Consti Notebook - Sabog Notes

Orientation to Consti Law
Tuesday, 20 August 2019 4:47 PM
Why Study Consti 1? Materials:

- The Constitution as you know is the fundamental law of mandates given Schedule 1. Syllabus
○ Whatever law that violates the consti it will be stomped down of Exams 2. 1987 Constitution Codal
○ The standard is the constitution Pre-Midterm 3. Textbook
- Political Law comprises a big part of the BAR Exam (20%) Exam- 4. Case Law
○ Commercial law
○ Mercantile law Sept 14, 2019
○ This makes it crucial for us to be studying the subects 1pm COMPUTATION
What Will I learn Midterm Grade
1. National Territory 1. PreMidterm - 40%
2. Principles and State Policies Pre-Final Exam 2. Midterm Exam - 45%
3. Citizenship 3. Class Recitation- 15%
4. Structure of gov't November 16,
5. Powers of the Government 2019, 1pm Final Grade
a. The Composition of the gov't (Juidicary Executivve, Legislative) 1. Refinal Exam - 40%
2. Final Exam/ OBE- 45%
How we study consti 1 Midterm Exam - 3. Class recitation - 15%
- Read the Text book first October 7-12,
○ Flow 2019 Consti 1 Grade
○ Framework 1. Midterm Grade - 45%
- Read the assigned cases in full text Final Exam 2. Final Grade - 55%
- Synthesize everything you have read December
○ Tie it in together at the end of the day Written Exam
- All throughout, graded recitation 30% - Knowledge of Law
40% - Application of Law to Facts
20% - Manner of Answering
Important Policies (Logical, Brief, Direct
a. Grades are purely on academic performance. Nothing Personal 10% - Penmanship and
b. NO Special exam and recit except when absence is due to very important reason [Notarized Presentation
medical Health Certificate
c. No Removal Exam
d. Full access to your scores and grades
e. NO audio/video recording
f. NO taking of pictures
New Section 1 Page 1

What is Political Law?

1. It is a branch of Public Law
a. A Branch of law that deals with the state andits citizens
b. It does not deal with the relation between private individuals
Macariola vs Asuncion
Facts
1. Asuncion decided a case and awarded different parts of the property to the
2. The lots were distributed according to a Protect Partition
3. Asuncion acquired the property from spouses Galapan
4. Then Conveyed this lot to The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries to increase stock
holding
Complaint against Judge Asuncion

Violation of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce, which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce,
and holding office and intervening in commercial or industrial companies.
Defense
Civil and commercial law in the past will remain as long as they are not repealed
As a political law, when there is a transfer of soverignty it becomes abrogated
Article 14 of the Spanish Code of Commerce, as a political law, has no legal and binding effect
Transfer of sovereignty= Automatic abrogation of political Laws of the former sovereign unless expressly
reenacted
SC
: Decided that Article 14 is a political law because it regulates the relationship between the government
and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges.
Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partake more on the nature of a n administrative law
because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and empkloyees respcting engaging in
business.
Political LAW
- Subects:
○ Constitutional law
○ Administrative law
○ Law on Municipal Corporations
○ Law of Public Officers
○ Election Laws
Constitutional Law
1. The study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as represented by the
three inherent powers of the state and the liberty as guaranteed by the Bill Rights. (Cruz,
Constitutional Law.
2. A study of the power of the gov't in relation to the powers of the ciizens in that particular state.

Saturday, 24 August 2019 12:54 AM
Manila Prince Hotel V. GSIS
FACTS
Proclamation No. 50 - GSIS pursued a privatization program and sold shares of Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC)
Two (2) Bidders - Manila Prince Hotel (Fil-51% at P41.58 per share) and Renong Berhard (Mal -
51% at P44)
Manila Prince Hotel subsequently sent a letter to GSIS matching Renong Berhad
Paragraph v of the Guidelines for Public Bidding
"If for any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of Shares GSIS may offer this
to the other qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified
Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price per share
ISSUE
Who
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the
constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any
force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental paramount and supreme law of
the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS)
WHAT "REASON" DID MANILA PRINCE HOTEL USE?
Filipino First Policy
Article XII, Section 10, Paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
the state shall give preference to qualified Filipinos
WHY WAS IT VALID FOR THE FILIPINO FIRST POLICY PROVISION TO BE USED IN INTERPRETING
THE BIDDING RULES WHEN THE RULES DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH RULE ON PREFERENCE?
RULING
"…..impliedly written in the bidding rules… all laws and contracts must conform with the

"…..impliedly written in the bidding rules… all laws and contracts must conform with the
fundamental law of the land…."
"…constitutional mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of shares immediately
to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its submission of a higher or even the highest bid…."
"….while this may neither be expressly stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the
constitutional fiat is omnipresent to be simply disregarded. To ignore it would be to sanction a
perilous skirting of the basic law."
SC ruled that the shares may be sold to Manila Prince Hotel, once they have matched the bid of
the highest bidder in pursuant to the Filipino First policy of Par 2, Section 10 Article XII of the
1987 Constitution.

Francisco vs House of Reps.
Saturday, 24 August 2019 1:06 AM
"Ut Magis Valeat Quam Peram"
Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole
Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to

effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat
another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together.
In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a
construction which will render every word operative rather than one which may make the
words dle and nugatory.
Interpretation and Construction of the Constitution
- Verba Legis
○ The word of the law
- Ratio Legis Est Anima
Definition:
The words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers
- Ut magis Valeat Quam Pereat
It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.
DECISION
Covered by Judicial Review + Violated the one-year ban
a. text (grave abuse of all instrumentalities and branches)

b. Ordinary meaning of "initiate" according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary
c. Deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, specifically the speech of
Commissioner Roberto Conception of the rule on expanded certiorari jurisdiction
d. Deliberation of the 1986 Constitutional Commissioner, specifically the speeches of
Commissioner Regaldo,
e. Maambong: the act of initiating included the act of taking initial action on the complaint,
dissipates any doubt that indeed the word 'initiat" as it twice appears in Article XI (3) and
(5) of the constitution means to file the complaint and take initial action on it
a. Initiate: understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to begin, to
commence, or set going
b. To perform or facilitate the first action
c. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of
the House shall be necessary either to a rm a resolution of
Impeachment OF the Committee or to override its contrary resolution. The vote of
each Member shall be recorded."
Section 3 (1).The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power

to initiate all cases of impeachment.

