1

DIGESTS
ALFREDO M. DE LEON VS. HON. GOVERNOR BENJAMIN ESGUERRA G.R. NO. 78059 AUGUST 31, 1987 (RATIFICATION OF THE 1987 CONSITUTION) FACTS: An original action of prohibition was instituted by Alfredo M. De Leon, as Barangay Captain of Dolores Rizal with other baranggay councilmen for the memorandum ordered by Governer Benjamin Esguerra in replacing the petitioners. On February 9. 1987, Alfredo M. De Leon received a memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 designating new officers barangay captain and barangay councilmen by authority of the Minister of Local Government granted by the 1986 provisional constitution. The Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office "shall be six (6) years which shall commence on June 7, 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified," or up to June 7, 1988. It is also their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors . However, the respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of the following provision: “All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise pro vided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made within a period of one year from February 25, 1986.” ... and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; 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the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted provision of the Provisional Constitution. ISSUES: Whether or not the 1986 provisional constitution may be validly recognized? Whether or not the 1987 constitution was already in effect on February 2, 1987 the day of the actual plebiscite or February 8, 1987, its announcement? HELD: The court held that since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials. Thus, 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, 1987. Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor, we hold that February 8, 1977, should be considered as the effective date of replacement and not December 1, 1986 to which it was antedated, in keeping with the dictates of justice. But while February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the oneyear deadline, the aforequoted provision in the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading: "Sec. 27. 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. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Further, the record of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission further shows the clear, unequivocal and express intent of the Constitutional Commission that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. 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 of facial 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." .... Therefor, the 1987 Constitution is deemed ratified on February 2, 1987, the actual date of the voting and not February 8, 1987, the announcement of the resolution.

SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. L-44640 OCTOBER 12, 1976 (PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION) FACTS: On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission on Elections a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (hereafter, Delfin Petition) wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order 1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country; 2. Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the attached "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of general and local circulation; 3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose.

Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution" 10 embodying the proposed amendments which consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the provisions concerning term limits. AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION? According to Delfin. ISSUES: 1. is ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. 8 and Section 8 of Article X 9 of the Constitution. entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. Whether R. (3) Republic Act No. was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution. No. 2300. (2) It is true that R. However. on statutes. 6735. that he and the members of the Movement and other volunteers intend to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution granted under Section 2. and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of . The Delfin Petition further alleged that the provisions sought to be amended are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI. be published in newspapers of general and local circulation. or office has realigned funds for the purpose. Such implementing provisions have been obviously left to a separate law. adequately covers such initiative. the petitioners herein — Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. (5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution. 1290 entitled An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitution Amendments by People's Initiative. Alexander Padilla. (6) Finally. which petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November 1995. (4) COMELEC Resolution No.2 Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative. SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII. and if so. and on local legislation. therefore. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative. No. it is likewise necessary that the said order.A. and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC. agency. that the exercise of that power shall be conducted in proceedings under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. outside the power of the people's initiative. unlike in the other modes of initiative. and with the following proposition: DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. in fact. as worded. On 18 December 1996. neither the COMELEC nor any other government department. 2300.A. is still pending before the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law. since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Former Senator Arturo Tolentino stressed this deficiency in the law in his privilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There is not a single word in that law which can be considered as implementing [the provision on constitutional initiative]. Senate Bill No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication in print media. as required in COMELEC Resolution No. whether the Act. with the assistance of municipal election registrars. initiative on the Constitution. it is necessary that the time and dates to be designated for the purpose be first fixed in an order to be issued by the COMELEC. that before the Movement and other volunteers can gather signatures. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is. namely. that. AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI. Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative. and that to adequately inform the people of the electoral process involved. not to revision thereof. a group of citizens desirous to avail of the system intended to institutionalize people power. Article XVII of the Constitution. which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. who shall verify the signatures affixed by individual signatories. and Maria Isabel Ongpin — filed this special civil action for prohibition raising the following arguments: (1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. signature stations shall be established all over the country. This indicates that the Act covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after publication. 2. as well as the Petition on which the signatures shall be affixed. No such law has been passed. adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern "the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local laws. 7 Section 4 of Article VII. it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution . the said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people.

Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned. UNFORTUNATELY. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy. . rather intentionally. it failed.A. No. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself. marks its limits. and (b) fixes a standard — the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable — to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.A. No. setting forth therein the policy to be executed. an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions. INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM. inadequate. or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Empowering the COMELEC.A.A. to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution. or implemented by the delegate. It does not have that power under R.A. No. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Curiously.A. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national and local legislation thereby giving them special attention. 6735 is incomplete. NO. in every case of permissible delegation. No. However. there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power is misplaced. No. 6735 is sufficient to cover the people’s initiative to propose amendments? R. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. Issue 2 – Validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority under no. HELD: Issue 1 – Whether R. considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. R. 5 above.3 initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. BUT IS. while R. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. carried out. R.

and who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election. A Revisit of Santiago v. TOLENTINO VS. its session which began on September 27.parliamentary. Section 2. Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. COMELEC [G. at about 3:30 in the morning of September 28. CC ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. 1971. 1971 (APPROVAL OF PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT – ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. by declaring said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law in so far as they direct the holding of such plebiscite and by also declaring the acts of the respondent Commission performed and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid Convention resolutions to be null and void. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 ―incomplete. Its preliminary labors of election of officers. COMELEC G. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Article XVII of the Constitution on amendment s to the Constitution through a people‘s initiative. This amendment shall be valid as part of the Constitution of the Philippines when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to coincide with the local elections in November 1971.presidential form of government to unicameral.R. Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Group‘s initiative petition complies with Section 2. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971. therefore a constitutes a revision. the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1971. and the subsequent implementing resolutions. 1971. No.R. Section One of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines is amended to as follows: Section 1. COMELEC is Not Necessary Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change. 1970. NO. 1971. 3. 1. the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1.4 LAMBINO VS. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions‖ to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. L-43150 OCTOBER 16. 25 Oct 2006] Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution. 1 reading thus: . 1) FACTS: Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Commission on Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group‘s petition. submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION ONE OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18 BE IT RESOLVED as it is hereby resolved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention: Section 1." at which the proposed constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall be. as its first formal proposal to amend the Constitution. or more accurately. Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people‘s initiative. it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative. for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. who are (twenty-one) EIGHTEEN years or over and are able to read and write. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect. ARTURO M. After the election of the delegates held on November 10. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral. failure to do so is ―deceptive and misleading‖ which renders the initiative void. must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed. 174153. it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. 2. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition. . Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between ―amendment‖ and ―revision. The Initiative Violates Section 2. they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions. organization of committees and other preparatory works over.

respondents and intervenors have joined in this case. and the provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one. ISSUE: 1. and "upon principle. on the one hand. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case? 2. The language of the constitutional provision aforequoted is sufficiently clear. which refers only to the age qualification for the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention on other portions of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire Constitution. supra. since at best. and any other constitutionally created independent body. between any of them. We see no reason of logic or principle whatsoever. the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment reducing to eighteen years the age for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution proposed in the Convention's Organic Resolution No. The same provision also as definitely provides that "such amendment 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. reason and authority. . under the existing Constitution to resolve the issues in which petitioner. Issue 2: Constitutionality of piecemeal amendment The Conventional Organic Resolution No. This partial amendment. As the Chief Justice has made it clear in Gonzales. it is within the power as it is the solemn duty of the Court. and none has been convincingly shown to Us by any of the respondents and intervenors. like Justice Laurel did in Angara. why the same ruling should not apply to the present Convention. these postulates just quoted do not apply only to conflicts of authority between the three existing regular departments of the government but to all such conflicts between and among these departments. like the electoral tribunals in Congress. It goes without saying that we do this not because the Court is superior to the Convention or that the Convention is subject to the control of the Court." thus placing no limit as to the number of amendments that Congress or the Convention may propose. or. the Comelec and the Constituent assemblies constituted by the House of Congress.. we are left with no alternative but to uphold the jurisdiction of the Court over the present case. as already demonstrated. 1 in the manner and form provided for in said resolution and the subsequent implementing acts and resolution of the Convention separately from the whole amended constitution? HELD: The court upheld the petitioner. on the other. it has been convened by authority of and under the terms of the present Constitution. even if it is an assembly of delegate elected directly by the people. but simply because both the Convention and the Court are subject to the Constitution and the rule of law.5 Section 3." thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the courts The Court has jurisdiction over the case.1 and subsequent acts and resolution is violative of the constitution due to the following grounds: 1. Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order. Accordingly." per Justice Laurel. lt says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution. on its own fiat.

