CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 RA 1756 sought to amend some provisions of Art 18
Atty. Renato Galeon Transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution but it was
Reviewer by: Tanya Ibanez
POLITICAL LAW
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Study of the maintenance and the proper balance
between the authority represented by the three inherent
and coercive powers of the State (eminent domain,
police power, power of taxation) vis-à-vis the liberties of
individuals as guaranteed under Article 3 of the 1987
Constitution.
Focal point of the study:
The 1987 Constitution with cross-referencing to the 1935
and 1973 constitutions
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION?
Constitution is the body of rules and maxims in
accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are
habitually exercised.
CONSTITUTION is the written instrument enacted by
the direct action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government are established,
limited and defined and by which those powers are
distributed among the several departments for their safe
and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
KINDS OF CONSTITUTION
 Written v. Unwritten
 Enacted v. Evolved
 Rigid v. Flexible
Written
The provisions are written but it is not the only
description. The provisions are embodied in a single
instrument or set of documents.
Unwritten
Does not necessarily mean that its provisions are not
written. The provisions are NOT embodied in a single
instrument or set of documents and are scattered in
various sources. (e.g. judicial decisions, statutes,
customs and traditions, opinions of jurists)
Examples of countries with an unwritten Constitution:
1. England
2. New Zealand
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Australia
Enacted or Conventional
Formally adopted at a definite time and place following a
conscious effort of the body politic or a ruler. There is
formal adoption of the constitution, normally done in a
plebiscite.
Evolved or Cumulative
A product of political evolution. It is not formally adopted
at a definite and place and not formally ratified by the
people. (e.g. England, Ireland, Australia)
Rigid
A kind of Constitution that can be amended only by a
formal and usually difficult process.
Case in point:
Osmena v. Comelec
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because
our Constitution is a rigid one, which cannot be amended
by a simple legislation.
Flexible
A kind of Constitution that can easily be amended by
ordinary legislation.
THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS
A written, enacted and rigid Constitution. WRITTEN as it
is one whose precepts are embodied in one document.
It is ENACTED as it is formally struck off at a
definite time and place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by the people through plebiscite. It
is RIGID because it cannot be changed by ordinary
legislation but only by a more cumbersome process of
change (through initiative and referendum).
Congress cannot pass a law with the end in view of
amending the Constitution. Any such law contrary to the
Constitution should be inviolated, for the Constitution is
the supreme law of the land to which all laws must
conform and all persons must defer.
Since our Constitution is rigid
Congress cannot amend any of the provisions by
enacting law seeking to change them. Any purported
change or amendment must strictly comply with the
process outlined under Article 17 of the 1987
Constitution.
Advantage of a Rigid Constitution
It can withstand capricious changes or those that are
brought not be legitimate needs but by passing whims
and fancies. Hence, our politicians cannot just tinker the
provisions thereof easily, in accordance with their whims
and fancies.
Disadvantage of a Rigid Constitution
It will hinder progress, instead of spurring it because it is
difficult to amend if there is a legitimate need to bring
about a change.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD-WRITTEN
CONSTITUTION
Broad
Should not only provide for the organizations of the
government and cover all things or persons within its
territory, but should also be comprehensive to provide
for contingency. It should not be like a history book. It
should not only be an embodiment of a past, but must be
able to anticipate the future.
Brief
It should limit itself to the basic principles sought to be
implemented, leaving others to be supplemented by laws
to be enacted by Congress. Should not be a codification
of laws.
Definite
It should be clear and easily understood by the ordinary
people.
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD-WRITTEN
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of Liberty
Refers to the part of the Constitution which sets forth the
fundamental, civil and political rights of the people and
imposes limitations in the exercise of government
powers if only to secure the enjoyment of the civil and
political rights of the people.

 Article 3 - Bill of Rights
Constitution of Government
Refers to the part of the Constitution outlining the
organization of the government, enumerating the powers
of the government, laying down rules for its
administration and defining the illiterate.
 Article 6 – Legislative Department
 Article 7 – Executive Department
 Article 8 – Judicial Department
 Article 9 – Constitutional Commissions (COMELEC
CSC, COA)
Constitution of Sovereignty
Refers to the part of the Constitution which outlines the
process by which the Constitution may be amended or
revised.
 Article 17 – Amendments or Revisions
RULES IN INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS
Verba legis
If we are to interpret the provisions of the Constitution,
ordinary words should be given ordinary meaning.
(textualist approach)
Ratio legis et anima
When there is doubt or ambiguity in interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution, it should be interpreted in
accordance with the intent of the framers. (spirit and
purpose of the law) But if the wordings are clear, no
need to apply this principle.
Case in point: Francisco v. House of Representatives
Involves the impeachment of former Chief Justice
Davide
Ut magis valeat quam pereat
The Constitution has to be interpreted as a whole.
