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the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six (6) years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted provision of the Provisional Constitution.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.

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

6735. to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority under no. 6735 is sufficient to cover the people’s initiative to propose amendments? R. No. . considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy. an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions. inadequate. or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself. 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. UNFORTUNATELY.A. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.A. R. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. Curiously. 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. it failed. while R. to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. R.3 initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid. No. NO. Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned. INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM. No. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 5 above. No. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. setting forth therein the policy to be executed. It does not have that power under R. marks its limits.A. carried out. No.A. 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. in every case of permissible delegation. BUT IS. 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. there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. Empowering the COMELEC.A. or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests. or implemented by the delegate. 6735 is incomplete. HELD: Issue 1 – Whether R. rather intentionally. However. Reliance on the COMELEC's power is misplaced.

3. at about 3:30 in the morning of September 28. 25 Oct 2006] Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 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. 1971. 1971. 174153.parliamentary. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group‘s petition. 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. 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. 1970. therefore a constitutes a revision. and the subsequent implementing resolutions. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. who are (twenty-one) EIGHTEEN years or over and are able to read and write.4 LAMBINO VS. After the election of the delegates held on November 10. Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Group‘s initiative petition complies with Section 2. A Revisit of Santiago v. Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people‘s initiative. failure to do so is ―deceptive and misleading‖ which renders the initiative void. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change. 1. 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. 1971. TOLENTINO VS. must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed. 1) FACTS: Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Commission on Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8. Section 2. COMELEC is Not Necessary Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid. L-43150 OCTOBER 16. submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. the Convention held its inaugural session on June 1. Section One of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines is amended to as follows: Section 1. No. CC ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. 1971. 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. COMELEC [G. 1971 (APPROVAL OF PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT – ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral." 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.presidential form of government to unicameral. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971. 2. COMELEC G. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions‖ to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2. The Initiative Violates Section 2. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition. 1 reading thus: . for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. ARTURO M. organization of committees and other preparatory works over. NO.R. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions. it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative. . its session which began on September 27.R. Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between ―amendment‖ and ―revision. or more accurately. Article XVII of the Constitution on amendment s to the Constitution through a people‘s initiative. Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. 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. as its first formal proposal to amend the Constitution. Its preliminary labors of election of officers. the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735.

Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case? 2. under the existing Constitution to resolve the issues in which petitioner. 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. as already demonstrated. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the courts The Court has jurisdiction over the case. even if it is an assembly of delegate elected directly by the people. 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 Justice Laurel did in Angara. on its own fiat. 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. supra. Accordingly. 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 one hand. between any of them. As the Chief Justice has made it clear in Gonzales. or.1 and subsequent acts and resolution is violative of the constitution due to the following grounds: 1. it is within the power as it is the solemn duty of the Court. The language of the constitutional provision aforequoted is sufficiently clear. We see no reason of logic or principle whatsoever. 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. respondents and intervenors have joined in this case. on the other. the Comelec and the Constituent assemblies constituted by the House of Congress. why the same ruling should not apply to the present Convention. and none has been convincingly shown to Us by any of the respondents and intervenors. since at best." 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." thus placing no limit as to the number of amendments that Congress or the Convention may propose. it has been convened by authority of and under the terms of the present Constitution. This partial amendment.5 Section 3. like the electoral tribunals in Congress." per Justice Laurel. 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. and any other constitutionally created independent body. reason and authority. lt says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution. and "upon principle. and the provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one.. but simply because both the Convention and the Court are subject to the Constitution and the rule of law. Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order. we are left with no alternative but to uphold the jurisdiction of the Court over the present case. Issue 2: Constitutionality of piecemeal amendment The Conventional Organic Resolution No.