to initiate all cases of impeachment.
xxx xxx xxx
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within a period of one year, (Emphasis supplied)
a. and Bernas on the meaning of the term initiate.

a. The beginning or the initation is the filing of the complaint and its referral to the
Committee on Justice
b. Reps relied upon that "impeachment is deemed initiated" it does not say
impeachment proceedings are initiated.
(1) there is the ling of a veri ed
complaint either by a Member of the House of Representatives or by a private
citizen
endorsed by a Member of the House of the Representatives; (2) there is the
processing
of this complaint by the proper Committee which may either reject the complaint or
uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the Committee rejects or upholds the
complaint,
the resolution must be forwarded to the House for further processing; and (4) there
is
the processing of the same complaint by the House of Representatives which either
a rms a favorable resolution of the ommittee or overrides a contrary resolution by
a
vote of one-third of all the members.
WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in

Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on
November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary
General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under
paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

Civil Liberties Union vs the Executive secretary, anti graft
league of the Philippines
Saturday, 24 August 2019 6:13 PM
EO 284
FACTS
- The petitioners wanted to see the constitutional validity of EO 284 by Cory Aquino
- Petitioners argue that EO 284 runs counter to Article 7 Sec 13 of the 1987 Constitution]
ISSUE
Disagrement on interpretation
There is no dispute that the prohobition against
Respondent "Unless other wise provided in this Constitution

- Admits of borad exception ans makes reference to Sec 7 par 2 Article IX-B insofar as the appointive officials
mentioned therin are conerned:
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any
other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
gov'- owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries
EO. 284 = 284 Law= Exception
Petitioners:
Only admits of specific and express exceptions
The exception must be expressly provided in the Constiution, as in the case of the Vice President
Application of Verba Legis
The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" must be given a literal interpreation to efer only to
those particular instance cited in the Constitution itself
Application of Ratio Legis Est Anima

The qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution in Sec. 13, Article VII cannot possibly refer to
the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article Ix-B of the 1987 Constitution. To contrue said qualifyin
phrase as respondents would have us do, would render nugatory and meanigless the manifest intent and purpose
of the gramers of the Constitution to impose a stricter
Application of Ut magis Valeat uam Peram
Respondents' readin of the provisions in question would render certain parts of the Constitution inoperative
Article VII has reference to Sec 7, par Article IX - B would render meaningless the specific provision of the
onstitution authorizing the VP to become a member of the abinet….
Interpreting the two provisions under consideration as one ie Section par 1 of Article IX - B providing the general
rule and the other, ie, Section 13, Article VII, exception
Section 13, Article 7

- The Constitutionality of the EO 284
Holding
- The EO 284 is affirmed
- Cabinet member shall not have more than two primary functions
- Notwithstanding positions that are ex-officio or incidental to the primary.
○ Similarly, these officials cannot receive compensation for the additional positions held in public office

The Constitution
- is the supreme law of the land.
- It is the for all laws and contracts

Almario VS Alba
BP 643 - Plebiscite on Jan 27, 1984 on Res Nos. 104,105
BP 643
- Directs COMELEC to publish amendments
- Assurance of publication
- Barangays all over the country have been enjoined to hold community gatherings
- Broadcasts
Resolution 105 and 103 - 67 days nbefore plebiscite Day

Resolution 113 - 42 days before plebiscite
1935 Constitution - 36 days after approval of Act No. 4200
1976 amendments which admittedly

Lambino VS Comelec
Facts:
Lambino Group
- Petitioned to amend the constitution through people's initiative Qualitative test
- 6.3 million signatories were received - Presidential ->
- 100,000 copies of the proposed petition were printed parliamentary
- The signatories indicated were not on attached to the proposed petition - Bicameral ->
- Proposed Petition unicameral
○ Term limits on legislative members were to be lifted
○ Members of the interim parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office Quantitative test
- Comelec did not give them due process - Overhauls 105
COMELEC provisions
- Cited Santiago vs COMELEC - Article 6 and 7
- The changes on the proposal is more of a revision that it is an amendment because there was a substantive
change on the Constitution as a whole, whereas an amendment is a minor change that does not necessarily
affect the material of the constitution as a whole Article 17 Section 2
- Decision: Not Directly Proposed by the People
1. Text
i. Full text of the proposed amendment must be written on the face of the petition or attached to
it; if so attached, such fact must be stated on the face of the petition
2. See
i. Every signatory must see the full text of the proposed amendment before signing the same
3. Sign
i. Every signatory must be personally signed, No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
ISSUE
- Whether or not the proposed changes were revision or amendments

- Whether the procurement of the 6.7 million signatures were valid
RULING
- Only amendments, and not revisions
- No need to revisit Santiago case
- Dismiss the petition by the Lambino group on the grounds of deceptively gathering the signatures of 6.7
million people

Imbong vs Ferrer
FACTS:
- CONCON: 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative district with a minimum of 2 per Doctrine of necessary implication
district - Congress as the constituent
- RA 4914: implemented Resolution No. 2 and practically restating in toto the provisions of said Resolution No. assemvly right to call a
2 constitutional Convention
- Resolution 4: amended Resolution No. 2 by providing different rules on apportionment of reps per district by
the required three-fourths vote
- RA No. 6132 Sec. :Implenting Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, calling for a constitutional convention and expressly
repealing RA 4914.
○ 2: The apportioned district representatives
○ 4: Person holding office must give up their position
○ 5: Delegates cannot run for office
○ 8: prohibits any candidate from representing or being represented as,
ISSUE
The Constitutionality of RA 6132 on the basis that Congress, as a legislative body, cannot call for a
Constitutional Convention
○ Can Congress, acting as a legislative body, call for a Constitutional Convention?
○ Can Congress, acting as a legislative body, lay down the implmenting details for the operation of a
Constitutional Convention?
HELD
- Petition dismissed
- Reason:
○ Section 2: Batanes - Moving population, inaccurate census, daily mortality rates. The impossibility of
ABSOLUTE Proportion
○ Section 4,5,8 - This immunizes the candidate from self-interest as participation in the convention is out
of love and duty for the country