Related provisions of the Constitution must be
interpreted altogether. Provisions dealing with the same
subject matter should be construed as a whole, if only to
effectuate the meaning thereof. Where there is a
seeming inconsistency between some of the provisions,
there should be a conscious attempt to harmonize such
conflicting provisions, if only to give meaning to them.
Case in point: Bayan v. Zamora
Take Note:
In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, the
provisions should be regarded as self-executing
provisions.
Self-executing provisions
Applicable and enforceable at once, without need of
supplementing or enabling laws to be enacted by
Congress. (e.g. Article Bill of Rights)
PROCESSES OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION
1. Amendment – A piecemeal or isolated changes
of some provisions of the Constitution.
2. Revision – Complete rewriting or overhaul of
the Constitution.
Lambino v. Comelec
The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that even if the
purported change appears to be isolated in character,
but if it already alters the underlined principle in the
Constitution, then it shall be regarded as a revision.
There was an attempt to shift the government from
presidential to parliamentary and from bicameral
Congress to unicameral. The SC characterized the
change to be a revision because by allowing such would
alter the underlined principle in the Constitution.
WAYS TO AMEND AND REVISE THE CONSTITUTION
Follow the amendatory process as outlined in Article 17
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
Two stages:
1. Proposal stage – Proposed changes are being
formulated.
Who can propose amendments or revisions?
a. Congress (Sec 1 Art 17)
Amendments and Revisions
Vested with the power to amend and revise the
1987 Constitution and it needs ¾ votes of all its
members, voting separately.
The Congress, however, cannot do this in the
exercise of their legislative power. It has to
transform itself into a constituent assembly with
the primary task is to bring about change in the
Constitution.
Constituent Assembly – composed of the
members of the Congress
b. Constitutional Convention (Sec 1 Art 17)
Amendments and Revisions
Composed of persons who are not members of
the Congress. The members are elected at large
on the basis of their expertise of Constitutional
law. A body distinct and separate from the
Congress and Constituent Assembly.
Who can create this body? (Sec 3 Art 17)
The Congress by a vote of 2/3 of the members,
voting separately, can call the Constitutional
Convention. But if the members of the Congress
are unable to decide whether or not to call the
ConCon, then by a majority vote, they can ask
the people through a referendum.
Question: If the Congress decides to call the
ConCon by a vote of 2/3 and enacts a law for
the same purpose, but after which, it enacts a
subsequent law providing for the details of the
composition of the ConCon by a majority vote, is
the subsequent law valid?
Imbong v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent
law which merely deals with the details of the
composition of the ConCon is valid even if the
same is approved by the simple majority vote of
the members of Congress. What is important is
that the first law calling the ConCon was
approved by the required 2/3 votes of the
members of Congress.
Assuming further that pursuant to the first law
enacted by Congress, the ConCon was
convened. How shall ConCon be regarded in
relation to Congress? Is ConCon superior or
inferior to Congress?
 Loomis v. Jackson
ConCon is superior to the Congress because
its task is to draft the fundamental law of the
land, a sovereign function.

 Wood’s Appeal
ConCon is inferior to the Congress because it
is merely a creation of Congress.
 Frantz v. Autry
ConCon is independent and co-equal with the
Congress as long as it exists and confines
itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction of
revising or amending the Constitution.
But what principle do we adhere to in the
Philippines?
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito
ConCon is a co-equal body with Congress.
Sec 1 in conjunction with Sec 3 of Art 17 – Congress
may propose amendments to the Constitution by itself
or it can call a ConCon.
2. Ratification stage – the proposed amendments or
When what is envisioned is a mere amendment, the
proposal is better made by the Congress because
calling a ConCon would entail gargantuan expense.
When what is envisioned is a revision or an overhaul
of the entire Constitution, it is advisable to entrust the
task to the Constitutional Convention, owing to the
presumed expertise of its members.
At the end of the day, the choice in the method of
proposal is left to the sound judgment or discretion of
the members of the Congress. Such that while it is
advisable of giving the task of revision to the ConCon,
there is nothing in law which prohibits the Congress
from undertaking the task itself.
Gonzalez v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress can do
both. While it is at best advisable for Congress to call
the ConCon when the envisioned change partakes of
the nature of a revision, there is nothing in law which
prohibits the Congress from undertaking the task
itself.
c. People’s Initiative (Sec 2 Art 18)
Only Amendments
A new concept introduced to the 1987
Constitution allowing the people to propose by
themselves some amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative.
This is subject to some limitations, however.
Limitations:
(1) Voting requirement – Petition must be
supported by at least 12% of the registered
voters with 3% per legislative district
(2) Can only be availed once every 5 years.