. B. 1967. R. if it is to be viable as the framework of the government it establishes. Whether or not the congress may propose amendments to the constitution and at the same time call for a constitutional convention? 4. A constitution is the work of the people thru its drafters assembled by them for the purpose. . not of men. on the one hand. on the other. and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. Congress passed a bill. nor of rendering its acts null and void? 3. Subsequently. be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120. one (1) member. providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. does not have the legal effect of rendering illegal the House of Representatives elected thereafter. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the case being a political question? 2. NO. Whether or not the "the failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment law . when an amendment is submitted to them that is to form part of the existing constitution. for approval by the people. B. amendments to the Constitution. NO. necessarily. at least. 1. of the same Constitution. the part that the people play in its amendment becomes harder. L-28196 NOVEMBER 9. 1967 (CONSTITUTIONALITY OF R. ideology. at the general elections which shall be held on November 14. to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants. ISSUES: 1. Very little reflection is needed for anyone to realize the wisdom and appropriateness of this provision. be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention. At the very least. No. No. when proposing. proposing that Section 5.R. May constitutional amendments be submitted for ratification at a general election? 5. as a constituent assembly. COMELEC G. Once the original constitution is approved. calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution. Indeed. without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. on June 17. 2. 1 and 3 be submitted. GONZALES VS. 1971. liberties. RAMON A. 2. in like fashion they can study with deliberation the proposed amendment in relation to the whole existing constitution and or any of its parts and thereby arrive at an intelligent judgment as to its acceptability. became Republic Act No. 4913. amending the Constitution is as serious and important an undertaking as constitution making itself. R. any amendment of the Constitution is as important as the whole of it if only because the Constitution has to be an integrated and harmonious instrument. H. and they can either accept or reject it in its entirety. . No. to a maximum of 180. although each province shall have. Article VI. contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government of laws. for when a whole constitution is submitted to them. H. Would the Submission now of the Contested Amendments to the People Violate the Spirit of the Constitution? HELD: Issue 1 – Jurisdiction of the court Since. they can examine it before casting their vote and determine for themselves from a study of the whole document the merits and demerits of all or any of its parts and of the document as a whole. 4813 declaring the act unconstitutional and void.6 2.ELECTION) FACTS: Petitioner prays for the judgment of restraining the COMELEC from enforcing R. the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law. proposing that Section 16. social ideals. 1. as provided in the present Constitution. Article VI. the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district. to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November." and 3. 3. more or less they can assumed its harmony as an integrated whole. Otherwise. 1967. R. of the Constitution of the Philippines. that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits.A. B. and adequately formidable and reliable as the succinct but comprehensive articulation of the rights. And so also. it follows. . 4913 ENFORCING RBH 1 AND 3 . lt is inconceivable how a constitution worthy of any country or people can have any part which is out of tune with its other parts. As already stated. upon approval by the President. and national and nationalistic policies and aspirations of the people. H. they could brush aside and set the same at naught. which.A. (Resolution of Both Houses) No.