Mabanag V Vito
Petitioners:
- 3 Senators and 8 Representatives were not counted in the vote due to irregularities in their
election
- The bill that was recently passed couldn't have been passed if the aforementioned individuals
were part of the Consensus (3/4 vote)
Issue
- Does the Court have jurisdiction to interfer?
Held
- Unnecessary to include the Senators and Reps who were ignored as the issue on legislation is a
pollitical matter that best left to the legislative body of the government.
- Moreover, the SC did not find any irregularities nor any impediment that the recently
proposed bill posed with regard to the 1987 Constiution of the Philippines

Gonzales v. Comelec
RA 4913
Petitioners - Ratifications
is presented
FACTS to the
- Memebers of the House of Representatives act as component elements of a constituent assembly People of
- De Facto Doctrine the
○ Although Congress has not complied with the requirements given in order to constitute an assembly, Philippines
they will be treated as De facto Congressmen . Therefore, they should be able to carry out their - Section 2
primary function of caryying out legislations - months to
- The RBH were presented during the upcoming elections (voted the same day, but separately) be informed
○ 1: proposed and amendment to the Constitution respecting membership and apportionment of seats on the
in the house of Reps. amendment
○ 2: called a convention to propose amendent to the Constitution and members of the Convention to be s
elected in the genral elction to be held on the second Tusday of November 1971 - Publictation
○ 3: proposed an amendment to the Constitution to authorize senators and members of the House of in the
Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without official
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress Gazette
- Respondents' argument: political question - Posting in
○ The Solocitor general maintains that this Court has no jurisdiction over the case upon the ground that Conspicuous
the same is 'merely political' as held in (Mabanag vs Lopez Vito). places
- SC: places of
○ We have jursidiction, since the power to amend the constitution lies in Gov't
○ Since, when proposing=, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the members of Buildings
Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily. - Availability
○ In short, the issue whher or not a Resoltion of Congress- acting as a constituent asembly - violats the of Cpies in
Constitution, is essentially justicable, not politcial, and, hnce, subjeect to judicial review polling
- Petitioners' Argument places
○ Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives - propose amendments or call a convention - Copies in
therfor - but may not avail of both- that is to say, propose amendment and call a conention- at the different
same time. languages
- SC - Amendment
○ Whether or not we call a Concon s printed in
○ RBH full at the
back of
▪ No 2 is different from that of RBH 1 and 3
ballots
○ The amendmens propose under RBH no. 1 and 3, will be submitted for ratification several years before
those that may be proposed by the constitutional convention
○ In the examination of framers ther ewas no denial to have it on the same day Standard of fair and proper
- Respondent submission
○ Since Confress has decided to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, why not let the
whole be subtmited to said convention, instead of ,likewise, proposing some specific amendments to The sufficiency or insufficiency,
be from a constitutional angle, of
- SC the submission therof for
○ Whether such act is wise or unwise is based on the minds of Congress. ratification to the people on
November 14, 1967, depends
ISSUE upno whther the provisions of
- The constitutionality of RA 4913: act enforcing a plebiscite for the ratification of the CONCON RA 4913.
○ Absence of funds for the its carrying out
○ De Facto Congressmen
○ Congress can only either amend or call for Concon and not both
○ Done through Special election
▪ Given to the people in the upcoming election
RULING
- Petition dismissed.
- Congress has not exceeded its limits in enacting RA 4913

Santiago vs COMELEC
FACTS
- Delfin:
○ People's initative to Amend 1987 Consti lifting term limits
- Comelec asked delfin to file a memorandum amended are:
○ He was given a period, and it expired Sections 4 and 7 of Article
- Santiago VI, 7 Section 4 of Article VII,
○ Miriam filed a SCA for prohibition before the SC 8 and Section 8 of Article X
○ There is no enabling law; RA 6735 is not an adequate enabling law 9 of
the Constitution. Attached
▪ While providing for 3 systems of initiative, failed to provide for rules on initiative on Constitution.
to the petition is a copy of a
The deliberate omission means that another law is required to utilize PI as a toolto amend the
"Petition for Initiative on
constitution
the 1987
▪ SB 1920, intending to be THAT law, is still pending
Constitution"
ISSUE
a. If RA 6735 covered amendments
W/ added clause:
b. Validity of COMELEC Resolution 2300q DO YOU APPROVE OF
c. Lifting term limits- (revision/amendment?) LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS
d. COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertatin Delfin's request: OF ALL ELECTIVE
a. Time/date GOVERNMENT
b. Mun. election officers to assist Delfin OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR
c. Directing the unsigned propsed petition for initiative THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4
RULING AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI,
a. INADEQUATE, Pure lip-service- RA 6735 SECTION 4 OF
1. IT is NOT an adequate enabling law; thus, we cannot exercise our right to People's initiative. ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8
2. It did not fully provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right to propose amendments to OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987
the Constiution PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
i. Section 2- The word "constitution is an afterthought; Section 2 was merely lifted from Section 1
of SB 17 which covers loval initative an dreferendum; "in whole or in part" cannot be referring to
the Constitution because initiative is limited to amendment RES. NO. 2300
ii. Unlike in the case of other systems of initiatve, the Act does not provide for the contents of a "THE COMMISSION ON
petition for initiative on the Constitution ELECTIONS CAN
iii. No Subtitle for initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution; only national and local DO NO LESS BY
initiative and referendum. SEASONABLY AND
b. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 - Void JUDICIOUSLY
c. Order to COMELEC - Dismiss Delfin Petition PROMULGATING
GUIDELINES
AND RULES FOR BOTH
NATIONAL AND LOCAL USE,
IN IMPLEMENTING OF
THESE LAWS."

