelming" contrary view that the Constitution "will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite. does not in any way weaken this dissent. 1987 were valid. 1987. the remark was said in passing-we did not resolve the case on account of a categorical holding that the 1987 Constitution came to life on February 2. CJ. The thrust of the dissent is that the Constitution should be deemed to "take effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained and not at the time the people cast their votes to approve or reject it. The Court's decision. that the new Charter was ratified on February 2. 1987. that the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986. unless there are other commissioners who would like to present amendments. the date that the plebiscite for its ratification was held or whether it took effect on February 11. holds that by virtue of the provision of Article XVIII. Corazon C. Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE. came into force and effect. I now call for its re-examination. unequivocal and express intent of the Constitutional Conunission in unanimously approving (by thirty-five votes in favor and none against) the aforequoted Section 27 of Transitory Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution was that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. THE PRESIDENT.Accordingly. I hold that it took effect at no other time. It shows that the clear. Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution that it "shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose. DAVIDE. including the Ordinance appended thereto. Aquino) proclaimed on February 11.

" The committee accepts the first proposed amendment. Just a moment. MR. MAAMBONG." add the words" AND THEIR AMENDMENTS. However. I would ask the committee to reconsider its acceptance of the amendment which makes the effectivity of the new Constitution dependent upon the proclamation of the President. With that explanation. BERNAS. we regret that we cannot accept the second proposed amendment after the word "constitutions" because the committee feels that when we talk of all previous Constitutions. l will not insist on the second." add the following: "AND THEIR AMENDMENTS. Therefore. after "constitutions. MAAMBONG. there is a provision which says that the President shall make certain that all laws shall be faithfully complied. Madam President." And the second amendment would be: After the word "constitutions. the President will naturally comply with the law in accordance with the provisions in the Article on the Executive which we have cited. BERNAS. delete the words "its ratification" and in lieu thereof insert the following-. Madam President. But. We are now ready to comment on that proposed amendment. The second sentence will read: "THE PROCLAMATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN FIVE DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE CANVASS BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH PLEBISCITE. MAAMBONG. "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. It would be assumed that the President would immediately do that after the results shall have been canvassed by the COMELEC." And on the last line. MAAMBONG. Commissioner Bernas is recognized. Madam President. after conferring with our chairman. The proposed amendment would be to delete the words "its ratification and in lieu thereof insert the words "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. MR. If Commissioner Davide is going to propose an additional sentence. we can now do that. the committee regrets that it cannot accept the second sentence which the Gentleman is proposing. necessarily it includes "AND THEIR AMENDMENTS. I am prepared to withdraw the same on the assumption that there will be an immediate proclamation of the results by the President." MR. Madam President. Madam President. DAVIDE. in the approved Article on the Executive. May I propose the following amendments. DAVIDE. Madam President. the committee feels that the second proposed amendment in the form of a new sentence would not be exactly necessary and the committee feels that it would be too much for us to impose a time frame on the President to make the proclamation. Madam President. With that understanding. MR. It would be too much to impose on the President a time frame within which she will make that declaration. not on the . MR." MR." MR. Madam President.MR. the committee would suggest that we take up first his amendment to the first sentence as originally formulated. As we would recall. MR. On line 2. DAVIDE. DAVIDE. FR. When we approve this first sentence. I will not insist on the second sentence. The effectivity of the Constitution should commence on the date of the ratification. THE PRESIDENT. FR. DAVIDE. may I request that I be allowed to read the second amendment so the Commission would be able to appreciate the change in the first. and it says that there will be a proclamation by the President that the Constitution has been ratified. Yes.

MR. MR. Madam President? FR. as the case may be? FR. MAAMBONG. But it is necessary that there be a body which will make the formal announcement of the results of the plebiscite. the reason the amendments of 1976 were effective upon the proclamation of the President was that the draft presented to the people said that the amendment will be effective upon the proclamation made by the President. because "ratification" is the act of saying "yes" is done when one casts his ballot. Madam President. So it is either the President or the COMELEC itself upon the completion of the canvass of the results of the plebiscite. Madam President. Therefore. It would not. in clear terms. The date would be the casting of the ballots. we should not make this dependent on the action of the President since this will be a manifestation of the act of the people to be done under the supervision of the COMELEC and it should be the COMELEC who should make the announcement that. We do not split the moment of casting by each of the voters." what would be. MAAMBONG. In that particular case. Madam President. we would like to know from the proponent. if he is insisting on his amendment. and I opted for the President. 1987. I am insisting on the amendment because I cannot subscribe to the view of Commissioner Bernas. I have a suspicion that was put in there precisely to give the President some kind of leeway on whether to announce the ratification or not. it would not depend on the actual issuance of the results by the Commission on Elections which will be doing the canvass? That is immaterial Madam President FR. DAVIDE. The Gentleman will agree that a date has to be fixed as to exactly when the Constitution is supposed to be ratified. if the President were to say that the plebiscite would be held. BERNAS. MR. MAAMBONG. MAAMBONG. on January 19. Madam President. MAAMBONG. MR. MR. for instance. I think. Madam President. 1987.date of the proclamation of the President. Yes. Madam President. in fact. NOLLEDO. it would be all right if it would be upon the announcement of the results of the canvass conducted by the COMELEC or the results of the plebiscite held all over the country. xxx xxx xxx MR. MR. is what happened in 1976 when the amendments of 1976 were ratified. MR. Willingly. then the date for the effectivity of the new Constitution would be January 19. Actually and technically speaking. So it is the date of the plebiscite itself. the people exercise their right to vote. MAAMBONG. BERNAS. the date when the Constitution is supposed to be ratified or not ratified. BERNAS. Would the Gentleman answer a few clarificatory questions? FR. In other words. If we delete the suggested amendment which says: "THE PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT HAS BEEN RATIFIED. I would say that the ratification of the Constitution is on the date the votes were supposed to have been cast. BERNAS. What is confusing. That cannot be the date of reckoning because it is a plebiscite all over the country. then the votes are canvassed by the Commission on Elections. Let us go to the mechanics of the whole thing. . With that statement of Commissioner Bernas. BERNAS. We present the Constitution to a plebiscite. the votes show that the Constitution was ratified and there should be no need to wait for any proclamation on the part of the President. FR. Commissioner Davide. that the date of the ratification is reckoned from the date of the casting of the ballots.

Thank you. But nevertheless. If there should be any need for presidential proclamation. I am in favor of the Davide amendment because we have to fix a date for the effectivity of the Constitution. I would only add that when we say that the date of effectivity is on the day of the casting of the votes. THE PRESIDENT. will there be a necessity for the President to make a proclamation of the results of the canvass as submitted by the Commission on Elections? FR. MR. what we mean is that the Constitution takes . because an announcement is a mere confirmation The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. I was precisely going to state the same support for Commissioner Bernas. MR. I support the stand of Commissioner Bernas because it is really the date of the casting of the "yes" votes that is the date of the ratification of the Constitution The announcement merely confirms the ratification even if the results are released two or three days after. MR. MAAMBONG. it would have no effect. So that is the date of the ratification. MAAMBONG. the President may. Suppose the announcement is delayed by. I would say there would be no necessity. say. In other words. LERUM. 10 days or a month. With the theory of the Commissioner. because the canvass thereafter is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the President is merely the official confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite. NOLLEDO. THE PRESIDENT. MR. MR. Commissioner Maambong is recognized. Madam President. Thank you. REGALADO. Commissioner Nolledo is recognized. Madam President. I am. may I be recognized. FR. even in civil law. THE PRESIDENT. My next question which is the final one is: After the Commision on Elections has declared the results of the canvass.THE PRESIDENT. FR. MR. BERNAS. MR. Madam President. the President may make the proclamation. And if what he says contradicts what the Commission on Elections says. Madam President. in favor of the Davide amendment. would there be a necessity for the Commission on Elections to declare the results of the canvass? FR. what happens to the obligations and rights that accrue upon the approval of the Constitution? So I think we must have a definite date. LERUM. I would say that the proclamation made by the President would be immaterial because under the law. therefore. Does Commissioner Regalado want to contribute? MR. MAAMBONG. BERNAS. Madam President. BERNAS. MAAMBONG. MAAMBONG. It is the Commission on Elections which announces the results. MR. that proclamation will merely confirm the act of ratification. BERNAS. Commissioner Lerum is recognized. the administration of all election laws is under an independent Commission on Elections. Madam President. the President may or may not make the proclamation whether the Constitution has been ratified or not. There would be because it is the Commission on Elections which makes the official announcement of the results. Yes. I beg to disagree with Commissioner Davide. I think it is a fundamental principle in political law.

the validity does not begin on the date of ratification but it retroacts from the date the contract was executed. Madam President. GUINGONA. Even in civil law. We will now ask once more Commissioner Davide if he is insisting on his amendment . Commissioner Maambong is recognized MR. Madam President. the children of Filipino mothers or anybody born on the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. the determination is made as of that time-the majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held on such and such a date. MR. the date of the Constitution as ratified should retroact to the date that the people have cast their affirmative votes in favor of the Constitution. THE PRESIDENT. MR. because there would be no definite date if we depend upon the canvassing by the COMELEC. Thank you. I thank the Commissioner. THE PRESIDENT. May we now hear Vice-President Padilla. which is January 17. MAAMBONG. MR. At the end of the day of election or plebiscite. Mention was made about the need for having a definite date. be it the COMELEC or the President. have cast their votes in favor of the Constitution. effective. Whoever makes the announcement as to the result of the plebiscite. MR.effect on every single minute and every single second of that day. I think it is precisely the proposal of Commissioner Bernas which speaks of the date (of ratification that would have a definite date. if there is a contract. MR. therefore. Yes. the Constitution is really effective from the previous midnight. GUINGONA. MAAMBONG. PADILLA. by a majority vote. are natural-born citizens. apart from the fact that the provision on the drafting or amendment of the Constitution provides that a constitution becomes effective upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast. Could we. Madam President. MAAMBONG. I am against the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide and I support the view of Commissioner Bernas and the others because the ratification of the Constitution is on the date the people. So that is the time when the new Constitution will be considered ratified and. MAAMBONG. So that when we adopted the new rule on citizenship. Madam President. Therefore. THE PRESIDENT. MR. And that is the date when the Constitution takes effect. because the Civil Code says a day has 24 hours. although I would not say from the very beginning of the date of election because as of that time it is impossible to determine whether there is a majority. BERNAS. Commissioner Concepcion is recognized. Thank you. would announce that a majority of the votes cast on a given date was in favor of the Constitution. therefore. safely say that whatever date is the publication of the results of the canvass by the COMELEC retroacts to the date of the plebiscite? FR. no matter what time of day or night. Commissioner Guingona is recognized. Madam President. So that even if the votes are cast in the morning. MR. 1973. say. between an agent and a third person and that contract is confirmed or ratified by the principal. THE PRESIDENT. CONCEPCION.