(3) Needs an enabling law to be enacted by
Congress.
Santiago v. Comelec
RA 6735 was declared as an insufficient
enabling law to govern the system of
initiative to amend the Constitution.
Lambino v. Comelec
Upon motion for reconsideration, RA 6735
was held to be a sufficient enabling law to
govern the system of initiative. The ruling
overturned its earlier pronouncement in
Santiago v. Comelec.
(4) Limited only to amendments and not to
revisions
(5) Petition to amend the constitution should be
signed by the people themselves as authors
and the draft amendments should be stated
already in the petition
Lambino v. Comelec
The Supreme Court held that any such
petition to amend the Constitution should be
signed by the people themselves as authors
and the draft amendment or amendatory
provisions shall be incorporated already in
the petition so as to prevent fraud and
deception.
revisions either sponsored by the Congress, ConCon
or proposed by the people themselves should be
submitted to the people in a plebiscite for their
approval or disapproval.
(Sec 4 Art 17)
Ratification should not be held earlier than 60 days
but not later than 90 days following the approval of
the proposed/draft changes as authored either by
Congress or ConCon. But if the proposed changes
are authored by the people, then the 60 to the 90 day
period should be counted not from the filing of petition
by the people but upon the issuance by the Comelec
of a certification attesting to the fact that the people’s
petition is sufficient in form and in substance.
Why is there a need for a definite time-frame?
Because the framers of the 1987 constitution did not
want recurrence of what happened in the past where
there were cases that were filed questioning the
propriety of submitting the proposed amendments for
ratification by the people.
Sanidad v. Comelec
One of the issues was that according to Sanidad, the
people were only given 21 days within which to study
and deliberate on the proposed changes and
according to him, 21 is too short for such important
issues to be discussed and intelligently studied by the
people.
Almario v. Alba 157 SCRA 69
This case involves several amendments and one
amendment pertaining to the acquisition of private
properties through the method called grant would be
deliberated by the people within a
period of just 67 days. Whereas the other proposed
amendment dealing with urban land reform provides
only for 42 days. A petition was brought questioning
the propriety of the submission to the people of the
proposed amendment.
The Supreme Court held that 21 days is enough
because under the old Constitutions, it was uniformly
stated that ratification must be held not later than 3
months.
Hence, mindful of the rulings in the cases, the
framers of the 1987 Constitution already set a definite
time frame.
Tolentino v. Comelec
ConCon was called pursuant to resolutions of both
houses No. 2 and 4 issued an Organic Act No. 1
 submitting to the people in advance one amendment
lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The Supreme
Court succinctly ruled that piecemeal submission of
amendments for ratification of the people is not
allowed. It should be submitted to the people as a
whole.
Gonzales v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled that ratification may be
conducted on the same day as the general elections.
It does not have to be special elections, it may be
synchronized with a general election.
This was heavily criticized because according to
jurists, there should be a separate election or
plebiscite for that purpose. But this ruling was
reiterated in another case.
There was an amendment sponsored by Congress to
increase the composition of its members from 120 to
180, but there were two other resolutions of both
houses No. 2 and 4 calling the ConCon.
The question is: If the SC allowed the people to vote
on the amendment proposed by the Congress, then
the people are expected to vote again in a later time
to the amendments proposed by the ConCon. Is this
not also a piecemeal submission of amendments
which the SC declared to be invalid in Tolentino v.
Comelec?
How to reconcile the two cases:
In the case of Gonzales, what are voted upon by the
people were the amendments proposed by Congress,
whereas the remaining amendments would have to
be proposed not by the same body, but by another,
the ConCon. And normally it would take time before
the ConCon could come up with the proposed
changes in the Constitution.
Unlike in the case of Tolentino v. Comelec, the
proposed amendments were all proposed by the
same body, the Constitutional Convention.
Occena v. Comelec
The Supreme Court ruled here is nothing wrong in
allowing the people to vote on the proposed
amendments on the same day as the general
elections.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
The amendatory process in bringing about a change in
our Constitution is outlined under 15 of the 1987
Constitution. Assuming that there is a move to amend
the Constitution by the Congress and there is a case
being filed questioning the procedure adopted by
Congress in proposing amendments to the Constitution,
can the courts of law take cognizance of this case or
should this issue be characterized as a political question?
The Supreme Court ruled that the court is powerless to
resolve this kind of case because any such issue could
well be characterized as a political question over which it
has no competent jurisdiction.
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito
There was a purported change or amendment to be
introduced to the old Constitution regarding parity rights,
giving rights to foreigners to own lands in the Philippines.
The amendments were proposed by the Congress itself
but in the course of the deliberation of the purported
amendment, there were 3 senators who were not
allowed to vote and were not included in the computation
of the required vote of ¾. Similarly, there were also
around 8 congressmen who were suspended and not
allowed to vote during the deliberation and excluded in
computing the required vote of ¾.
A case was filed questioning the method by which such
amendment was introduced. It was contented that if they
factor in the 3 senators and 8 congressmen, then the
amendment was invalidly adopted because it fell short of
the voting requirement.
The Supreme Court ruled that it had no power to resolve
such issue, it being characterized as a political question.
However, in the recent cases
But in the recent cases of Tolentino v. Comelec, Tanada
v. Cuenco Gonzalez v. Comelec, Sanidad v. Comelec,
Santiago v. Comelec and Lambino v. Comelec, the court
now has the power to pass judgment on any issue
questioning the amendatory process by which any
proposed changes in the Constitution are to be
introduced. In reviewing the amendatory process
pursuant to a case being filed, the court is exercising the
power of judicial review.
Hence, the Mabanag ruling is now abandoned.
Judicial Review
The power of the courts of justice to check the validity of
executive and legislative acts whether or not they are in
accordance with the Constitution. Through this power,
courts of law are now empowered to inquire into the
validity of executive and legislative acts to check if these
acts are in conformity with the Constitution.
In the exercise of judicial review, the Judiciary as a
whole is not asserting its supremacy as it is not supreme
over the other two branches, but it is merely performing
its bounden duty under the Constitution to allocate
conflicting claims of authority.
Hence, when the Judiciary performs its judicial power, it
is not asserting its supremacy but that of the Constitution.
Judicial review is only a part or component of judicial
power.
JUDICIAL POWER (Art 7 Sec 1, 2nd par)
Power of the court to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally enforceable and to
determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of
any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Expanded concept of judicial review
A new concept introduced in the 1987 constitution where
courts of law are now empowered to scrutinize even the
discretionary powers given to other branches, if only to
determine whether or not there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
Does this expanded concept of judicial review obliterate
what is known as political question? Can the courts now
pass judgments on these issues characterized as
political questions?
Distinguish between a purely political question and what
is not.
A purely political question is beyond the sphere of
judicial scrutiny. Hence, courts of law are not
empowered to decide those questions which are
categorized as purely political questions. Otherwise, if it
is not a purely political question, there is a good chance
that such issue may be decided by the court.
(e.g. elections for choosing the president – purely
political question, but when his presidency is protested, it
can be validly decided by the Supreme Court and
because it has nothing to do with wisdom of choice and
something to do with procedure in elections)
Assuming that the Congress proposed an amendment
lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, can the courts of
law dictate upon us that such proposed amendment is
not sound?
No, it is a purely political question because it has
something to do with the wisdom of the proposed
amendment. But whether or not such proposed
amendment was validly submitted to the people for their
approval, then it can be decided by the courts because it
ceases it to a purely political question.
POLITICAL QUESTION
Tanada v. Cuenco
That question which under the Constitution can be best
answered by the people in their exercise of sovereignty
and in regards to which, full discretionary powers are
given to other branches of the government.
Are the lower courts also empowered to exercise
judicial review? Can they declare a law
unconstitutional?
Yes. They have the power and competence to declare a
law unconstitutional pursuant to Art 8, sec 5, par 2, sub
par (a). Lower courts have the authority to resolve or
decide on the validity of a law, only that their decisions
may still be reviewed, reversed, and modified by the
Supreme Court on appeal or certiorari.
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court
What happens if after the release of judgment of
lower court invalidating a law, not one of the parties
filed a case on the decision? Would such declaration
necessarily bind the whole world or just the parties?
It only binds the parties. It is only when such decision is
affirmed by the Supreme Court that it will become
binding upon the whole world, because only decisions of
the Supreme Court would form part of the laws of the
land, under the principle of Stare Decisis. Hence,
decisions of lower courts and even the CA are not
binding upon the whole world. At best, said decisions
may only be considered persuasive.
However,
JM Tuason v. Court of Appels
The SC held that the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on
the validity or invalidity of RA 2616, a law authorizing the
expropriation of the Tatalo estate. This was questioned
before the CA by Rosefe and Dizon, the losing
defendants in the ejectment cases. In connection with
the certiorari filed by the Rosefe and Dizon, the CA
issued an injunctive writ, seeking to enjoin the
enforcement of the writ issued by the lower court.
In nullifying the writ issued by the CA, the SC held that
the CA had no jurisdiction to decide on the
constitutionality of RA 2616. The CA acted without
authority in granting the injunctive writ because the rule
before, the CA can only validly issue injunctive writs in
connection with an appeal, and never in connection with
a certiorari. Hence, the CA acted beyond the scope of its
authority in granting the injunction.
But the rules now pursuant to 1997 RCC, Rule 65,
the CA is now empowered to issue an injunctive writ
even in connection with a certiorari.
Requirements
When the validity of a law is put in issue
A copy of the petition or complaint questioning the
validity of the law must be furnished with the office of the
Solicitor-General, being the counsel for the State.
Because the Sol-Gen will defend the validity of the law
being assailed of as invalid.
When what is being questioned is not a law enacted by
Congress, but rather a provision of an ordinance
A copy of the petition need not be furnished with the
office of the Sol-Gen. It is enough that the copy of the
petition or complaint is furnished with the provincial or
city attorney.
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Checking Function
The Judiciary can check if the acts of the executive
or legislative branch are in accordance of the
Constitution.
IBP v. Zamora
Pres Erap exercised his calling out power and the
SC reviewed his exercise of calling out power, to
determine if there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Osmena v. Comelec
The SC checked the validity of RA 7056 which was
passed by Congress with the end in view of
amending some provisions of Art 18. The SC held
that the law was unconstitutional.
Serrano v. Maritime Gallant Services
The SC checked the validity of Section 10, par 5 of
RA 8042 and declared the provision unconstitutional
for being violative of the equal protection clause.
2. Legitimating Function
Estrada v. Arroyo
The SC stamped legitimacy to the Arroyo
administration. There was a dispute whether or not
Arroyo validly succeeded as the President of the
Phils. The SC held that Arroyo validly became the
successor of Erap. (Justiciable question)
In re Saturnino Bermudez
The SC refused to resolve the issue of whether or
not the Aquino administration was a legitimate
administration. (Political question)
How to reconcile the two cases:
It has something to do with the manner by which
Arroyo and Aquino became the president. In the
case of Aquino, she became the president not by
virtue of the Constitution, but through extra
constitutional means via the people power. Her
government was a revolutionary government. In fact,
the first declaration that she issued was that her
administration was constituted in defiance of the
1973 Constitution.
Whereas, in the case of Arroyo, she became the
president by virtue of the 1987 Constitution. In fact,
she swore to defend the 1987 Constitution.
3. Symbolic Function
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
Before the SC could decide the case petition filed by
Salonga, the criminal information charging Salonga
with subversion was already dismissed upon order
of the Sec of Justice. Despite the withdrawal of the
criminal case against Salonga, the SC decided the
case on the merits because the SC saw the need to
 formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance of the
bench and the bar in respect to the determination in
the absence or presence of probable cause.
Symbolic in a sense that there was no longer actual
case or controversy, but just the same, the case was
still decided on the merits by the SC.
There is no doubt that lower courts and the
Supreme Court can exercise judicial review, but
courts cannot automatically take on the case and
decide the same
Because courts of justice are passive instruments, in
a sense that they can only act when their jurisdiction
is invoked as by filing the necessary complaint or
information. Hence, even if there is a legal problem
calling for the interpretation of an act in light of its
conformity with the Constitution, the courts of law
cannot automatically take cognizance of that legal
problem. There has to be a case, complaint or
petition to be filed before the courts of law before
they can act on the matter because they are passive
instruments.
But, even if a complaint or case is already filed, it
does not also follow that it will be decided on the
merits. Any such case which poses a legal question
or a question dealing with the validity or invalidity of
a law, may only be decided if the case complies with
the essential requisites for a valid exercise of judicial
review.
FOUR ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
1. Existence of an actual case or controversy
Before the courts of law can decide on a
constitutional question, there has to be a case and
an actual case or controversy. You cannot just go to
court and ask of for legal advisory opinion such as
asking about their opinion on the law of same sex
marriage.
There has to be actual conflict of interest and
conflicting claims before the courts can validly act on
a legal problem.
Petition for declaratory relief – petitioner asking for a
declarative judgment to inquire into his rights or
duties under a law, a contract, an ordinance, etc. An
action for declaratory relief may satisfy the
requirement on actual case because by filing the
petition, you are not merely asking for an advisory
because the law is there already, and what you are
asking the court is to declare what your rights and
duties under a law that is enacted. It is not therefore
similar to a legal advisory opinion.
In re Saturnino Bermudez
SC threw out the petition when it was a petition for
declaratory relief because under Rule 63, any
petition for declaratory relief must be filed only with
the RTC and not directly with the SC, which is not
given the authority resolve petitions for declaratory
relief at the first instance. Also, the issue of the case
partook of the nature of a political question.
Follows that if a petition is filed prematurely, said
petition must be dismissed outright.
Lozano v. Nograles
There was a House Res calling for the Congress to
convene to consider amending the Constitution.
Lozano questioned it already and the SC held that it
was rather premature for Lozano to file the petition
because there was no showing that the Congress
would indeed convene to propose amendments to
the Constitution.
Montesclaros v. Colemec
There was a pending bill in Congress seeking to
postpone the SK elections in 2002. This was
questioned by Montesclaros and those who would
want to run as SK officers. When the bill was stll
pending, they already filed a petition seeking for the
declaration of the bill as unconstitutional.The SC
threw out the petition because the filing thereof is
still premature.
Follows that if the case is already mooted by
subsequent events, said petition must be dismissed
outright.
Gonzales v. Narvasa
Before the SC could resolve the case, the PCCR
already ceased to exist. The issue posed in the case
became moot and academic with the cessation of
the operation of the PCCR.
Lacson v. Perez
On May 2001, Arroyo declared a state of rebellion in
the city of Manila and this was questioned by Ping
Lacson. On May 6, she lifted the state of rebellion
and on that basis, the SC dismissed the petition of
Lacson on the ground that it was already moot and
academic because of the subsequent lifting of the
declaration of rebellion.
Exceptions:
 When the case presents a situation where
there is a grave or culpable violation of the
Constitution.
David v. Arroyo
They were arrested without a warrant of arrest
during the state of national emergency was in
force. Similarly, premises were searched
without a search warrant. Since there was a
culpable violation of the Constitution, the SC
decided on the merits of the case
notwithstanding the eventual lifting of the state
of national emergency by Pres. Arroyo.
 When the case presents an issue which is of
paramount public interest
David v. Arroyo
Issue posed is of grave importance to the
public. Freedom of the press and expression.
 When there is a need for the courts of law to
formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
of the bench and the bar.
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
Before the SC could decide the case petition
filed by Salonga, the criminal information
charging Salonga with subversion was already
dismissed upon order of the Sec of Justice.
Despite the withdrawal of the criminal case
against Salonga, the SC decided the case on
the merits because the SC saw the need to
formulate doctrinal precepts for the guidance
of the bench and the bar in respect to the
determination in the absence or presence of
probable cause.
 When the issue in the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review
 Alunan v. Mirasol
There was a dispute regarding the authority of
the DILG to supervise the SK elections. But
before the SC could decide on the case, there
were already two SK elections that were
conducted. Notwithstanding the mootness of
the case, the SC nonetheless decided the
case on the merits, if only to settle the issue
once and for all.
 When there are still other issues that are still
ripe for adjudication
Malaluan v.Comelec
Elections between Malaluan and Evangelista.
Before the SC could decide the case, the term
of office of the contested position had already
expired. That could have rendered the case
moot and academic, but there was still another
issue that was still ripe for adjudication – the
damages, the salaries which the Comelec
directed Malaluan to pay to Evangelista.
2. Constitutional question must be raised by the
proper party
The person questioning the validity of an act must
have the legal standing. Otherwise, the petition will
be dismissed.
Gonzales v. Narvasa
SC held that Gonzales had no legal standing to
bring the action because he was not claiming the
position held by Narvasa. SC dismissed the petition.
In re Saturnino Beermudez
SC dismissed the petition because Bermudez had
no legal standing to bring the action because he was
not claiming the positions held by ether Aquino or
Laurel.
Alan Paguia v. Office of the President
Paguia filed a case questioning Gloria’s appointment
of Chief Justice Davide as the representative to the
United Nations, for being violative of the Philippine
Service Act of 1991 which mandates that the
mandatory retirement age of public officers is 65. SC
threw out the petition because Paguia had no legal
standing because he was not claiming the position
held by Davide.
What should be established if you are suing as a
private citizen?
1. Demonstrate that you suffered an injury or you
stand to suffer an injury by reason of the act
complained of.
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
He was aggrieved by the application of Sec 10
par 5 RA 8042 because the monetary awards
due him was limited only to just 3 months. He
had the legal standing to bring the action.
David v. Arroyo
He was arrested without a warrant, therefore, he
had the legal standing to bring the action.
Ynot v. Immediate Appellate Court
He suffered damage by the outright confiscation
of his carabaos.
What should be established if you are suing as a
taxpayer?
1. Demonstrate that there was illegal disbursement
of public funds and that they were derived
pursuant to the taxing and appropriation power
of Congress.
Kilosbayan v. Morato
The SC did not characterize the action as
partaking of a taxpayer’s suit because while
admittedly the action involved disbursement of
public funds, the funds were not derived from
the taxing or appropriation power of Congress
but by the operation of lotto.
Gonzales v. Narvasa
The SC did not characterize the action as
partaking of a taxpayer’s suit because while the
action questions the disbursement of funds, the
funds did not come from Congress but from the
office of the President.
Take Note:
For a taxpayer suit to prosper, it is not enough
that the action involves illegal disbursement of
public funds. It needs to be established also that
the funds were actually collected by virtue of the
taxing power of Congress and that the same are
spent pursuant to the appropriation power of
Congress.
What should be established if you are suing as a
legislator?
1. Demonstrate that the act complained of would
infringe your prerogatives as a legislator.
Francisco v. House of Representatives
The validity of the second impeachment
complaint filed against Davide. Francisco was
joined by other petitioners who were members of
Congress and their legal standing was upheld as
valid by the SC. SC said that as legislators, they
had the right to question the illegal proceedings
before the House of Reps, otherwise if the
proceedings will not be stopped, the petitioners
who are legislators would be made to participate
in a patently illegal impeachment proceedings.
What should be established if you are suing as a
voter or electorate?
1. Demonstrate that the act complained of
somehow infringe your rights as voter.
Nicolas Lewis v. Comelec
Nicolas Lewis was formerly a natural born
Filipina, and then she migrated and got
naturalized in the United States and became
American citizen. Later on, a law was enacted
RA 9225 Citizenship Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.
She applied to re-acquire her Filipino citizenship
and her petition was granted, making her a dual
citizen from the viewpoint of a third state.
After which, she tried to register as a voter for
her to be able to vote under the Absentee Voters’
Act while she was in the US. But her application
was denied by the Comelec because only OFWs
and not migrants could avail of the Absentee
Voters’ Act. She then filed a petition questioning
the decision of the Comelec.
Her personality and legal standing was
questioned by the respondents but the SC held
that Nicolas Lewis had the legal standing to
bring the action because her right as voter was
 prejudiced by the decision of the Comelec in
denying her application for registration as a
voter under the Absentee Voters’ Act.
Can the government question the validity of its own laws?
People v. Vera 65 Phil 56
There was this old commission act Act 4221 providing
that the act may be effective in provinces which could
allocate the salaries of probation officers. Suggesting
that for provinces which could not afford the salary of a
probation officer, the act may not be enforced in those
provinces.
This was questioned by the office of the Solicitor
General contending that this was violative of the equal
protection clause. The legal position of the Sol-Gen was
questioned by accused Vera and according to him, the
government cannot question the validity of its own acts.
It is absurd.
The SC held that the state has the right to question the
validity of its own laws because more than anyone else,
it is the state which should be interested in seeing to it
that all its laws are valid and constitutional.
Can the Integrated Bar of the Philippines question the
validity of laws?
Bayan v. Zamora
SC held that the IBP does not have the legal standing to
bring the action, unless it can prove that any of its
members suffered injury by reason of the act complained
of.
3. Constitutional question must be raised at the
Take Note:
As a rule: If a petition is filed by a person who has no
legal standing to bring the action, such petition must be
dismissed outright.
Exceptions:
There are instances wherein even if the case is filed by a
person who has no legal standing to bring the same, the
case may still be decided by the courts of law.
 When the issue of the case is of transcendental
importance, of great importance to the public.
IBP v. Zamora
IBP was adjudged of having no legal standing to
bring the petition but the SC decided the case
because it has something to do with the
determination of whether or not President Erap
really had the calling out power.
Bayan v. Zamora
Bayan was adjudged of having no legal standing
to bring the action but the SC decided the case
just the same on the merits because it involved the
validity of the visiting forces agreement.
 When what is asserted in a case is a public right.
Akbayan v. Aquino
Akbayan filed a case asking that it be furnished a
copy of the Japan-Philippines Economic
Partnership Agreement for them to scrutinize the
terms and conditions. The SC held that Akbayan
had no legal standing to bring the action because
it was not a party to the agreement, but
nonetheless, the SC decided the case on the
merits, because Akbayan is asserting a public
right – right to public information Art 3 Sec 5, Art 2
Sec 28 transparency of governance.
 When the petition questioning the validity of an act
is filed by way of a facial challenge
You can mount this petition by way of a facial
challenge if you are questioning the validity of a
law because it is supposedly void for being vague
or its scope is encompassing such that the same
may seemingly be valid if applied to the petitioner,
but the same would be invalid if applied to others.
A petition by way of a facial challenge normally
can be lodged only if it has something to do with
the freedom of speech and of the press.
Chavez v. Gonzales
Hello Garci tape. There was an attempt on the part
of the government through Sec. Gonzales to
silence the media and prohibiting the airing of the
hello Garci tape. Hence, any publisher, radio or tv
station which would air out the hello garci tape
may be penalized and their franchise may be
cancelled.
This was questioned by Frank Chavez, the former
Solicitor-General for being violative of the freedom
of speech and expression. His personality to bring
the action was challenged by the respondents.
According to Gonzales, Chavez did not have the
legal standing because he was not a media
practitioner and an owner of a tv or radio station.
SC held that the petition filed by Chavez was by
way of a facial challenge.
earliest opportunity
The issue questioning the validity of an act should
be pleaded in the initiatory complaint or petition.
Otherwise, when one fails to incorporate that issue
in the complaint or petition itself, the issue may no
longer be taken up in the course of the trial and may
not be considered in the course of the revision of
decision nor on appeal.
At the inception, you should already be questioning
the validity of an act or statute. Otherwise, it would
not be regarded as timely.
Umali v. Guingona
Upon the filing of certiorari, he did not question the
validity of the creation of the Presidential
Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC),
the body which investigated him. It was only after
encountering an adverse decision, that on motion for
reconsideration, he raised such issue.
The SC characterized the issue to be untimely. The
SC should have raised such in his action for
certiorari.
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Serrano did not raise the issue before the labor
arbiter, nor on appeal, but on motion for
reconsideration before the NLRC, and raised it again
before the CA. But nonetheless, the SC held that it
was still timely for Serrano to have raised the issue
in filing the certiorari before the CA because
administrative bodies like NLRC have no power to
declare a law unconstitutional. Hence, it would be
useless for Serrano to raise such issue before the
labor arbiter and NLRC, knowing that these bodies
do not have the authority to declare a law
unconstitutional.
 Exceptions:
 In criminal cases
Even if you did not at first raise a constitutional
issue, you can still raise such issue at the
subsequent stages of the proceedings at the
discretion of the judge. If you are the accused
and you failed to question the validity of a law at
the inception of the proceedings, you can still
raise the same at the discretion of the judge.
In civil cases, a constitutional issue may also be
raised at any stage if it is necessary in the final
determination of the case. Similarly in
administrative proceedings, a constitutional
issue may also be raised if it has something to
do with the jurisdiction of the courts, except
when estoppel comes in. (You already invoked
the decision of the court, you ask affirmative
relief, and later on you question that it has no
jurisdiction of the case)
4. Any such question or issue must be decisive of
the case.
The issue must be decisive or must be the lis mota
of the case. It is controlling, or it is necessary to
resolve the issue, otherwise, the case may not be
validly decided. Normally, even when the case
involves a constitutional issue, if the courts can
decide that case without necessarily touching that
particular issue, then the courts of law should do that,
out of respect to the other branches of the
government. Because before a bill becomes a law, it
has to be approved by Congress and the President.
A law therefore is the collective effort of Congress
and the office of the president. So if a case is filed
questioning the validity of a law, the courts should
be careful in dealing with the issue. If they can
decide the case without necessarily touching on that
particular issue, then they have to do that.
Sandueta v. Dela Costa 66 Phil 155
Sandueta was a judge of a court in Manila and an
act was enacted reorganizing the Judiciary and
pursuant to which, he accepted an interim
appointment in another place and so he vacated his
post. He was however, not extended a permanent
appointment in his new post.
He went back to his old post, only to discover that it
was already occupied by Dela Costa. Sandueta then
questioned the validity of the re-organization act,
alleging that it was violative of the security of tenure
of judges.
The Supreme Court did not tackle such particular
issue. It decided the case on the basis of estoppel.
SC held that Sandueta by his acceptance of the
interim appointment in another sala, should be
deemed to have vacated his post.
EFFECTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
LAW
Should it be voided in its entirety or only a portion
thereof?
Ynot v. Intermediate Appelate Court
The entire executive order was invalidated.
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime
Only Sec 10 par 5 or RA 8042 was voided.
Salazar v. Achacoso
Only Art 38 was voided.
When can there be partial declaration of invalidity or
unconstitutionality of a law?
If the questioned provision of a law is the heart and
soul of that law, then such provision is voided, it
follows that the entire law should also be voided.
But if the questioned provision is not the heart and
soul of that law, then there should only be a partial
declaration of unconstitutionality. This can happen if
the two requisites are met.
Two requisites:
1. Intention on the part of Congress to sustain the
remainder of the act, even if a portion thereof is
declared unconstitutional. Expressed under the
Separability clause.
2. The remainder could stand independently as a
law minus the assailed provision.
Orthodox View
If the entire law is declared unconstitutional, it is to
be regarded that it creates no rights, imposes no
obligations, it affords no protection and creates no
office. It is as if such law has not been written in the
statute books.
Osmena v. Comelec
The SC considered RA 7056 as not having been
written at all.
Operative Fact Doctrine
Laws, prior to their being declared unconstitutional
should be considered valid and be complied with.
Serrano de Agbayani v. PNB
Ynot v. Intermediate Appelate Court
When to apply the orthodox view vis-à-vis the
operative fact doctrine?
If the law has already been in effect for quite some
time, such that there are already vested rights
acquired, what should be applied is the operative act.
But if no vested rights have been acquired, you
apply the Orthodox view.
Osmena v. Comelec
No vested rights have been acquired yet because it
was assailed of being invalid at the very beginning.
Before it could validly take effect, the law was
already questioned.