Sanidad v. COMELEC Doctrine of Fair and Proper
Submission
FACTS:
Sept 2, 1972 - MARCOS issued PD# 91 (P5M) - referendum on Oct 16 1976

September 22 1972- Marcos issed PD 1031 (P8M)
- Amending PD 991 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in barangays
(Citizen Assemblies) applicable to Oct 16, 1976 referendum
- Clause: "That the people's continued opposition to the interim National Assembly evidences to
have such body Abolished
- President --> Prime Minister
SANIDAD
- "There is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constiutent power to propose
amendments to the new Constitution"
ISSUE
Too short
RULING
Petition dismissed, in the absence of legislation, the President may assume the power to enact
amendments. 3 weeks is not too short
Parllelisms made
15 days - Women's suffrage
10 days: Constitutional amendment appending as ordinance
1. Simply states that it shall be held not later than 3 months after the approval of such
amendment or revision
2. This matter of submission involves "an appraisal of a reat variety of relevant conditions,
political, social and economic
3. Proposal

Tolentino vs COMELEC
Doctrine of FAIR and Proper Submission
FACTS
- 1971 Coonstitutional Convention passed Organic Resolution No. 1
- Organic Resolution No. 1 - lowerin the voting age from 21 to 18; "without prejudice to other
amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention"
- Purpose; the sole purpose of the proposed amendment us ti enable the eighteen year olds to
take part in the election for the ratification of the constiution to be drafted by the Convention.
Petitioners' argument
- Cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all the other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention.
ISSUE
- Is there any limitation or condition in Section 1 of Article XV if the Constition which is violated
RULING
- All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people
in a single "election" or plebiscite
- "Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of
the votes cast at an election which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.
- Standard of fair and proper Submission
○ Wisdom and Appropriateness of this provision
▪ In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution
may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only suffiecent time but ample
basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as
its relation to the
- No one knows what changes in the fundamental principles of the Constitution the convention
will be minded to approve. To be more specific, we do not have any means of foreseeing
whether the right to vote would be of any significant value at all. Who can say whether or not
later on the Convention may decide to provide for varying types of voters for each level of the
political units it may divide the country into. The root of the diffficulty in other words, lies in
that the Convention is precisely on the verge of introducing substantial changes, if not radical
ones, in almost every part adnd aspect of the existing social and political order enshrined in
the present Constitution

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Tuesday, 3 September 2019 5:36 PM
Difference between judicial power and judicial review

- Judicial Power (Article 8, Section 1)
○ The power of the judiciary to safeguard the rights which are legally demandable and enforceable
○ Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
○ GADALEJ
- Judicial Review (Article 8, Section 4(2), 1987 Constitution
○ To determine constitutionality of the decisions of the governmental
○ Duty of the courts Writ of Mandamus:
○ Part of Judicial Power
It compels a certain part of
○ Lays down the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
government to perform a specific duty
○ Is the Supreme Court now supreme?
or function.
▪ Not an expression of supremacy, but constitutional supremacy
○ Theory of the power of Judicial Review
▪ Power of the courts to test the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts and , as a
consequence, declare them unconstitutional
▪ It is
- 1987 constitution
○ Echo of ML
▪ SC we will not entertain the case because it is not a justiciable question
▪ DUTY is emphasized by the courts
▪ Now the courts cannot simply say they cannot judge it for the reason that it is political
- Marbury v Madison
○ FACTS
▪ Incumbent President Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson
▪ To maintain judicial control, Congress, a few weeks before Jefferson took office, passed the
Judiciary Act of 1801
▪ Subsequently, Adams appointed several judges [midnight appointments] and issued the judges'
commission, signed and sealed. These were not delivered however
▪ Before Jefferson took office, he withheld the release and delivery of the commissions
▪ Marbury filed a writ of Mandamus before SCOTUS, asking that the court direct Jefferson to
release and deliver the commissions.
○ ISSUES
▪ Did Marbury have the right to the commission?
▪ If he did, would the proper remedy be a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court? NOT THE
PROPER REMEDY
○ DECISIONS
▪ Instead of tackling whether the Writ of Mandamus was the proper remedy, the Court examined
the basis for the original filing of said action before the Supreme Court
▪ Basis: Judiciary Act of 1789 - allows the original filing of a Mandamus Petition before the
Supreme Court
▪ Art 3Sec. 2, Constitution: restrictive Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction - all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls
○ WHEREFORE, Judiciary Act of 17889 is unconstitutional Marbury has a right to the commission.
However, it is a technical victory for Madison (and Jefferson)
○ It was the first occasion for the judiciary to declare Congress' act as unconstitutional, thus the Power of
Judicial Review.
- Garcia v Exec Secretary
○ Petitioner Garcia:
▪ Section 19 of the oil deregulation law of 1998
□ Prescribed the period for removal of price control on gasoline and other finished
petroleum products and set the time for the full deregulation of the local downstream oil
industry
□ In violation of Art 12, Sec 19
 The State shal l regulate or prohibit monopolies the public interest so requires. No
Combinations in restraint in trade
▪ Argument
□ Full deregulation and removing price control at a time when the market is still dominated
and controlled by an oligopoly would be contrary to pi
○ Reason
▪ Does not outrightly mandate regulation or prohibition
▪ Must show that monopoly exists
▪ Must show that public interst require regulation or prohiition
▪ That public interst requires
○ What is the power the power of judicial Review
▪ Power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts for ther conformity with
the onstitution
○ Dissecting Petitioner's challenge
▪ Challnge is not deregulation per se
▪ Challenge == Soundness or wisdom of the timing of oil deregulation
○ Timing of full deregulation = political Question
▪ Reasonable Time = Appraisal of a variety of political, social and economic conditions
▪ Conditions= beyond the range of evidence in a court of justice
▪ Conditions= left to the wisom of Congress
PROFF that petitioner Questions widom of timing and manner