in the absence of a statute to this effect. debated thereon at some length before the plebiscite took place. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. we cannot see how said Members of the House of Representatives can be regarded as de facto officers owing to the failure of their predecessors in office to make a reapportionment within the period aforementioned. Upon the other hand. The difference springs from the circumstance that the major political parties had taken sides on previous amendments to the Constitution — except. whatever it may be. and the legal provisions creating Congress — with a House of Representatives composed of members elected by qualified voters of representative districts as they existed at the time of said elections — remained in force. Neither do they allege that the term of office of the members of said House automatically expired or that they ipso facto forfeited their seats in Congress. different sessions or different days of the same congressional session.15 despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power.Would the submission now of the contested amendments to the people violate the spirit of the constitution? The main difference between the present situation and that obtaining in connection with the former proposals does not arise from the law enacted therefor. we do not find. in particular. would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office. Such debates or polemics as may have taken place — on a rather limited scale — on the latest proposals for amendment. the House of Representatives. subject to judicial review. supports the view that failure to discharge a mandatory duty. neither our political law. however. or of the same Congress to pass the same in. and are not aware of any rule or principle of law that would warrant such conclusion. Issue 5 ." not a general. Issue 3 – Available alternatives to the congress In any event. had the effect of abrogating or repealing the legal provision creating Congress. the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court. A legislation cannot. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionality depends upon no other factors than those existing at the time of the enactment thereof. particularly those that take place subsequently to the passage or approval of the law. or. In fact. at least. the woman's suffrage — and. the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional. it would seem obvious that the provision of our Election Law relative to the election of Members of Congress in 1965 were not repealed in consequence of the failure of said body to make an apportionment within three (3) years after the census of 1960. or in the history thereof anything that would negate the authority of different Congresses to approve the contested Resolutions. And.7 Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that. be nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community to discuss it sufficiently. election. unaffected by the acts or omissions of law enforcing agencies. perhaps. accordingly. upon the lapse of said period for reapportionment. nor our law on public officers. consequently. Similarly. Inasmuch as the general elections in 1965 were presumably held in conformity with said Election Law. the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly — violates the Constitution essentially justiciable. hence. Issue 2 – Legality of congress and legal status of the congressmen Petitioners do not allege that the expiration of said three-year period without a reapportionment. refrained from discussing the same in the current political campaign. Issue 4 – May constitutional amendments be submitted for ratification in a General Election? There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein referred to is a "special. and. said political parties have not seemingly made an issue on the amendments now being contested and have. not political. either in the Constitution. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. have been due principally to the initiative of a few civic organizations and some militant members of our citizenry who have voiced their opinion thereon. . neither has any plausible reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to adopt said resolutions on the same day. In short.

Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. 1976. 2 On the same date of September 22. The questions ask. to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. SANIDAD. the issues of martial law. of Presidential Decree No. in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability. 1976. Presidential Decree No. Presidential Decree No. Quite relevantly. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper submission? HELD: Issue 1 – Justiciability of the courts We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General. the period of its existence. in the exercise of that judgment. 991 and 1033.8 SANIDAD VS. ISSUES: 1. insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise. the constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry. And. 1031. COMELEC G.R. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case? 2. providing for a legislative body. 991. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. the President issued another related decree. among other things. by their sovereign act. 991. do you approve the following amendments to the Constitution? For the purpose of the second question.. the President issued Presidential Decree No. a power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not. On September 27. As a consequence. 1976. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16. 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve. 1031 repealed Section 4. which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16. insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution. before the submission to and ratification by the people. Twenty days after or on September 22. the full text of which is quoted in the footnote below. provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether. not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power of judicial but by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power. 1976. President Ferdinand E. by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. L-446640 OCTOBER 12. However. the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. to wit: (1) Do you want martial law to be continued? (2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued. as well as Presidential Decree No. 1031. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16. PABLO C. 1033. the powers of such replacement. this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i. commenced Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October 16. the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. 1976 (PRIME MINISTER PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENT DURING MARTIAL LAW) FACTS: On September 2. Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution? 3. the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter . its replacement. Is it not that the people themselves. the national assembly. control. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment. that the question of the President's authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of the proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the clear Descartes fallacy of vicious circle.e. therefore. 1976. And. Issue 2 – Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution? As earlier pointed out. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 1976. the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition period. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in "barangays" applicable to the national referendumplebiscite of October 16. the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. NO. hold. the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers. 1976.

" Both are integral components of the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution. the power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President. to its gross legislative power. harking to the dictates of the sovereign will. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review. Verily. but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Likewise.R. but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision. In the case of a taxpayer. Both its resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to. executive or judicial branches of government by no means prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people. This. with the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation. or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. When suing as a citizen. the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. at the first instance. There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and balances. he must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. with the House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has resulted in a political crisis. or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. in the period of transition. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a-vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? The answer is yes. of course. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [415 SCRA 44. however. there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution. the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly. it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to address all the issues which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally pronounces. No. Jr. The justiciable controversy poised in front of the Court was the constitutionality of the subsequent filing of a second complaint to controvert the rules of impeachment provided for by law. Held: In any event. 160261. In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy. when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right. not departure from. and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed. the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these three branches must be given effect without destroying their indispensable coequality. that the feared resort to extraconstitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally permissible. G. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly. the Constitution." FRANCISCO VS.9 recognition of the people's preference. Again. which is but adjunct. is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the legislature. . the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another. Issue: Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. At the same time. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper submission? It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite shall be held. He must be able to show. although peculiar. the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. 10 Nov 2003] Facts: Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Issue 3 . It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative. Davide. Rather. In fine. not only that the law or any government act is invalid.