the continued exercise of legislative powers by the incumbent President until the convening of the first Congress. MR. February 2. The committee will read again the formulation indicated in the original committee report as Section 12. Hence. pending the constitution of the Judicial and Bar Council. RAMA. (No Member raised his hand.MR. the attempted replacement of petitioners by respondent OIC Governor's designation on February 8. 1987. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.) As many as are against. 1986 must be deemed to have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution on the same date February 2. Madam President. CRUZ. where I submitted that the . respondent OIC Governor could no longer exercise the power to replace petitioners in their positions as Barangay Captain and Councilmen. as now expressly declared by the Court. Justice Herrera is able to prove her point with more telling effect than the tones of thunder. 1992 for purposes of synchronization of elections. and I am delighted to concur.g. that: (1) the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25. Madam President. It should be stated for the record that the reported date of the appointments. . I note that it in effect affirms my dissents in the De la Serna. In view of the explanation and overwhelming tyranny of the opinion that it will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite. 1987 of their successors could no longer produce any legal force and effect. 1987. 3 (Similarly. as to the statement in the dissent that "the appointments of some seven Court of Appeals Justices. As many as are in favor. please raise their hand. Section 12 is approved. A final note of clarification.) The results show 35 votes in favor and none against. indicating that the Chief Executive has likewise considered February 2. In her quiet and restrained manner. no appointments to the Judiciary have been extended by the President. could be open to serious questions. 1987. as indeed they provided for multifarious transitory provisions in twenty six sections of Article XVIII. She has written another persuasive opinion. this period was shortened by the ratification and effectivity on February 2. Article VIII of the Constitution which require prior endorsement thereof by the Judicial and Bar Council created under the Constitution. concurring. e. 1987 . 1987. absent any saying clause to the contrary in the Transitory Article of the Constitution. 1987 of the Constitution.) It is also a matter of record that since February 2. We ask for a vote." in view of the provisions of Sections 8 (1) and 9. Duquing and Bayas cases. is incorrect. Zamora. VOTING THE PRESIDENT. 1987 as the effective date of the Constitution. MR. 1987 and they were all appointed on or before January 31. The official records of the Court show that the appointments of the seven Court of Appeals Justices were transmitted to this Court on February 1. 1987 and (2) by and after said date. 1987 and transmitted to the Department on February 1. 71 provincial fiscals and 55 city fiscals reported extended (by) the President on February 2. MAAMBONG. . I am withdrawing my amendment on the assumption that any of the following bodies the Office of the President or the COMELEC will make the formal announcement of the results. extension of the six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President to noon of June 30.. February 2. 1987. etc. we are now ready to vote on the original provision as stated by the committee. J. they would have so provided for in the Transitory Article. (Several Members raised their hands. 2 The Court next holds as a consequence of its declaration at bar that the Constitution took effect on the date of its ratification in the plebiscite held on February 2. While the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring on March 25. the records of the Department of Justice likewise show that the appointment papers of the last batch of provincial and city fiscals signed by the President in completion of the reorganization of the prosecution service were made on January 31. 1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised. 1987. please raise their hand. DAVIDE. Had the intention of the framers of the Constitution been otherwise.

had not. It is my reading of this provision that the Constitution takes effect on the date its ratification shall have been ascertained. 1987 the government performed acts that would have been valid under the Provisional Constitution but would otherwise have been void under the 1987 Charter. xxx xxx xxx 2Sec. J. 58 of the President of the Philippines. after the deadline set by the Freedom Constitution. a representative of the Integrated Bar. was cut short by the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. 1987. first and foremost. Since 1973. 71 provincial fiscals. 1987. 1987. and not February 2. as follows: SECTION 2. when the new Constitution was ratified. the appointments of some seven Court of Appeals Justices. xxx xxx xxx such appointments could be open to serious questions. 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. a professor of law. Article III of the Provisional Constitution with respect to the tenure of government functionaries.. For it cannot be logically said that Constitution was ratified during such a plebiscite. as follows: xxx xxx xxx Sec. Our difference is that whereas I would make that right commence on February 25. when the will of the people as of that time. This Constitution shag take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.local OICs may no longer be summarily replaced. To my mind the 1987 constitution took effect on February 11. and not at the time the people cast their votes to approve or reject it. While I agree that the one-year deadline prescribed by Section 2. 1987. 1986. 9. the date of the plebiscite held to approve the new Charter. of the l987 Constitution. the date the same was proclaimed ratified pursuant to Proclamation No. and 55 city fiscals the President reportedly extended on February 2. . thus: Sec. (I)A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman. I yield to that better view and agree with her ponencia completely. and a representative of the private sector. and could not have been. Other than that. I recall. vet determined. if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25. SARMIENTO. and a representative of the Congress as ex oficio Members. plebiscite day. Such appointments need no confirmation. on the language of the 1987 Charter itself. I rely. the Secretary of Justice. With due respect to the majority I register this dissent. Article VIII. Justice Herrera would opt for February 2. we have invariably reckoned the effectivity of the Constitution as well as the amendments thereto from the date it is proclaimed ratified. 1987. in particular. pragmatic considerations compel me to take the view. 1987. 8. having acquired security of tenure under the new Constitution. and February 11. I entertain serious doubts whether or not that cut-off period began on February 2. Dissenting. 27. 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. I have no doubt that between February 2. 1 Under Sections 8 (1) and 9. moreover. a retired Member of the Supreme Court.