2. and national and nationalistic policies and aspirations of the people. ISSUES: 1. proposing that Section 5. B. as provided in the present Constitution. 1971. 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. 1967. Article VI. they could brush aside and set the same at naught. 4913 ENFORCING RBH 1 AND 3 . 4813 declaring the act unconstitutional and void. 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. 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. when an amendment is submitted to them that is to form part of the existing constitution. B. be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120. Article VI. without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.. No. Once the original constitution is approved. necessarily. not of men. As already stated. social ideals. one (1) member. L-28196 NOVEMBER 9.6 2. Indeed. upon approval by the President. amendments to the Constitution. . and adequately formidable and reliable as the succinct but comprehensive articulation of the rights. more or less they can assumed its harmony as an integrated whole. 1. Otherwise. when proposing. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 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. on the one hand. of the Constitution of the Philippines. 3. ideology. H. R. 1. for when a whole constitution is submitted to them. the part that the people play in its amendment becomes harder. became Republic Act No. NO. 4913. May constitutional amendments be submitted for ratification at a general election? 5. at the general elections which shall be held on November 14. liberties. 1967. contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government of laws. on June 17. No.R. 1 and 3 be submitted. COMELEC G. RAMON A. No. does not have the legal effect of rendering illegal the House of Representatives elected thereafter. nor of rendering its acts null and void? 3. Subsequently. proposing that Section 16. . Very little reflection is needed for anyone to realize the wisdom and appropriateness of this provision. to a maximum of 180. 1967 (CONSTITUTIONALITY OF R. H." and 3. R.ELECTION) FACTS: Petitioner prays for the judgment of restraining the COMELEC from enforcing R. for approval by the people. And so also. to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November. Congress passed a bill. which.A. H. if it is to be viable as the framework of the government it establishes. amending the Constitution is as serious and important an undertaking as constitution making itself. of the same Constitution. Whether or not the congress may propose amendments to the constitution and at the same time call for a constitutional convention? 4. that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. on the other. 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. Whether or not the "the failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment law . NO. R. at least. the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district. although each province shall have. and they can either accept or reject it in its entirety. B. and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. it follows. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the case being a political question? 2. to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants. providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. as a constituent assembly. GONZALES VS.A. A constitution is the work of the people thru its drafters assembled by them for the purpose. be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention. calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution. At the very least. . 2. the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law.

And. The difference springs from the circumstance that the major political parties had taken sides on previous amendments to the Constitution — except. Issue 3 – Available alternatives to the congress In any event. 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. we do not find. different sessions or different days of the same congressional session. refrained from discussing the same in the current political campaign. A legislation cannot. Inasmuch as the general elections in 1965 were presumably held in conformity with said Election Law. Upon the other hand. however. whatever it may be. the woman's suffrage — and. would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office. 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. the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional.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. in particular. consequently. In short. 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. the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly — violates the Constitution essentially justiciable. or. either in the Constitution. and. In fact. hence. 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. . in the absence of a statute to this effect. supports the view that failure to discharge a mandatory duty. Issue 5 . election. 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. accordingly. Similarly. had the effect of abrogating or repealing the legal provision creating Congress. unaffected by the acts or omissions of law enforcing agencies. not political. particularly those that take place subsequently to the passage or approval of the law. at least. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionality depends upon no other factors than those existing at the time of the enactment thereof. said political parties have not seemingly made an issue on the amendments now being contested and have.15 despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. the House of Representatives." not a general. 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. Such debates or polemics as may have taken place — on a rather limited scale — on the latest proposals for amendment. be nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community to discuss it sufficiently. subject to judicial review. 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. neither has any plausible reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to adopt said resolutions on the same day. nor our law on public officers. upon the lapse of said period for reapportionment. and are not aware of any rule or principle of law that would warrant such conclusion. or of the same Congress to pass the same in. 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. the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court.7 Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that. perhaps. or in the history thereof anything that would negate the authority of different Congresses to approve the contested Resolutions. debated thereon at some length before the plebiscite took place. neither our political law.

Presidential Decree No. On September 27. The questions ask.8 SANIDAD VS. the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers. which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16. 1976. However. a power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not. 991. hold. do you approve the following amendments to the Constitution? For the purpose of the second question. 1976. Quite relevantly. COMELEC G. 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 President issued Presidential Decree No. before the submission to and ratification by the people.. Is it not that the people themselves. Issue 2 – Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution? As earlier pointed out. 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. in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability. insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise. Presidential Decree No. by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. the President issued another related decree. As a consequence. the period of its existence. the national assembly.e. SANIDAD. this inquiry must be done a prior not a posterior i. NO. 991 and 1033. its replacement. the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. L-446640 OCTOBER 12. the full text of which is quoted in the footnote below. 1976. of Presidential Decree No. Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution? 3. amending the previous Presidential Decree No. insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution. the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. the President opted to defer convening of that body in utter . 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16. 2 On the same date of September 22. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case? 2. by their sovereign act. 1976.R. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in "barangays" applicable to the national referendumplebiscite of October 16. commenced Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. 1031. PABLO C. 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. 1976 (PRIME MINISTER PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENT DURING MARTIAL LAW) FACTS: On September 2. the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. 1031 repealed Section 4. the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition period. Twenty days after or on September 22. the issues of martial law. providing for a legislative body. And. to wit: (1) Do you want martial law to be continued? (2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. control. among other things. 1031. in the exercise of that judgment. 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. therefore. and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October 16. the powers of such replacement. provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether. 991. ISSUES: 1. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16. the constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry. President Ferdinand E. 1976. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1976. 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. as well as Presidential Decree No. 1976. to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve. 1033. And.

Issue: Whether or Not the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. of course. however. 10 Nov 2003] Facts: Impeachment proceedings were filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide. 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. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly. Held: In any event. 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. Rather. 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. In the case of a taxpayer. in the period of transition. the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly. Jr. 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. 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. but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. No. there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution. G. 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. which is but adjunct. 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. 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. the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. Davide. 160261. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. He must be able to show. the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. Likewise. when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right. that the feared resort to extraconstitutional methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally permissible. although peculiar. At the same time. not departure from.R. . this Court is ever mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers among the legislative. harking to the dictates of the sovereign will. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review. is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature normally constituted by the legislature. or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. the power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President. or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose." 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 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. not only that the law or any government act is invalid. he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed. Verily. the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one section is not to be allowed to defeat another. at the first instance.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. to its gross legislative power. and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy.9 recognition of the people's preference. 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. Again. Issue 3 . with the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme Court in operation. but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision. the Constitution. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [415 SCRA 44. In fine." FRANCISCO VS. This. Both its resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to. When suing as a citizen.

copies of his Statement of Assets. by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House. 152 violated petitioner's Right to Security of Tenure. Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over the other two great branches of the government. rules and regulations during his incumbency as Regional Director. the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28. at 2:00 p." 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. 1994 to August 4. On August 23. 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. 21 Mar 1999] Facts: Osmundo Umali the petitioner was appointed Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres Fidel V. 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. After evaluating the evidence on record. On October 6. Initial hearing was set on August 25. 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 1. 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. Beyond this. 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." This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with "impeachment proceeding. more particularly the following malfeasance.R. 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. No. And was directed him to send in his answer. acting upon the recommendation of the PCAGC. Petitioner was duly informed of the charges against him. 83 The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. the petitioner filed his required answer. Thus. powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. then President Ramos issued Administrative Order No. it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none. The law is solicitous of every individual's rights irrespective of his station in life. 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). 1994. the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. 1994.. March 16. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated. nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions. and Personal Data Sheet.m. Indeed. Davide. Issue: Whether or Not AO No. This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners. and Liabilities for the past three years (3). 131124. upon receipt of the said confidential memorandum. courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. 1994 and Makati. GUINGONA [305 SCRA 533. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. Ramos. Consequently. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. Jr is barred under paragraph 5. for investigation. UMALI VS. with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits under the law. He assigned him in Manila. As for a legislator. section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period.10 At all events. Perhaps. 152 dismissing petitioner from the service. at the PCAGC Office. a member of the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives. 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. misfeasance and nonfeasance. finding a prima facie evidence to support six (6) of the twelve (12) charges against petitioner. 1993 to March 15. President Ramos received a confidential memorandum against the petitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws. 1994. G. November 29. No one is above the law or the Constitution. 152 Held: ." 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. 1994. the PCAGC issued its Resolution of September 23. 2001 are unconstitutional. 1994. 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.

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