○ PROFF that petitioner Questions widom of timing and manner
▪ Proposal to adopt a system of partial dergulation
- Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission
○ FACTS
▪ Pnoy won as president because of "Kung walang corrupt , wala mahirap
▪ Pnoy found a need for a special body to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption
allegedly committed durin the previous administration
▪ Pnoy issued EO No "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010
▪ Petitioners assail the constiutionality of EO No. 1
○ Petitioner's Argument
1. Creation of a public office
= Power of Congress
2. For the President to create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution , a statute
or an authorization vested in him by laws
3. No such power is in the Constitution or any specific law that authorizes the President to create
the PTC.
○ SC: Belated introspection
▪ Is the SC, in the exercise of its constiuionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to
recent initiatives of the legisative and executive departmeant, exercising undue intereference
▪ JR =/= Assertion of superiority
□ Justice Laurel
 "… it does not assert any superioirity…but only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the… onstitution
▪ No Consti Violation = Will not Proscribe
□ After review, the Court find no constitutional violation of any sort, then, it has not more
authority proscribnig
▪ SUMMARY
□ JR is part of JP
□ JR - Determine Constitutionality of any branch
 Violation of equal protection clause
□ Expanded Judicial Rewvie- Determine Grave Abuse of Discretion, always tested against
Constiutitonal Backdrop
 Call of President for the AFP in ase of lawless violence, But not violence occurs
□ Judicial Rewview =/= Assetion of Judicial Supremacy
□ Judicial Review == Assertion of Constitutional Supremacy
- Politcal Question
○ Political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constituiton, are to be
▪ decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
▪ discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent on the wisdom, not legality of a partial
measure
- Estrada v Arroyo
○ FACTS
▪ Petitioner Estrada was elected President while respondent Arroyo was elected VP
▪ Chavit Singson, accused Estrada of receiving millions of pesos rom jueteng lords
▪ Dramatic events calling for Estrada's resignation
▪ Eventually, Estrada issued a statement that he is stepping down for the nation's healing.
▪ Arroyo sworn in a and started performing official functions
○ Conention
▪ Petitioner Estrad
□ I am the Pres
▪ GMA
□ NO
▪ Estrada's Quo Warranto
□ I am the President. GMA is only the acting president
○ Constiutitonal Question
▪ Did Estrada resign as President?
▪ Was Estrada only ermporary unable to act as President?
▪ Should Arroyo be considered only to be in an acting capacity?
○ GMA Argument: It is a political Quwstion
▪ The case assails the "legitimacy of the Arroyo administration. They stress that respondent Arroyo
ascended the residency through people power, and expression of people's will, beyond the
power of the court to ascertain.
▪ Reliance on Lawyers League v. Aquino
○ COURT: Standard of Political question
▪ Decided by the people
▪ In regard to discretionary authority
▪ Upon the wisom and legality
○ Issues at hand: Constiutional
○ The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretationg of certain provisionn in the 1987
Constitution, notablySection 1 of Artile II and Section 8 of Article VII, and the allocation of government
powers under Section 11 of Article VII
- EDSA 1 And EDSA 2 Distinction
○ 1
▪ Exercise of the people power of revultion which overthrow the whole government
▪ Extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new gov't resulted from it cannot be the subject of
judicial review
▪ Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino gov't was installed through a direct exeercise of
the power of the Filipino people "n defiance of the provision of the 1973 Constittuion, as

the power of the Filipino people "n defiance of the provision of the 1973 Constittuion, as
amended
○ 2
▪ Exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the gov't for
redress of grievances which only affected for redress of grievance which only affected the office
of the President
▪ Intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it cause and the succession of
the VP
- Effect of Revolutionary Gov't
○ The legitimacy of a gov't siredby a successful revolution by people power is beyond tjudicial scrutiny for
that gov't automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop.
- IBP v Zamora
○ ISSUE
▪ The president in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility
patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression
- In compliance with the presidential mandate, the PNP Chif, formulated the Letter of Instuction
02/2000 which detailed the manner by
- Petitioner IBP's Argument
□ What the IBP questions, however, is the basis for the calling of the Marines under the
aforesated provision. According to the IBP, no emergency exists that would justify the need
for the calling of the military to assist the police force. It constends that there is no lawless
violence
○ Solicitor General
▪ Necessity of calling the armed forces is political
○ DECISION: NO
▪ The Court cannot agree with Solicior General that the ssue involved is a political question beyond
the jurisdiction of this Court to review. When the grant of power is qualified, conditional or
subject to limitation, the issue of whther the prescribed qualifications or conitions have been
met or the limitation respected, is justiciable
▪ There is no full discretion given to the President.
▪ ART 7, Sec 18 (Conditional)
□ Whenever it becomes necessay against lawless violence
▪ Pol ques, subjec to Jud Rev
□ When political questions are involved, the Constiution limits the determination as to
wherther or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
▪ GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
□ Case-case basis
□ Capricious or whimsical exercise of judgement that is patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
▪ Whent the President calls the armed forces to prevent lawless violence, he necessarily exercises
discretionary
▪ BURDEN of IBP
□ To provide for evidence to show to the court that there was invasion or no violence
□ Bereft of factual basis
□ No evidence of the calling out of the president
□ The President's calling out the army
□ It was constitutional
- Fancisco vs HREP
○ Recall our topic on Constiutional Interpretation and Construction
○ Impeachment case
▪ One Year Ban! Unconstitutional!
○ Respondent Argument: Political question
▪ HREP shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment
▪ The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment
▪ The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of
this section.
▪ So what is pol question
□ A qustion of policy
□ A question not of legality, but of wisdom
○ Is it possible that Pol Ques are obliterated?
▪ Promulgating Rules on Impeachment = Political Question
▪ BUT what f ther eis a grave abuse in promulgating the rules?
▪ 1987 Consti = Review the exercise of discretion !
▪ Thus t all forms of exercise of discretionmay be reviewwed__ it is atended by grave abuse are
political question now obliterated?
○ Purely Political Question
▪ Fr. Bernas. Ultimately, therefore, it will always have to be decided by the SC according to the new
numerica l need for votes
▪ CONCEPTIONS:
□ Truly political
□ Not Truly political questions
□ Section 1, Article VIII, of the Court does not define what are justiciable political questions
and nonjusticiable political questions
▪ JUS POL Ques vs NON Jus Pol Ques
In our jurisdiction, the determination of a justiciable political question from a non-justiciable
political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies
TIP: DO NOT USE JUSITIABLE PQ

TIP: DO NOT USE JUSITIABLE PQ
Insead say, say ' IT'S JUSTICIABLE BECAUSE WHILE THE WISDOM BEHIND THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION IS A QUESTION OF POLICY, THUS POLITICAL, EXPANDED JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWS
THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHTHER IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE,
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
SUMMARY
-Justiiable Question - Legality or Constitutionality
PQ- By the People or Full Discretion
PQ- Wisdom, Not Legality or Constituionality
EJR =/= Obliteration of PQ or Exercise of Discretion
EJR == Only tests GADALEJ
GADALEJ== is there Constiutional Limits to Exercise of Discretion
TPQ - Discretion without Constitutional Limits
Functions of Judicial Review

1. Checking Function
a. If acts of the Legislative and Executive are in accordance of the Constituiton (IBP v Zamora)
2. Legitimating Function
a. The Judiciary can stamp legitimacy into the doubtful status of government acts in order to erase all
doubts as to its constitutionality ( Estrada v Arroyo)
3. Symbolicc Function
a. The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts,
doctrines, or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection
given by contitutional guarantees.
Salonga V Pano
FACTS
- Salonga was indicted for Subversion following the series of bombings in Manila
- When the information was filed in court, Peitioner filed to quash the information.
- Respondent Judge denied the motion; instead, he issued a resolution directing the prosector to file an
information under the revised AntiSubversion Act
- Petitioner had the resolution reiewed before the Minister of Justice and challenged it before the Supreme
Court, saying that ther eis not sufficient evidence for purposes of finding probable cause
- Before the SC can issue a decision, Minister of Justice issued its decision finding that there is no probable
case
- SC decided the case nonetheless.
DECISION
- The court also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constituitonal principles, precepts, doctrines,
or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protention.
WHO MAY EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW

- Art 8, Sec 1
○ SC and Lower courts
- Art 8, Sec 4 (2)
○ Cases involving constitutionality may be heard by the SC
- Art 8, Sec 5 (2)
○ Review, Revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal (appellate jurisdiction) or certiorari and final
judgements and order of lower courts
- YNOT v IAC
FACTS
- EO 626- A - No beef nor carabeef shall be transported from one province to another, Otherwise,
confiscation and foreiture
- Petitioner transported 6 carbaos in a pump boat from asbate to Iloilo and they were confiscated
by the Police ttion commander of iloilo for violating EO 626-A
- Case for REPLIVIN (recovery before the RTC. Petiioner challenged the constitutionality of EO 626
- After considering the merits of the case, the court sustainedconfiscation of carabos. The court
declined
RT can decide on Constitutionality
- Garcia v Drilon
○ FACTS
- Respondent Garcia filed a VAWC case against Petitioner Garcia before the RTC, specially
designated as a Family Court. She also the court, in a civil case, to issue a Temporary Protection
Order
- RTC issued TPO for 30 days. Respondent Garcia asked the Court to renew said TPO
- During pendency, Petiioner went up to CA filed for a Petition for Prohibition, Challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9262 on the ground of substantive due process and equal protection
clauses.
- CA dismissed the petition for failure
- Family courts don't have the power to declare a law as unconstitutional
○ SC are special courts, but that is only a esignation, but its is still an RTC of general jurisdiction, not for
purpose of its general jurisdiction, but only that you have a specialzed courts.
- CONDITIONS FOR the EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
○ There must be an actual case
○ Locus standi
Constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity

○ Constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
○ Lis mota
ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
IMBONG VS OCHOA
- Petitioners: Unonstiutitonal
- Respondents: "No Actual Case"
○ The petitions do not present any actual case or cotroversy because the RH Law has yet to be
implemented.
○ The questions raised by the petitions are not yet concrete and ripe for adjudication since no one has
been charged with violating any of its provisions.
○ There is no showing that any of the petitioners' rights has been adversely affected by its operation
- Actual Case
○ An Existing case is ripe for determination, lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory
opinion
○ Immediate and threatened injury
○ Conflict in rights
○ DECISION:
- That actual case or controversy exits and that the same is ripe for judicial determination
□ Particular public health officers are threatened to be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits.
BELGICA v Executive Secretary
2013 GAA fir the PDAF
PD 910 for the malampaya Funds
PD 1869, as amended by PD 199, for the Presidential Social Fund
Pork Barrel refers to an appropriation of gov't spending meant for localized projects and secured solely or primarily
to bring money to a representative's district. It is a lump sum, discretionary fund of Members of the Legislature
NBI Investigation:
The government has been defrauded of some P10 over the past 10 years by JLN Corporation using funds from the
pork barrel of lawmakers and various gov't agencies for scores of ghost project using 20 dummy NGOs for a ecade.
Respondents:
There is no actual case
SC
Decision: there is an actual case
- Antagonistic positions of the parties on the constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" == Contrariety of
legal rights
- The Questions in these consolidated cases are ripe for adjudication since the challenged funds and the
provisions allowing for their utilization such as the 2013 GAA for the PDAF PD 910 for the Malampaya Funds
and PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, for the Presidential Social Fund - are currently existing and operation;
hence, there exists and immediate or threatened injury to petitioners as a result of the constitutional use of
these public funds.
Is the Case Moot or Academic

- A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose
can be served in passin upon the merits
- Any attempt to issue a decision of a particular case will have no longer value
- Respondents:
○ Case is not moot and academic
- Respondents proposed line-item budgeting scheme would not terminate the controvrsy nor
diminish
- SC
○ HOW about PD 1869
○ Case is not Moot and academic, Neither will the President's declarion that he had already :aboished the
PDAF" render the issues on PDAF
○ Exceptions to the MOOT and Academic Rules
- There is a grave violation of the Constitution
- The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;
- When the Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public
- The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Case Falls under the First Exception, arguendo discussion of SC

1. Allegations of grave violations of the Constiution with respect to, inter alia, the principle of separation of
powersm non-delegability of legisltaive power, checks an balances, accountability and local autonomy
2. a. a system In which significant amounts of public funds have been and continue to be utilized and expended
b. piece of evidence demonstrating a prima facie pattern o fabuse which only underscores the importance og
the matter
3. Practical need ofr a defeinitive ruling on the system's constitutionality because CoA Chairperson estimates
that thousands of notices of disallowances will be issued by her office in connection with the findings made
in the CoA Report and all of these would eventually find their way to the courts
4. The preparation of a passage of the national budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual
occurrence, petitioner's claim that the same dog will resurface wearing a different collar"
Porento v Estrada

FACTS
- May 11, 1998 - Estrad awas elected as President
- He Sought the Presidency again for the May 10, 2010 elections
- Petiiotners opposed Estrada's candidacy before the COMELEC which denied, and then before the SC through
a certiorari petition
- Ground: Art , Sec 4, 1987 Constition-- The President should not be eligible for any re-election
- Estrada got 2nd highest
SC
- No actual substantial controversy because he did not win
Lacson V Perez
- May 1, 2001 - PGMA issued Proclamation NO. 38 and General Order No. 1
- Proclamation NO. 38- declaring that there was a state of rebllion in the NCR
- General Order No. 1 - Directing the AFP and PNP to supress rebellion in NCR. Warrantless arrests of several
alleged leaders and promoters of the rebellion were thereafter effected.
- Petitions were filed assailing the declaation of a state of rebellion by President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo and
the warrantless arressts allegede effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis noth in afact and in law
- May 6, 2001 - PGMA ordered the lifting of the State of Rebellion
NO ACTUAL CASE! MOOT

Petitions were dismissedSignificantly, on May 6, 2001, President Macapagal- Arroyo ordered the lifting of the
declaration of rebellion" in Metro Manila accordingly, the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic
DAVID v Macapagal- Arroyo

FACTS
- PP1017- PGMA declared a state of national emergency
- Effect: revocation of permits for assemblues, warrantless arrests, warrantless searches and seizures of
different media outlets
- PP 1021- issued a week after, lifint PP 1017
- Respondent argues that there is no actual case, pretending that the present petitions were rendered "moot
and academic" by President Arroyo's issuance of PP 1021
SC:
- This would have already been MOOT and academic
PP1021 did not render the case moot
- PP 1017 - Operative for 8 days
- Police officers committed illegal acts in implementing it
- Are PP 1017 and GO No. 5 constitutional or valid? DO they justify these alleged illegal acts
MOOT and academic Principle =/= Magic Formula

The "moot and academic principle"
CASE FALLS UNDER THE eXCEPTIONS TO MOOTNESS RULE

1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution.
2) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved.
3. The Court has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constittuional precepts, doctrines or rules. It has
the symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar, and in the present petitions, the military and the
police, on the extent of the protection given by constitutional guarantees.
4. Respondents' contested actions are capable of repetition
LACSON v Perez Decided first

1. Gloria nang anad
2. Therefore SC used the exceptions of the Moot and academic Principle.
Province of Batangas v Romulo

- Devlution Adjustment and Equalization Fund, created to adress the funding requirement of the Devolution
adjustment and equalization under EO 48
- 1999, 2000, 2001 - DAEF was sourced from and incorpareted in the annual GAA
- Local Government Service Equalization Fund- earmarked 5 billion for LGSEF
PETITIONERS
Argument
- Constitution provides that just share of LGUs(IRA0 shall be automatically
SC: Yes Moot and academic, But:

1. Grave Constitutional violation
2. Capable of repetition yet evading review
SANLAKAS v Reyes
- The mootness of thepetitions in Lacson v Perez and accompanying cases precluded this Court from
addressing the constiutionality of the declaration.
- To prevent similar question from reemerging, we seize this opportunity to finally lay rest the validity of the
declaration oa a state of calamaity

Judicial Review II
Tuesday, 10 September 2019 5:49 PM
4 Requisites: - To identify under

a. Actual case or controversy which principle the
b. The person has legal standing (locus standi) cases fall (ie GR,
c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity Exception, 1st
d. Lis mota: the question of constitutionality should be determinative of the case. condition)
- To identify the
relevant facts of the
PROPER PARTY cases and
a. One who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the understand how they
act complained of. One must have legal standing or locus standi affected the SC's
b. Sufficient interest decision.
c. Material interest
d. Personal and substantial interest
AFFINITY MAP
Send to
mlcbadayos@gmail.com
As a taxpayer In every case, QUOTE the

- Claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that he tax measure is unconstitutional. relevant ruling of the SC.
Proceed by illustrating the
As a voter relevant facts of any given
- Affecting voters case leading to the decision
As a legislator Carefully choose under

- A claim that the official action complained of encroaches on their prerogatives as which specific topic the
legislators case has "affinity" to
Exceptions to LS requirement PEER EVALUATION

- Transcendental importance
- Paramount public interest Each member must grade
- Issue of overarching significance to society all the other mebers based
on quality of contribution
Earliest Opportunity (discussion _ output)
- Raise it in the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the issue of
constitutionality The grade ranges from 1to
10
Lis Mota
- The petitioner who claims the unconstitutionality of a law has the burden of showing first All grades must be HIGHLY
hat the case cannot be resolved unless the constitutional question raised is decided CONFIDENTIAL
- Indispensability of resolving the constitutional question
- Underlying Principles: Presumption of Regularity + Separation of Powers Print them on a piece of
➢ Ynot vs IAC 1/4 paper and submit
➢ Garcia vs Drilon directly to me.
Effects of Unconstitutionality
Orthodox View
- An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
Modern View
- There is that law passed 10 years ago; rights ave been acquired, obligations have been
passed
- We respect the effect of those in the past
- It is now prospective
Operative Fact Doctrine

- The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination of unconstitutionality, is
an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot unjustly be ignored. The past
cannot always be erased by a new judicial decision. Certain legal effects of the statue prior
to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized to avoid inequity and injustice.

to its declaration of unconstitutionality may be recognized to avoid inequity and injustice.
- Used at all times now
Declaration of partial unconstitutionality

- Separability Clause- Congress' intent to retain valid portions of a la, some provision of
which are declared unconstitutional
- The valid portions can stand independently as law

Facts:
- June 20, 2003, former President Joseph E Estrada filed with the Office of Sec. Gen of the House
of Representatives, a verified impeachment complaint agains Chief Justice Davide and seven
other Associate Justices of the Court for
○ violation of the Constitution
○ Betrayal of public trust
○ Committing High crimes
= Subsequently dismissed said complaint on October 22, 2003 for insufficiency of
substance.
- Next day, October 23, Rep. Teodoro filed another impeachment complaint against Chief
Justice Davide
○ Alleging underpayment of the COLA of the members of the personnel of the judiciary
from the JDF and unlawful disbursement of said fund for various infrastructure
○ Impeachment was signed by atleast 1/3 of House Reps.
- Subsequently, several petitions were filed with this Court by
○ members of the bar,
○ member of the House of Reps
○ Private individials
To stop the illeal spending of public funds for the impeachment proceedings against
Chief Justice
- Defense: the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice was
barred under ARTICLE XI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution which states: "No
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year
RULING
- SC held that the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Davide was
unconstitutional or barred under Article XI, Sec. 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution
- Petitioners, as taxpayers, had sufficient standing to file the petitions to prevent
disbursement of public funds amounting to millions of pesos for an illegal act
- Whether the issues present a politcial questions question, the Supreme Court held that only
questions that are truly polticial questions are beyond judicial review
- Essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the seperation of power among the
three great departments of gov't
- SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government. (Emphasis supplied)
- Requisites
1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power
2. The person challenging the act must have "standing to challenge (locus standi); he
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case that he has sustained, or
will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible

3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota (motivation of lawsuit)of
the case
- SC has the exclusive power to resolve with definiteness the issues of constitutionality: IT is
dut-bound to take cognizance of the petitions to exercise the power of judicial review as the
Guardian of the Constitution

NOTES: AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
Written and Rigid Constitution: Permanence
Advantage
Capacity to resist capricious change and not easily tamperd with to suit political expediency, peronal
ambitions or ill-advised agitation for change
Disadvantage
Inability to adjust to genuine need for change brought by new conditions
Amendment AND Revision Articl 17 Secion 1-4
Amendment:
- Broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principles
enshrined in the Constitution
- Generally affects only the specific provision being amended (Lambino vs Comelec)
Revision
- A change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of separation
of powers of the system of checks and balances
- A change that alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution, as when the change affec
substantial number of provisions of the Constitution
2 Tests Quantitative and Qualitative test
Quantitative
Asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provision as to change
Qualitative
Inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is
whether the chane will accomplish far reach changes
Proposal:
Bicameral- Presidential to Unicameral-Parliamentary, affecting Art. 6 and 7 of the

1987Constitution
Bicameral: 2 houses Unicameral: 1 house

Presidential: Parliamentary:
Constituent Assembly
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by :
a) The Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of all its Members Voting separately 3/4 of 24 Senators(18) and
3/4 240(180).
CONCON
- Composed of individuals not part of Congress, exercising their constituent power
- Distinct and separate body from Congress
Process:
1. Congress calls CONCON

1. Congress calls CONCON
2. Modes:
a. 2/3 of Congress
b. Majority of all Congress
i. Submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention
3. Filing of a law by a member of CONGRESS
Theory of Conventional Soverignty (Loomis v. Jackson)

- Concon is supreme over the other departments of the gov't because the powers it exercises are in
the nature of sovereign power.
Inferiority of Con-Con (Wood's appeal)

- is inferioir to the other departments of the gov't since it is merely a creation of the legislature
Independent and Co-Equal (Mabanag v Vito)

- As long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its jurisdiction, the constitutional
convention must be considered independent of and co-equal with the other departments of the
gov't.
IMBONG V FERRER
- Congress passed first Res. #2
- Congress has Constituent has legislative powers
○ Passing RA6132 was done through majority vote
- As a legislative power:
○ You can pass a law implementing the rules of constituting a constituent assembly providing
for the details of Constitutional Convention which RA6132 did
○ Ergo, CONGRESS in this case did not call for a constitutional convention.
- Did Congress call a Constitutional Convention as a legislative body through RA 6132?
○ No
○ Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional convention were passed by the required
three-fourths vote.
People's initiative: May only be employed if the change is an amendment (unique to the 1987
Constitution)
- Mode that institutionalized the power of the people
STEPS in CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION(SOVEREIGN ACT of the PEOPLE)

1. Proposal Stage (SECTION 1,2,3)
a. Constitutional Assembly 3/4 Vote
b. CONCON
c. People's Initiative
2. Ratification (SECTION 4)
a. Plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days or not later than 90 days after the
approval of such amendment/revision through the COMELEC
b. Accepted
RATIFICATION
Any amendment to, or revision of, tis Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
a majority of the votes in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the approval of such amendment or revision

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the otes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days or later than ninety days after the certification
by the commission on Election of the sufficiency of the petition

Consti Notebook - Sabog Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Notebook - Sabog Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orientation to Consti Law

Tuesday, 20 August 2019 4:47 PM

Why Study Consti 1? Materials:

New Section 1 Page 1

What is Political Law?

Complaint against Judge Asuncion

New Section 1 Page 2

Manila Prince Hotel V. GSIS

Paragraph v of the Guidelines for Public Bidding

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

WHAT "REASON" DID MANILA PRINCE HOTEL USE?

Filipino First Policy

Article XII, Section 10, Paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

New Section 1 Page 3

New Section 1 Page 4

"Ut Magis Valeat Quam Peram"

Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole

Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to

Interpretation and Construction of the Constitution

- Ut magis Valeat Quam Pereat

It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.

a. text (grave abuse of all instrumentalities and branches)

Section 3 (1).The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power

New Section 1 Page 5

a. and Bernas on the meaning of the term initiate.

WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in

New Section 1 Page 6

Respondent "Unless other wise provided in this Constitution

EO. 284 = 284 Law= Exception

Application of Verba Legis

Application of Ratio Legis Est Anima

Application of Ut magis Valeat uam Peram

Section 13, Article 7

New Section 1 Page 7

New Section 1 Page 8

BP 643 - Plebiscite on Jan 27, 1984 on Res Nos. 104,105

Resolution 105 and 103 - 67 days nbefore plebiscite Day

New Section 1 Page 9

- Whether or not the proposed changes were revision or amendments

New Section 1 Page 10

New Section 1 Page 11

New Section 1 Page 12

New Section 1 Page 13

New Section 1 Page 14

Sept 2, 1972 - MARCOS issued PD# 91 (P5M) - referendum on Oct 16 1976

New Section 1 Page 15

Doctrine of FAIR and Proper Submission

New Section 1 Page 16

Difference between judicial power and judicial review

New Section 1 Page 17

New Section 1 Page 18

TIP: DO NOT USE JUSITIABLE PQ

New Section 1 Page 19

Functions of Judicial Review

WHO MAY EXERCISE JUDICIAL REVIEW

New Section 1 Page 20

ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY

Is the Case Moot or Academic

Case Falls under the First Exception, arguendo discussion of SC

New Section 1 Page 21

NO ACTUAL CASE! MOOT

DAVID v Macapagal- Arroyo

MOOT and academic Principle =/= Magic Formula