Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Issue: Whether or not the Convention may call for a plebiscite on the sole
amendment contained in Organic Resolution 1 pursuant to Section 1 Article V
of the Constitution.
FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21,
1972, the president issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines
under martial law. On November 29, 1972 the Convention approved its
proposed constitution. The next day the president issued PD No. 73
submitting to the people for ratification or rejection the proposed constitution
as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification. On December 7, 1972,
Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin respondents from implemented PD
No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among others are lodged
exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the president issued an
order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of free
and open debate on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the
president announced the postponement of the plebiscite, as such, the Court
refrained from deciding the cases. On January 12, the petitioners filed for an
urgent motion praying that the case be decided as soon as possible.
ISSUES:
1.
Is validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2.
Is PD 73 valid?
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the
proposed constitution?
HELD:
The Court may pass upon constitutionality of PD 73 not only because of a
long list of cases decided by the Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section
2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which expressly provides for the
authority of the Court to review cases revolving such issue. The validity of
the decree itself was declared moot and academic by the Court. The
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar.
Whether or not the said resolution was duly enacted by Congress.
HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the
journals from each House and an authenticated copy of the Act had been
presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals
does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the
due enactment of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified in
section 313 of Act No. 190 as amended. The SC found in the journals no
signs of irregularity in the passage of the law and did not bother itself with
**Enrolled Bill that which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both
houses, signed by the proper officers of each, approved by the president and
filed by the secretary of state.
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as amended by Act
No. 2210, provides: Official documents may be proved as follows: . . . (2) the
proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any legislatives body that
may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals
of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or
resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk of secretary, or printed by their
order; Provided, That in the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or the
Philippine Legislature, when there is an existence of a copy signed by the
presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof
of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.
versus
FACTS:
This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of the
DFA, the Secretary of the DOJ, and the OSG.
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive
Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a
claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the
Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that
respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of discretion in refusing to espouse their claims for the crimes against
humanity and war crimes committed against them; and (b) compel the
respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of
reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and
other international tribunals.
Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals
relative to the war were dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951
and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956.
On January 15, 1997, the Asian Womens Fund and the Philippine
government signed a Memorandum of Understanding for medical and
welfare support programs for former comfort women. Over the next five
years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.
ISSUE:
RULING:
But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and
courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and
executive agreements. However, the question whether the Philippine
government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign
government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is
demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the
political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has already
decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its
nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The
wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.
The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the
conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in
time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents
in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.
Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not
alter this analysis. Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by
the Japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of
Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international
crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has
been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by States towards the
community of states as a whole. Essential distinction should be drawn
between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a
whole, and those arising vis--vis another State in the field of diplomatic
protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In
view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have
a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes.
The term jus cogens (literally, compelling law) refers to norms that
command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom.
Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the sense that they are
mandatory, do not admit derogation, and can be modified only by general
international norms of equivalent authority
Imbong v. COMELEC
7/17/2014 1 Comment
FACTS:
Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, filing separate cases and both interested
in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention,
question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming that it prejudices
their rights as such candidates. On March 16, 1967, the Congress, acting as a
Constituent Assembly, passed Res. No. 2 which called for a Constitutional
Convention which shall have two delegates from each representative district.
On June 17, 1969, the Congress passed Resolution No. 4 amending
Resolution No. 2 by providing that the convention shall be composed of 320
delegates with at least two delegates from each representative district. On
August 24, 1970, the Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A.
6132, implementing Res Nos. 2 and 4 and expressly repealing R.A 4914
which previously implemented Res. No. 2. Gonzales assails the validity of
Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a), and the entire law, while Imbong
questions the constitutionality of par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. 6132.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Congress have the right to call for a constitutional convention
and set the parameters of such convention?
2.
HELD:
1. The Congress has authority to call a constitutional convention as the
constituent assembly. The Congress also has the authority to enact
implementing details, contained in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 and R.A. 6132, since
such details are within the competence of the Congress in exercise of its
legislative power.
2. The provisions are constitutional. Sec. 4 of R.A. 6132 is merely in
application with Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute
a denial of due process or equal protection of the law. Sec. 2 also merely
obeyed the intent of the Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding the
apportionment of delegates. The challenged disqualification of an elected
delegate from running for any public office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as it
is reasonable and not arbitrary. Lastly, par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) which is both
contested by the petitioners is still valid as the restriction contained in the
section is so narrow that basic constitutional rights remain substantially
intact and inviolate thus the limitation is a valid infringement of the
constitutional guarantees invoked by the petitioners.
banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without
the concurrence of at least ten Members. . . .. The Supreme Court has the last word in the
construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself. The
amending, like all other powers organized in the Constitution, is in form a delegated and
hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested with that authority to determine
whether that power has been discharged within its limits.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose amendments to the
Constitution and he was able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient time. The
President at that time also sits as the legislature.
On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend
the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples Initiative
The COMELEC then, upon its approval, a.) set the time and dates for
signature gathering all over the country, b.) caused the necessary
publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation, and c.)
instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in
establishing signing stations. On 18 Dec 1996, MD Santiago et al filed a
special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues
that 1.) the constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress and
no such law has yet been passed by Congress, 2.) RA 6735 indeed provides
for three systems of initiative namely, initiative on the Constitution, on
statues and on local legislation. The two latter forms of initiative were
specifically provided for in Subtitles II and III thereof but no provisions were
specifically made for initiatives on the Constitution. This omission indicates
that the matter of peoples initiative to amend the Constitution was left to
some future law as pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
***Note that this ruling has been reversed on November 20, 2006 when ten
justices of the SC ruled that RA 6735 is adequate enough to enable such
initiative. HOWEVER, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part:
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their
various opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated,
that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the
Constitution thru a peoples initiative.
As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare
decisis.
VI and Sec 1-4 of Art VII and by adding Art XVIII entitled Transitory
Provisions. These proposed changes will shift the president bicameralpresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The
COMELEC, on 31 Aug 2006, denied the petition of the Lambino group due to
the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution this is in pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC.
Lambino et al contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only
binding to the parties within that case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec
2 ArtXVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD: The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people.
The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as
public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can
impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed
amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal
to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The
proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the
constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents
bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional
requirements in gathering the signatures that the petition contained, or
incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. The
proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed
amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains.
Petitioners merely handed out the sheet where people can sign but they did
not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments.
There is no need to revisit the Santiago case since the issue at hand can be
decided upon other facts. The rule is, the Court avoids questions of
constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an issue at bar.
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their
various opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated,
that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the
Constitution thru a peoples initiative.
As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare
decisis.
****RA 6735: An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and
Appropriating Funds Therefor