You are on page 1of 3

I.

IN GENERAL
A. Political Law Defined
MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION 114 SCRA 77 (1982)
MAKASIAR, J
FACTS: Petitioners alleged that Judge Asuncion violated Art.14 of the Code of Commerce.
The cited provision prohibits public officers from engaging in business.
HELD: Judge Asuncion did not, or cannot, violate it since such provision is deemed
abrogated
Although the cited provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce, it however,
partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the
government and certain public officials and employees.
Political law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with
the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the state and
defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory. Political law
embraces constitutional law, law of public officers and corporations, administrative law.
Specifically, Art.14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of administrative
Law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect
to engaging in business, hence, political in essence.
Note that the Code of Commerce took effect on 1888. Upon the transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to US and later from US to RP, Art.14 of the Code of Commerce must
be deemed to have been automatically abrogated because where there is change of
sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not
with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
expressly reenacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.
B. Constitutional Law Defined
C. Constitution Defined
Types/Kinds of Constitution
II. BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION
A. The February 1986 Revolution and the Proclamation of the Provisional Constitution

Proclamation No. 1 (February 25, 1986): On February 26,1986, after the EDSA
revolution and in compliance with President Corazon C. Aquino's Proclamation No. 1
dated February 25, 1986, requiring, as a first step in the reorganization of the
government, "all appointive public officials to submit their courtesy
resignation beginning with the members of the Supreme Court.

Proclamation No. 3 (March 25, 1986): DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO


IMPLEMENT REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS,
ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY
TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION

CASES
LAWYERS LEAGUE vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986)
MINUTE RESOLUTION (Sgd.) GLORIA C. PARAS Clerk of Court
FACTS: On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1
announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986,

proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of
power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the
power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines."The legitimacy of the Aquino Govt is questioned on the ground that it was not
established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution.
HELD: Petitioners had no personality to sue and petition states no cause of action.
The legitimacy of the Aquino admimistration is not a justiciable matter but a political one. It
is political because it belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines
are the judge.
The Aquino government is a de jure and a de facto government for the people have made
the judgment and have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective
control of the entire country.
The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government and all
the 11 members of the Supreme Court have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the
Republic under her government.
IN RE: SATURNINO V. BERMUDEZ 145 S 160
PER CURIAM
FACTS: In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no respondents, petitioner, as a
lawyer, quotes the first paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as erroneously stated) of
Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution, which provides in full as follows:
Sec. 5. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the
February 7, 1986 election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby extended
to noon of June 30, 1992.
The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall
be held on the second Monday of May, 1992.
Claiming that the said provision "is not clear" as to whom it refers, he then asks the Court
"to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who, among
the present incumbent President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel and the
elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. Tolentino being referred
to under the said Section 7
ISSUE: WON the provision is ambiguous?
HELD: No. The petition is dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction and for lack for cause of
action.
The petition furthermore states no cause of action. Petitioner's allegation of ambiguity or
vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous, it being a matter of public
record and common public knowledge that the Constitutional Commission refers therein to
incumbent President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel, and to no
other persons, and provides for the extension of their term to noon of June 30, 1992 for
purposes of synchronization of elections. Hence, the second paragraph of the cited section
provides for the holding on the second Monday of May, 1992 of the first regular elections for
the President and Vice-President under said 1986 Constitution.
Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action. For the
legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the
realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the
people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President
Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is
not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government.
Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to

uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. (Lawyers
League for a Better Philippines, etc. vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al)
For the above-quoted reason, which are fully applicable to the petition at bar, mutatis
mutandis, there can be no question that President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President
Salvador H. Laurel are the incumbent and legitimate President and Vice-President of the
Republic of the Philippines.

LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO of the Court of Appeals dated 14


November 1990.
210 SCRA 589 (1992) PADILLA, J.
FACTS: The petitioner, Reynato S. Puno, was first appointed as Associate Justice of the Court
of Appeals on 1980. On 1983, the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the
Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to BP Blg. 129. On 1984, petitoner was appointed to
be Deputy Minister of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. Thus, he ceased to be a member of
the Judiciary. After February 1986 EDSA Revolution, there was a reorganization of the entire
government, including the Judiciary. A Screening Committee for the reorganization of the
Intermediate Appelate Court and lower courts recommended the return of petitioner as
Associate Justice of the new court of Appeals and assigned him the rank of number 11 in the
roster of appellate court justices. When the appointments were signed by Pres. Aquino,
petitioner's seniority ranking changes from number 11 to 26.
Then, petitioner alleged that the change in seniority ranking was due to "inadvertence" of
the President, otherwise, it would run counter to the provisions of Section 2 of E.O. No. 33.
Petitioner Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote a letter to the Court seeking the correction of his
seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals.
The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's request.
A motion for reconsideration was later filed by Associate Justices Campos Jr. and Javellana
who are affected by the ordered correction. They alleged that petioner could not claim
reappointment because the courts where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist
at the date of his last appointment.
ISSUE: WON the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the old Court of
Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court exisiting before the promulgation of E.O. No. 33.
HELD: The Court held that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court
existing prior to E.O. No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by
the 1987 Revolution. The Court of Appeals that was established under E.O. No. 33
is considered as an entirely new court.
The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the courts existing
before E.O. No. 33. It was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the
revolutionary goverment of Corazon Aqwuino in the aftermath of the people power in 1986.
Revolution is defined as "the complete overthrow of the established government
in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it" or "a sudden
radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually
effected with violence or at least some acts of violence."