" was issued. Proclamation No. 111. Article XVI of the Constitution. 7. further declared them "[e]ffective and in full force and in effect as of the date of this Proclamation. sitting en banc. the date our decision in Javellana v. Proposed by the Batasang Pambansa.17. the same: . and that said amendment is hereby declared to take effect immediately. shall become valid as part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held pursuant to Section 2." The Proclamation. 1959. "Proclaiming the Ratification in the Plebiscite of January 27.. 2077 was issued "Proclaiming the Ratification in the Plebiscite of April 7. that. of the Amendments to the Constitution Embodied in Batasang Pambansa Resolutions Nos. the date Proclamation No.. 1976. "Proclaiming the Ratification by the Filipino People of the Amendments of Section 7. Article X of the Constitution" (lengthening the terms of office of judges and justices). for Ratification or Rejection. in this connection. I and 2 of the Batasang Pambansa. the Amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines. 3 became final. 1980. 16. Batas Pambansa Blg. now Chief Justice. 1984. 1981 of the Amendments to the Constitution Embodied in Batas Pambansa Blg. 1980.five and all amendments thereto. And this was so notwithstanding Section 16. . 1981. inter alia. Two.are therefore effective and in full force and effect as of the date of this Proclamation. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and. Proclamation No. The Commission on Elections. dated December 18. finally. thus: SEC.. and to Appropriate Funds Therefore. On October 27. These amendments shall take effect after the incumbent President shall have proclaimed that they have been ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the referendum-plebiscite. 2 we held that the 1973 Constitution became in force and effect on January 17. 105." It states that the amendments: . the proposed amendment shall take effect on the date the incumbent President/Prime Minister shall proclaim its ratification. On April 1. shall supersede the Constitution of nineteen-hundred and thirty. together with the election for local officials. which parented these amendments. Justice. the then Chief Executive issued Proclamation no." provides. of the 1973 Constitution. that under Resolutions Nos. Sitting as a Constituent Assembly. Sitting as a Constituent Assembly.. Third Regular Session. on January 30.In Magtoto v. in its Resolutions Numbered Three. 1595. proclaiming the ratification of the 1976 amendments submitted in the plebiscite of October 16. We have. The Proclamation states. It shall be noted that under Amendment No. I hereby proclaim all the amendments embodied in this certificate as duly ratified by the Filipino people in the referendum — plebiscite held Oct. then President Marcos promulgated Proclamation no. although Mr. 104. in declaring the said amendments duly approved. Manguera. Article XVII. 112 and 113. By virtue-of the powers vested in me by law." It shall be noted. 1102. 2332. 1973. 9 of the said 1976 amendments. "Announcing the Ratification by the Filipino People of the Constitution Proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Executive Secretary. shad canvass and proclaim the result of the plebiscite using the certificates submitted to it. 1973. 16-17. 110. On April 7. 1979. The Proclamation provides: [t]he above-quoted amendment has been duly ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite held. On the other hand. Teehankee would push its effectivity date further to April 17. 21. "An Act to Submit to the Filipino People. 1976. 122. except as herein provided. 122 and Declaring Them Therefore Effective and in Full Force and Effect. It shall be noted that under Resolution No. 1976 and are therefore effective and in full force and effect as of this date. duly authenticated and certified by the Board of Canvassers of each province or city. as follows: SEC. and One..

Batas Blg. The April 9. defendants-appellees. 4 the 1987 Constitution. that: The proposed amendments shall take effect on the date the President of the Philippines shall proclaim that they have been ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite held for the purpose. which states. 1947 plebiscite called pursuant to Republic Act No. more particularly described in the complaint. JOSEFINA SANTOS. J. 111. 643). Accordingly. situated in the Municipality of Las Piñas. consistent with the views expressed above.: Teodora Santos and her nieces Emiliana and Josefina surnamed Santos complain that from 1945 to 1949 Leoncio Santos collected from the Army of the United States of America rentals for the use and occupation of a parcel of land. that: These amendments shall be valid as a part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election/plebiscite at which it is submitted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. Ignalaga 5 in which we declared.It carries out Resolution no. including the Ordinance appended thereto. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. 1987. at Malacanang Palace: . the remark was said in passing-we did not resolve the case on account of a categorical holding that the 1987 Constitution came to life on February 2. the late Paulino de los Santos. if we did. PADILLA. that the challenged dismissals done on February 8. Diokno for appellants. in point of fact. I am therefore of the opinion. 1987. L-4699 November 26. Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for appellees. in passing. came into force and effect. plaintiffs-appellants. does not in any way weaken this dissent. No. 1947 Resolution makes no mention of a retroactive application. that the new Charter was ratified on February 2. 105. father of . was adopted on April 9. and NATIONAL AIRPORTS CORPORATION. 1952 TEODORA SANTOS. belonging to them and Leoncio Santos in common by inheritance from their ancestor. LEONCIO SANTOS. 110 and 112 and Section 9. when the incumbent President (Mrs. containing an area of 21. assisted by her husband DONATO DE CASTRO. I hold that it took effect at no other time. known as Lot No. 1987 were valid. that the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986.R. albeit Resolutions Nos.. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION. as amended. and 113 provide. 1946. 104 itself (as well as Resolutions Nos.. That a Constitution or amendments thereto take effect upon proclamation of their ratification and not at the time of the plebiscite is a view that is not peculiar to the Marcos era. has been duly ratified by the Filipino people and is therefore effective and in full force and effect. assisted by her husband Santiago Rodriguez and EMILIANA SANTOS. I now call for its re-examination.1947. Corazon C. but not later than three months from the approval of the amendments. 73 and the Resolution of Both Houses (of Congress) adopted on September 18. Aquino) proclaimed on February 11. As I stated. vs. Ramon Diokno and Jose W. the 1987 Constitution not being then as yet in force. 1987. The Resolution of Both Houses (of Congress) in Joint Session on the March 11. Province of Rizal. In any event. I submit that our ruling in Ponsica v.577 square meters. 4 of CAA Survey Plan AERO R-1.

that the parcel of land be partitioned among them in the proportion above-stated. the state itself may be sued even without its consent. the complaint would have to be dismissed. where and when the state or its government enters into a contract. the sacredness of the institution. No cost shall be taxed. that the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration be directed to vacate the portions of the lot belonging to them a reasonable rental until after possession of their shares in the lot shall have been restored to them and to pay damages and cost. he having sold the lot to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration on or about 13 May 1949.Teodora Santos and Leoncio Santos and grandfather of Josefina Santos and Emiliana Santos. quasi-contract. The principle that the state or its government cannot be sued without its consent has its root in the juridical and practical notion that the state can do no wrong. Demandable and enforceable obligations which may be the subject of judicial action come into being either by law. and that the sale of the lot made by Leoncio Santos to the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration insofar as their shares in the lot are concerned is null and void. series of 1950. whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom. and if the law granting the authority to enter into such contract does not provide for or name the officer against whom action may be brought in the event of a breach thereof. 365. who died sometime in 1919. The Civil Aeronautics Administration. through its officers or agents. which had acquired the parcel of land from the defendant Leoncio Santos. that the purported sale by Leoncio Santos to the National Airports Corporation. the Civil Aeronautics Administration. It is also averred that the National Airports Corporation created by Republic Act No. because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be used is implied from the very act of entering into such contract.. They also complain that they made a demand upon Leoncio Santos to have the lot partitioned among them but the later refused to do so. If the dignity of the state. in the proportion of 1/7 undivided share for Teodora Santos and 1/14 undivided share each for Josefina Santos and Emiliana Santos and 5/7 undivided share for Leoncio Santos. L-5122. . No. we held that the Civil Aeronautics Administration may be sued and that the principle of state immunity from suit does not apply to it. invoking the case of Metropolitan Transportation Service METRAN vs. Upon these allegations they pray that Leoncio Santos be ordered to render an accounting of the rentals and such other fruits. G. the action would not be against the state but against the responsible officers or agents who received what was not due the state or made the unauthorized collection. Gaz. Paredes. who is now in possession thereof. In National Airports Corporation vs. contract. 45 Off. the legislative department should name the officer or agent against whom the action may be brought in the event of breach of the contract entered into under its name and authority. the respect for the government are to be preserved and the dragging of its name in a suit to be prevented. The same postulate may be applied to torts committed by officers or agents of the state. even if it is not a juridical entity. to wit. If there should be anything demandable which had been paid or delivered to or collected by officers or agents of the state without the authority of law. This motion was granted on the ground that the Civil Aeronautics Administration not being a juridical person has no capacity to sue and be sued and for that reason it cannot come under the jurisdiction of the court. then the action would not lie against the National Airports Corporation or its successor. where it has been held that the suit was against the state which could not be brought without its consent. in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority. was abolished by Executive Order no. If the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the parcel of land sold by Leoncio Santos and acquired by the National Airports Corporation. The order appealed from dismissing the complaint as to the Civil Aeronautics Administration is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law. now in the possession of its successor. Punishable acts or omissions committed by officers or agents of the state are crimes and violations of law perpetuated by such officers or agents and not by the state. because it took over all the powers and assumed all the obligations of the defunct corporation which had entered into the contract in question. 2835. Leoncio Santos would be responsible for warranty and eviction to the Civil Aeronautics Administration. the plaintiffs should not and can be deprived of their proprietary rights in the parcel of land sold by their co-owner without their knowledge and consent. The action brought in this case is for partition and accounting of rental received by the defendant Leoncio Santos from 1945 to December 1949 for the use and occupation of a parcel of land allegedly owned in common by the plaintiffs and the defendant Leoncio Santos in the proportion stated in the complaint. acts or omissions punishable by law. products and benefits as he might have received from 1945 on and thereafter and to pay and deliver 1/7 thereof to Teodora Santos and 1/14 thereof each to Josefina and Emiliana surname Santos. because it would be the exclusive liability of Leoncio Santos. and in its place and stead the Civil Aeronautics Administration was created and took over all the assets and assumed all the liabilities of the abolished corporation. Teodoro *. But if the right to such shares as claimed be established. 224. Nevertheless. to bring an action against the state itself for the reasons already adverted to. And the omission or failure of the legislative department to do so is no obstacle or impediment for an individual or citizen. the Civil Aeronautics Administration of land and of their natural or civil fruits of which they had been deprived by the sale and conveyance of the whole parcel of land to the National Airports Corporation by Leoncio Santos. cannot legally prevent a party or parties from enforcing their propriety rights under the cloak or shield of lack of juridical personality. The Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the complaint against him. for the accounting of which and payment of their respective shares therein they made a demand upon Leoncio Santos but the latter failed and refused to do so. An obligation or liability of the state created by statute is enforceable against the officer or agent charged with the duty to execute the law. if. insofar as theirs shares are concerned be declared null and void. the predecessor to the Civil Aeronautics Administration.R. the descent of the sovereign state to the level of the individual or citizen with whom it entered into a contract and its consent to be sued implied from the act of entering into such contract. acts which do not constitute or amount to a crime or a misdemeanor known at common law as torts and in civil law as culpa aquiliana or extra contractual. If the Torrens title does not show such shares of the plaintiffs in the parcel of land sold by Leoncio Santos to the National Airports Corporation. The accounting of rentals received would not affect the Civil Aeronautics Administration. who is aggrieved by the breach of the contract. 30 April 1952.

Bautista Angelo and Labardor.J. Montemayor. JJ. Pablo. C..Paras. Bengzon. . Tuazon.. Jugo. concur.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->