The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. On October 6. the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. copies of his Statement of Assets. November 29. with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits under the law. 1994 and Makati. Initial hearing was set on August 25. and Personal Data Sheet.10 At all events. 83 The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. 152 violated petitioner's Right to Security of Tenure. Whether or Not Petitioner was denied due process of law Whether or Not the PCAGC is a validly Constituted government agency and whether the petitioner can raise the issue of constitutionality belatedly in its motion for reconsideration of the trial courts decision. a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives. 2001 are unconstitutional. To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Section 3 (1) says "The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Issue: Whether or Not AO No. The law is solicitous of every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life. 1994. courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. Beyond this. by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. UMALI VS. the PCAGC issued its Resolution of September 23. Petitioner was duly informed of the charges against him. No. 1994. 1994. given their allegation that any impending transmittal to the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. acting upon the recommendation of the PCAGC. GUINGONA [305 SCRA 533. Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment proceedings. the petitioner filed his required answer. 152 Held: . Consequently. 152 dismissing petitioner from the service. former President authorized the issuance of an Order for the preventive suspension of the petitioner and immediately referred the Complaint against the latter to the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC). On August 1. the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28. President Ramos received a confidential memorandum against the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws. section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. 1994. powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. there is no other government branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. 1993 to March 15. Indeed." Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or. it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government. at 2:00 p. The Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. On August 23.m. And was directed him to send in his answer. Perhaps.. He assigned him in Manila. Jr is barred under paragraph 5. After evaluating the evidence on record. March 16." this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the filing of a complaint does. for investigation. 1994 to August 4. As for a legislator. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. finding a prima facie evidence to support six (6) of the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners. at the PCAGC Office. another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period. then President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. No one is above the law or the Constitution. misfeasance and nonfeasance." This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with "impeachment proceeding. 131124. he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. and Liabilities for the past three years (3). Davide. G. rules and regulations during his incumbency as Regional Director. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated.R. 1994. Whether or Not the ombudsman's resolution dismissing the charges against the petitioner is still basis for the petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in AO No. Ramos. This is a basic precept in any legal system which recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the law's moral authority and that of its agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. more particularly the following malfeasance. 21 Mar 1999] Facts: Osmundo Umali the petitioner was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres Fidel V. upon receipt of the said confidential memorandum. nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. Thus.

taking into account the antecedent facts and circumstances aforementioned. petitioner theorized. his dismissal from office on the ground of loss confidence violated his right to security of tenure. he can only be removed for cause and under the Administrative Code of 1987. we are of the irresistible conclusion that the Court of Appeals ruled correctly on the first three Issue. As regards the issue of constitutionality of the PCAGC. 6 loss of confidence is not one of the legal causes or grounds for removal. in the exercise of its equity powers. petitioner's claim of CESO eligibility is anemic of evidentiary support. and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body. It was certainly too late to raise for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings. the succinct and unmistakable manifestation by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that his office is no longer interested in pursuing the case. It was incumbent upon him to prove that he is a CESO eligible but unfortunately. However. As to last issue. Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other pleadings with respect to his alleged violation of internal revenue laws and regulations. In sum. and the position taken by the Solicitor General. it was only posed by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. the Court. According to petitioner. the petition is dismissable on the ground that the Issue posited by the petitioner do not constitute a valid legal basis for overturning the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Court of Appeals. 152 were based on the results of investigation conducted by the PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the Ombudsman. has decided to consider the dismissal of the charges against petitioner before the Ombudsman. After a careful study. It is thus decisively clear that his protestation of non-observance of due process is devoid of any factual or legal basis. The charges included in Administrative Order No. petitioner was not denied the right to due process before the PCAGC.11 Petitioner maintains that as a career executive service officer. His failure to do so is fatal. Consequently. that there is no more basis for Administrative Order No. . It is worthy to note that in the case under consideration. 152. To be sure. he failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the matter. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what petitioner asserts as his security of tenure. he is CESO eligible entitled to security of tenure. as a Regional Director of Bureau of Internal Revenue. However. the administrative action against the petitioner was taken prior to the institution of the criminal case. as effective and substantive supervening events that cannot be overlooked.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful