Part I- Introduction
A. The Constitution as a social contract
Province of North Cotabato v. Government (2008)
The MOA-AD was not valid because it seeks to amend
the Constitution. Only the people can amend/revise the
Constitution as it is our social contract.
Framework of the social contract:
1. Sovereign people have the inherent power
2. They delegate the power to the State which is the
Republic of the Philippines
3. They establish a government the power is to be
converted into services to insure the greatest good for
the greatest number
4. Distribute power to government to the 3 branches
specifically Purpose of distribution/division: To
prevent concentration and abuse of powers and for
checks and balances
5. Creation of rights To safeguard the interests of
persons
Therefore, the Constitution is a social contract that aims
for the common good of the sovereign people who have
delegated their power to the state and has distributed
this power to the 3 branches of an established
government to balance the delegated power with the
rights and interests of individual people
B. How to read the Constitution
Francisco v. HOR (2003)
2nd impeachment case against CJ Davide
Issue: What does the word “initiated” mean in Art. 11,
Sec. 3(5) of the Constitution mean?
Art. 11, Sec. 3(5) of the Constitution- No impeachment
proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of 1 year
Rules on Construction of the Constitution (follow in
order)
1. Verba Legis- plain meaning rule  The meaning in
the dictionary
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
2. Ratio legis est anima- we look into the intent of the
framers of the law when they drafted the Constitution ->
We go to the records during deliberation of the 1987
Constitution by the Constitutional Commission
3. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat- as a whole -> in case
of conflicting provisions -> we harmonize all the
provisions together
Applying the rules on the Francisco Case:
1. Plain meaning rule:
In the dictionary, “Initiate” means “to start or beginning of
a process”. Hence, the start of the process of
impeachment is to file a complaint. Is there still
ambiguity with this meaning? None. Do we still need to
go over the other rules? No.
C. A framework for constitutional litigation
Francisco v. HOR (2003)
HOR: Impeachment proceedings are beyond the power
of judicial review.
Issue: WON the HOR went beyond its power from
initiating the 2nd impeachment case of Davide.
Ruling: Yes.
Ratio: The primary function of the Judiciary is to decide
or to resolve cases of actual cases or controversies (Art.
8, Sec. 1). Hence, it is still the duty of the court to
resolve this issue especially when there is grave abuse
of discretion.
What if Art. 8, Sec. 1 of the Constitution is not existing,
may the court still proceed with this case? Yes. It is still
the duty of the court.
D. 1987 Constitution: Preamble and Declaration of
Principles and State Policies
Are principles important? Yes. They serve as guide for
the three branches of government
How does international law become part of the law of the
land?
1. Transformation- it requires that an international law be
transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism such as a local legislation
1
 1.1 Legislation
1.2 Ratification of treaties (Article VII, Section 21
of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
members of the Senate.). Thus, treaties or conventional
international law must go through a process prescribed
by the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal
law that can be applied to domestic conflicts.
2. Incorporation- applies by mere constitutional
declaration -> International law is deemed to have the
force of domestic law
2.1 Customary International law
2.1.1 Practice- material factor
2.1.2 Opinio Juris- a belief that the
practice in question is rendered obligatory by the
existence of a rule of law requiring it
Vinuya v. Romulo (2010)
The Malaya lolas want to compel the executive
department to file a suit against Japan for reparation for
their sufferings of being a comfort women during the
Japanese occupation.
Government: Individual claims have already been
satisfied by the Peace Treaty Agreement
Issue: WON the judiciary may compel the executive to
file the case.
Ruling: No. It is beyond the power of the judiciary
because it is a matter of policy that is governed by the
executive.
Foreign relations are the prerogative of the president. It
benefits more (trade with Japan) than compromising it
for individual claims.
PHAP v. Duque (2007)
WHO is recommending that breast milk is the best for
infants.
EO 51 is passed that bans the advertisement of breast
milk substitute. Since promotion of using breast milk
substitute is an international law, it forms part of the law
of the land
Ruling: The international law is just a recommendation.
Hence, the state is not bound, but the state may
consider.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Can it be considered incorporated through customary
international law by practice? No. It is found that very
few countries have been shown to follow the
international law, it is not enough to constitute it as a
practice.
Oposa v. Factoran (1993)
Petitioners want the defendant to cancel all the logging
permits in the country because of the destruction of the
forest. According to the petitioners, they have the right to
a balance and healthful ecology under Art. 2, Sec. 16.
Respondent asserts that the petitioners have no cause
of action because they are not a party to the TLA. A
cause of action is the legal right of the plaintiff,
correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or
omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
Issue: WON petitioners have a cause of action.
Ruling: Yes. Under art. 2, sec. 6, the defendant has an
intergenerational responsibility towards the petitioners.
The intergenerational responsibility is the nature of the
obligation of the defendant.
MMDA v. Concerned Citizens (2008)
A case was filed against government agencies and the
MMDA for the cleanup and rehabilitation and protection
of Manila Bay.
Issue: WON defendants have a cause of action.
Ruling: Yes. It is the same with the case of Oposa v.
Factoran. The plaintiffs here have an intergenerational
responsibility to fulfill under Art. 2, Sec. 6.
In the absence of an implementing law, but the
people have an inherent right, there is a
corresponding duty to the government.
Imbong v. Ochoa (2014)
The petitioners here assail the validity of the RH law.
They contended that the law violated the right of life of
the unborn and the right to health.
Issue: WON there is a violation of their rights.
Ruling: No.
Right to life  We construe the meaning of conception
When does life start?
Petitioners: Fertilization
Respondents: Implantation
2
 The Holy See is the representation of Vatican City in PH.
Purpose of contraception: To prevent the meeting of the The Land Sold by the Holy See is full of squatters.
sperm and the egg. Is there a life to speak of by then?
None. Is there a life that is destroyed? None. Issue: WON the Holy See may be sued.

Hence, there is no violation to the right to life.
Sanctity and Strengths of family  In RH Law, a
woman may take of contraceptives without the consent
of the father/husband. If a minor is already pregnant or
has suffered a miscarriage, her parents’ consent are no
longer required to avail of contraceptives
There is a violation of the sanctity of the family because
there must be mutual decision in the family,
There is a derogation of the authority of the parents for
disregarding the parents’ consent on their daughter’s
choices.
Art. 2 sec. 12 has 3 core principles:
Right and duty of parents for their children
Sanctity of Family and Strengthening the family
Right to Health
Ruling: No. The land owned by a state is a patrimonial
property. A patrimonial property is a type of property that
the state may alienate. Alienation is a state function.
Hence, when the Holy See disposed its land, it was
performing a state function. Therefore, the Holy See may
not be sued.
Arigo v. Swift
A US vessel ran aground in the Tubbataha reef that
caused its destruction.
Issue: WON the US officials may be sued.
Ruling: No. When the vessel a grounded, the officials
were on official military business, hence, they are
exercising a state function which is covered by their
immunity. But they violated their orders? There was no
intent or malice on their part even if they were negligent.

E. National Territory The remedy available for the plaintiffs is to compel the
government to espouse the claim. (Like the case of
1. The islands which the PH has sovereignty or Vinuya v. Romulo)
jurisdiction over

How did we acquire them? From treaties (Treaty of

Paris), Historic title, etc..

2. Archipelagic doctrine- last sentence of Art. 1, Sec. 1-

all the waters in between

How do we determine boundary?  Straight baseline

method  How do we draw it?  start from the farthest
island then draw a straight line.

F. State Immunity

The state is immune from suit in other jurisdictions

Restrictive doctrine: State Immunity extends only to Jure

Imperii

1. Jure Imperii- sovereign and governmental acts

2. Jure Gestionis- private, commercial and proprietary

acts

How to determine:

Is the act a government function? If yes  Jure imperil

If no  Jure Gestionis

The Holy See v. Rosario (1994)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 3

PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society, and establish a Government that shall embody
our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of
independence and democracy under the rule of law and
a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and
peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
ARTICLE I
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
ARTICLE II
Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Principles
SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and
all government authority emanates from them.
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law
of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme
over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is
the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to
secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of
the national territory.
SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people. The Government may call
upon the people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to render personal military or
civil service.
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion
of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by
all the people of the blessings of democracy.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall
be inviolable.
State Policies
SECTION 7. The State shall pursue an independent
foreign policy. In its relations with other states the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.
SECTION 8. The Philippines, consistent with the
national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom
from nuclear weapons in its territory.
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic
social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from
poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of
living, and an improved quality of life for all.
SECTION 10. The State shall promote social justice in
all phases of national development.
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights.
SECTION 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the
support of the Government.
SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the
youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social
well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public
and civic affairs.
SECTION 14. The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
SECTION 15. The State shall protect and promote the
right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
SECTION 17. The State shall give priority to education,
science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social
4
progress, and promote total human liberation and
development.
SECTION 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
SECTION 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos.
SECTION 20. The State recognizes the indispensable
role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise,
and provides incentives to needed investments.
SECTION 21. The State shall promote comprehensive
rural development and agrarian reform.
SECTION 22. The State recognizes and promotes the
rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.
SECTION 23. The State shall encourage non-
governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
SECTION 24. The State recognizes the vital role of
communication and information in nation-building.
SECTION 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of
local governments.
SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
SECTION 27. The State shall maintain honesty and
integrity in the public service and take positive and
effective measures against graft and corruption.
SECTION 28. Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a
policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.
Art. XVI
Section. 3- The State may not be sued without its
consent.
5
 Part II- Amendment of the Constitution
A. Amendment v. Revision

In Revision, the change in the Constitution affects the Gonzales v. Comelec (1968)- Constitutional
delegation and distribution of powers and the protection Convention
of rights. In Amendment, there is change in the
Constitution but the does not affect powers and rights. There are 3 resolutions passed:

1. Calling of a Constitutional Convention

Amendment Revision 2. Increase number of seats from 120-180
1. Proposal 3. Allowing members of the Congress to run as
delegates without forfeiting their seats
Con-ass-is
constituted by a   There must be:
¾ Vote  Election
 People vote on the Submitted proposal
Con-Con-2/3    Majority vote of the electorate
vote of congress
to pass a law There must be a plebiscite!
and then the
people will vote Santiago v. COMELEC (1997)- PI
to create a con-
con or not and to There is no law that provides for the amendment of the
elect the Constitution; RA 6735 is insufficient.
members of the
con-con The law is inadequate because it does not provide the
system of initiative. COMELEC may not draft the system
People’s Initiate because that would amount to usurpation of power. Only
12% of , but, see , see Lambino Congress can.
registered voters Santiago v. v. COMELEC
3% of each COMELEC case case Lambino v. COMELEC (1971)- PI
legislative district
Only 1 person Why is there no people’s initiative under revision? There
will get the would be no debate. Hence, there is no proof that the
signatures people understood the provisions being revised.
2. Submission
Tolentino v. COMELEC- Submission
Congress
Members/ 1 There was a proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to
person who 18 to enable younger people to participate in the
initiated ratification of the proposed constitution.

All amendments must be submitted for ratification at 1

3.Ratifies- plebiscite
People

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 6

 ARTICLE XVII-Amendments or Revision

SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this

Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.

SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may

likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the

exercise of this right.
SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds
of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by
a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the
electorate the question of calling such a convention.

SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this

Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast 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 votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days
nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the
petition

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 7

 Part III- Judicial Review
Judicial Review- power of the judiciary to review,
revise, modify or affirm on appeal/certiorari final
judgments and orders of the lower courts and to
determine WON there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality
B. Theory and Justification
Angara v. ELCOM (1936)
Angara and Ynsua were candidates voted for the
position of members of the National Assembly. Angara
won.
Issue: WON SC can take cognizance of the case.
Ruling: Yes!
Laurel: While the Constitution provides the power in the
3 branches of the government, nevertheless,
overlapping of powers give rise to cases and
controversies. Hence, in the exercise of judicial power,
the Court now has the duty to decide. Thus, when the
court is deciding on this case, the court is performing its
duty.
C. Justiciable and Political Questions
Justiciable questions are cases that have actual cases
and controversies and involve legally demandable rights.
Political questions are issues which under the
Constitution 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.
Francisco v. HOR (2003)
The case is justiciable. The primary function of the
Judiciary is to decide or to resolve cases of actual cases
or controversies (Art. 8, Sec. 1). Hence, it is still the duty
of the court to resolve this issue especially when there is
grave abuse of discretion.
Vinuya v. Romulo (2010)
Individual claims of petitioners v. foreign relations. This
is a political question.
D. Requisites of Judicial Review
Importance: To filter cases to and to prevent flooding of
cases- SC can’t take cognizance of all cases
1. Actual Case or Controversy- When there is
an actual injury based on the violation of a right
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
involving legally demandable right that is
violated
Premature:
PACU v. Secretary of Education (1955)
A law provided that a permit is necessary before one can
own and operate a school.
Ruling: The petition is premature. The petitioners have
no cause because all of them have permits and the Sec.
of Education did not threaten the school to revoke their
permits. Mere apprehension of that the Sec. of
Education MIGHT under the law withdraw their permits
does not constitute justiciable controversy.
Mariano v. COMELEC (1995)
A law was passed that converted the Municipality of
Makati into the City of Makati. The petitioners alleged
that this process would allow the incumbent Mayor Binay
to extend his term to more than 2 executive terms
allowed by the Constitution.
Ruling: The petition is premature. The issue is based on
a contingent event. Petitioners merely pose a
hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual
case or controversy. It’s possible that Binay might or
might not run again.
Montesclaros v. COMELEC (2002)
A House Bill drafted by congress aimed to reset the SK
elections to a later date and to lower the SK Membership
to at least 15 but not more than 18. The petitioners, who
were 20 years old, contended that they and other youth
members are in danger of being disqualified from SK
Membership because there are members who will turn
21 by the time of the resetting of the SK elections.
Ruling: It is premature. The challenged provisions are
still a bill, and there are no rights conferred in a bill. It is
only when it becomes a law.
Mootness:
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec. DAR (1997)
The petitioners wanted certain provisions regarding
fishponds and prawn farms in the CARP Law be
declared unconstitutional. Meanwhile the law was
amended and excluded fishponds and prawn farms from
the law.
Ruling: The case has become moot because the law has
already excluded fishponds and prawn farms. It was
actually a mistake made by Congress.
9

Lacson v. Perez (2001)
Pres, Arroyo proclaimed a state of rebellion. Lacson filed
a petition before the court to review the basis of the
suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus
because of the warrantless arrests committed.
Ruling: The case has already become moot because the
declaration of a state of rebellion has already been lifted.
Therefore, there is no necessity to decide the case
anymore.
Exception to mootness: If the issue is capable of
repetition
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004)
The act of Pres. Arroyo of issuing a proclamation of a
state of rebellion and then withdrawing it after several
days is the subject of this petition.
Ruling: Although the case has already become moot.
The court still took cognizance of the case because the
issue is capable of repetition but evading review. The SC
upheld the validity of the proclamation.
Pimentel v. Ermita (2005)
Pres. Arroyo appointed the respondents as acting
secretaries without the consent of the commission on
appointments and while congress is in session. The
case has already become moot because the
appointments were already submitted to the commission
on appointments.
Ruling: The court still took cognizance of the case
because the issue is capable of repetition but evading
review. The question of the constitutionality of the
President’s appointment of department secretaries in an
acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in
every such appointment.
2. Proper Party- a person who has sustained or is
in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a
result of the act complained of. He has
substantial case or will sustain a direct injury as
a result of its enforcement.
Framework:
-Right
-Violation
-Injury
Joya v. PCGG (1993)
Sir asked who Joya was. Remember Joya is a national
artist and the former dean of the UP College of Fine Arts
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Joya wanted to stop the sale of paintings of old masters
and silverware ordered by the PCGG. According to him
they will be deprived to their right to public property as
these are our country’s artistic wealth.
Ruling: Petitioner has no standing.
Right: Right to public property
Violation: None. The paintings and silverware are not
public property. They were owned by the Marcos Family.
Injury: None.
*If these pieces were made by a Filipino, even if private
estate, it can be something of transcendental
importance. The pieces here were made by foreign
artists.
Agan v. PIATCO (2003)
PIATCO was granted the right to exclusively operate
commercial international passenger terminal. Petitioners,
who are the individual employees of various service
providers of NAIA filed the petition claiming that they
stand to lose their employment upon the implementation
of the agreements.
Ruling: They have standing.
Right: Property right- livelihood/ their work
Violation: Yes.
Injury: Petitioners will be laid off and will have no other
work.
CHR Employees Assoc. v. CHR (2004)
The employees protest the upgrading and collapsing of
the positions because it only benefited only a selected
few in the upper level positions in the commission and it
results to demoralization of the rank and file. The
additional salaries to be given to the upper level
positions would come from a fund where the salaries
and benefits of the employees also come from.
Ruling: They have standing.
Right: Property right- benefits
Violation: Yes.
Injury: The employees will no longer receive benefits
because the additional salaries to be given to the upper
level positions would eat up the whole fund. Thus,
nothing will be left for the benefits.
Automotive Industry Workers v. Romulo (2005)
An EO was passed that administrative supervision of
NLRC will be transferred to the secretary of labor. The
petitioners contend that they are suing in behalf of its
members and in behalf of the employees of NLRC.
Ruling: No Standing.
10

Right: None. The petition itself did not state how the EO
will prejudice their rights.
Violation: None.
Injury: No injury suffered because there was no right
alleged.
Citizen Standing- for citizen standing to prosper it is
enough that a PUBLIC RIGHT is asserted. A public right
is a right that is equally shared by all.
Tanada v. Tuvera (1985)
A petition was filed to compel the public officials to
publish various laws.
Ruling: They have standing.
Public right: Right to be informed
Violation: Yes.
Injury: No notice on the part of the citizens especially
that ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith.
Chavez v. PEA (2002)
Petitioners contend that the government stands to lose
billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed
lands to AMARI, a foreign corporation.
Ruling: They have standing.
Public right: Right to information on matters of public
concern & Right to equitable distribution of alienable
lands of public domain among Filipino Citizens
Violation: Yes.
Injury: The citizens will be deprived of their property. The
lands are lands of public domain which are owned by the
people.
Association Standing- to prosper there must be a right
common to the members that was violated
KMU Labor Center v. Garcia (1994)
Petitioners KMU filed a petition before the LTFRB to
oppose the upward adjustment of bus fares.
Ruling: They have standing.
Common right: Right to due process- right to be heard in
the fixing of bus fares
Violation: Yes
Injury: Members of the KMU avail of transportation
services; hence, they are directly affected by the
arbitrary increase in the fares.
IBP v. Zamora (2000)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
The Marines were ordered by the president to patrol the
metropolis for the purpose of crime prevention.
Ruling: No standing, but it can be an exception because
of transcendental importance. The SC upheld the validity
of the order of the president for the purpose of peace
and order (Civilian Supremacy Clause)
Common right: Right against illegal searches and
seizures
Violation: None.
Injury: None. IBP did not state that any of its members
were illegally searched by the Marines.
Exec. Secretary v. CA (2004)
A law encourages the deployment of skilled Filipino
workers. ARCO PH stated that this is a discrimination
against unskilled workers because they are prevented
from finding employment abroad.
Ruling: No standing.
Common right: Property right- livelihood
Violation: None.
Injury: None. The injury that will be suffered by the
unskilled workers will not be suffered by its members.
ARCO PH is an association of licensed and registered
recruitment agencies. If they were asserting their rights,
the association would have had standing.
Kilosbayan v. Guingona (1994)
PCSO decided to establish an on-line lottery system with
foreign corporations.
Ruling: No standing. The issue is of transcendental
importance so that court still took cognizance of the
case. The SC declared the contract contrary to law. The
contract would result in foreign control of lotto.
Common right: None
Violation: No
Injury: None. Petitioner is not a party to the contract.
Taxpayer Standing- anyone can file because everyone
pays taxes (basically everything is taxed) but to prosper
there must be an assertion of illegal disbursement of
funds.
ITF v. COMELEC (2004)
The petitioners seek to enjoin the unwarranted
expenditure of public funds because the project was
awarded to a defective and unqualified bidder.
Ruling: They have standing. There was illegal
disbursement of funds because awarding the project to
an unqualified bidder would result to wasting resources.
Voter’s standing-
11
 Tolentino v. COMELEC (2004) Ruling: Facial challenge can be applied in this case. The
SC extended facial challenge to the right to religion. Like
The voters were not informed that they were going to the freedom of expression, it is also a mode which one’s
vote for a 13th senator. thoughts are externalized.

Ruling: They have standing. The rule on locus standi can
be relaxed based on the right to suffrage. The SC upheld
the validity of the proclamations.
Legislative Standing- to prosper the congress must
allege that their power was usurped by a branch.
3. Earliest Opportunity- it must be raised at the
time of the injury and immediately after the
violation of ones rights.
4. Lis Mota- the issue must be on the
constitutionality

Ople v. Torres (1998)

An AO was passed for the adoption of a national

computerized ID system. Sen. Ople filed the petition
because it prevents the shrinking of the right to privacy.

Ruling: He has standing. The AO that was passed had

the substance of legislation. This should have been
issued by the Congress. Hence, petitioner should have
been participated in the deliberation. The president has
usurped the power of the congress in passing the AO.

Government Standing- it has standing because it is the

primary duty of the government to abide by and to
protect the Constitution

People v. Vera (1937)

The validity of the probation law is challenged in this

case. The probation law will be applicable only if the
province will have a probation officer. Hence, some
provinces will have it some will not.

Ruling: The government has standing. The probation law

had an effect of delegating the power to provinces. It’s
the primary duty of the government to abide and protect
the constitution. It is trying to uphold the Constitution
because it will violate the separation of powers.
Government cannot allow the violation of the
Constitution.

Facial Challenge- can only be used when the statute is

vague and over-breath. A facial challenge is allowed
when it operates in the area of freedom of expression.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)

Petitioner contends that the law is vague because of the

word “combination”. The law here is not vague. Penal
laws are naturally harsh in nature to prevent a person
from committing them.

Imbong v. Ochoa ( 2014)

Contention: RH law can’t be challenged on its face as it

is not regulate speech.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 12

 Part IV- Three Branches of Government
A. Congress
Senate
Composition: 24 Senators
Qualifications:
1. Natural born citizen
2. At least 35 years of age on the day of the
election
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered Voter
5. Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2
years immediately preceding election day
Term of Office: 6 years, no more than 2 consecutive
terms
House of Representatives
Composition: Not more than 250, unless provided by law
 Congress can increase it by reapportionment of
districts
80% for the district representatives
20% for party-list representatives
Qualifications:
1. Natural born Citizen
2. At least 25 years of age on the day of the
election
3. Able to read and write
4. Except for the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected and a resident thereof for a period of
not less than 1 year immediately preceding the
day of the election
Term of Office: 3 years, not more than 3 consecutive
terms
Allocation of districts
1. There is apportionment among provinces, cities
and Metro Manila
2. Each city with a population of at least 250,000
must have at least one representative
3. Each province, regardless of population, must
have at least 1 representative
Sema v. Comelec (2008)
A law was passed that enabled the ARMM to create
provinces, municipalities, cities and barangay.
Subsequently, it created the province Shariff Kabunsuan
which included the 1st district of Maguindanao but
excluding Cotabato city. Sema was running for 1st district
of SK with Cotabato. She contended that Cotabato city
should be a separate legislative district because under
the constitution, upon creation of the province of SK, it
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
automatically gains representation and since SK
excludes Cotabato City, it is now deprived of
representation in the HOR.
Ruling: Cotabato City did not meet the requirement of
population under the Constitution. Under the law, there
must be at least 250K inhabitants to allocate a new
district. Also, the law that empowered the ARMM to
create new provinces, municipalities, cities and
barangay is unconstitutional. Under the law, it is only the
Congress that has this power.
Macias v. Comelec (1961)
A law was passed that reapportioned the districts in the
country. The petitioners assailed its validity because the
reapportionment was made with no due regard of the
number of inhabitants in the places.
Ruling: The apportionment of members of the HOR is
not valid because it is not based on the number of
inhabitants a province has. Some provinces were given
more representation despite the inferior in number of
inhabitants. Although Congress had the power to
legislate additional districts, it must be based on
proportional representation.
Tan v. Comelec (1986)
The Province of Negros del Norte was created. Several
cities were proposed to belong to the new province.
Comelec then scheduled a plebiscite but the voters of
the parent province of Negros Occidental, other than
those living within the territory of the new province of
Negros del Norte were excluded from participating in it.
Ruling: The law was unconstitutional. Legislation of a
new district is insufficient. There must be a plebiscite by
all of those affected to ratify the reapportionment.
Party-List
1. National- those without district representation
2. Regional  Duplicate of District
Representation? No. District Representation
only represents their districts.
3. Sectoral- represents the marginalized and
underrepresented
How do we allocate the seats for party-list?
1. Everyone who reaches 2% will get 1 guaranteed
seat.
2. Proportionate ranking  based on their rank on
the basis of votes received.
3. Maximum of 3 seats only per party
4. Exhaust all seats present regardless if they got
2%
Veterans Fed. Party v. COMELEC (2000)
13

Under the Constitution, 20% of the HOR comprises of
the party-list representatives. However, this is not
mandatory. It is not required that the 20% be filled in. It
merely provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in the
HOR.
The 2% and the 3 seat maximum must be strictly
followed. Congress wanted to ensure that only those
parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient
number of constituents deserving of representation are
actually represented in Congress
Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC (2001)
The petitioner here sought the disqualification of the
respondent because it is a political party running as a
party-list.
Ruling: The respondent may run even if it is a political
party. The Constitution only provides that members of
the HOR may be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations. Also the law also provides that a political
party may registered under the party-list system.
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (2013)
The new rule in the party-list system no longer requires
that they represent marginalized and underrepresented.
In other words, it is open to everyone.
Residency requirement
How to determine compliance with residency
requirement:
1. Substantial tie- work, school, business, family,
etc..
2. Animus Revertendi- presumption to return
*As long as these are present, residency requirement is
complied.
Aquino v. COMELEC (1995)
Aquino filed his COC for the 2nd district of Makati and
stated that he has been residing there for 1 year, in fact
he was leasing a condo unit there.
Ruling: The residency requirement was not met. He has
no substantial tie with Makati. In fact, Aquino was from
Tarlac.
Marcos v. COMELEC (1995)
Imelda Marcos filed her COC in the 1 st District of Leyte.
She contended that her domicile is Tacloban City since
childhood.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Ruling: Residency requirement is satisfied. She has
substaintial ties with Tacloban City. She studied there
and worked before moving to Manila.
Torayno v. COMELEC (2000)
Emano filed his COC for mayor in CDO city in which he
claims to have 2 years residency while he was governor
in Misamis Oriental.
Ruling: Residency requirement is satisfied. There is
substantial tie. His family is from CDO city, they have
actually been residing there even when he was governor
in Misamis Oriental. He physically was there.
Election
Regular election- 2nd Monday of May, unless otherwise
provided by law
Special election- in case of vacancy, a special election
can be held. RA 6645 lays down the rules:
1. No special election if vacancy occurs at least 18
months before the next regular election in the
case of the Senate
2. No special election if vacancy occurs at least 1
year before the next regular election in the case
of the HOR
3. Process: The particular house of congress must
pass a resolution declaring the existence of
vacancy and calling for a special election to be
held within 45-90 days to be sent to the
COMELEC.
4. If Congress is in recess, an official
communication on the existence of the vacancy
and call for a special election by the Senate
President or by the Speaker, as the case may
be, shall be sufficient.
Tolentino v. COMELEC (2004)
The voters were not informed that they were voting for a
13th senator. The COMELEC did not comply with the
requirements of the law in holding special elections.
Ruling: The election is still valid. The voters were
deemed to have CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE for the
election of 13 candidates. How did they have
constructive notice? There was a declaration 
Resolution no. 84, it was also deemed to be a call
because the contents of the resolution stated that there
was a vacancy and that a special election is to be held.
Organizations and Sessions
Election of Officers- Officers are ONLY the Senate
President and the Speaker, they have no terms of office
and may be removed at any time at the pleasure of the
majority of their respective colleagues. Other officers
normally chosen are the majority floor leader, minority
floor leader and the committee chairmen.
14
Purpose of electing the 2 officers: SUCCESSION! In
case of vacancy in the presidency, he will be the one
who will be the head of state.
Santiago v. Guingona (1998)
Tatad manifested that he was assuming post of minority
leader, but Sen. Guingona was the one elected. Tatad
now claims that they are the true minority in the Senate.
Ruling: The court may not intervene, it is a political
question. It would be a violation on the separation of
powers. There are no rules that provide for the position
of majority and minority leaders; neither is there a
provision prescribing the manner of choosing them. The
petitioners are now bound the election.
Quorum- purpose is to conduct business. It is 50% + 1.
To pass a law- majority of those present in the session
Others activities: 2/3 or ¾
Avelino v. Cuenca (1949)
Senate President Avelino together with 10 of his
followers walked out because Sen. Tatad wanted
Avelino to be charged. When they left, they voted for a
new senate president, Cuenca. Avelino now contends
that the votation is not valid because there was no
quorum.
Ruling: The court may not intervene, it is a political
question. There was a quorum in this case. We shall
determine how many members are there in the country.
There were 23. 1 senator was abroad for an official
mission. Hence, he shall not be counted. Therefore the
12 senators were enough to conduct business. The
votation is thus, valid.
Rules of prceedings- who may determine the rules?
Congress themselves.
Limitation: Rules of proceedings should not violate any
right of an individual
Pacete v. Comm. On appointments (1971)
Pacete was appointed as judge. His appointment was
submitted to COA and was confirmed. A day after, a
member of the COA filed a Motion for Reconsideration
(MR) for the appointment, and as a rule of the COA,
mere filing of the MR would automatically revoke the
appointment.
Ruling: The court may not intervene. Under the law,
they may come up with their own rules, but if they violate
any rights of an individual, the court can step in and
nullify the act. There was no vested right yet in this case,
so there is nothing to violate. However, revocation of the
appointment must be made for a just cause otherwise it
will amount to a violation of due process because there
was no notice or hearing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997)
The validity of the Sin Tax Law was being challenged.
Arroyo was not permitted to speak in this case because
he was trying to question the presence of quorum.
Ruling: The court may not intervene. It is a political
question. There was also no rule about the denial to the
right to speak, hence there is no violation. Therefore, it is
the prerogative of the house on how the proceedings will
be conducted.
Why did the court intervene in the case of Francisco and
not in this case? The case of Francisco was a provision
on impeachment that was provided for in the
Constitution while the present case was the enactment
of the passage of the bill.
Discipline of members- each house may punish its
members for disorderly behavior which is solely within
the discretion of the house concerned. Penalty consists
of censure, or upon 2/3 vote of all the members of the
House, suspension, not exceeding 60 days or expulsion
Alejandrino v. Quezon (1924)
Alejandrino was suspended for 12 months because he
assaulted another member for the phrases the member
uttered in the course of a debate.
Ruling: The court cannot review the case. It is the
prerogative of the legislature to discipline tis members. It
would be a violation of the separation of powers. In the
absence of any limitation or rights being invoked, the
Court cannot do something.
Osmeῇa v. Pendatun (1960)
Osmeῇa delivered a privilege speech attacking the
president. He was then suspended for 15 months.
Ruling: The court may not intervene. Disciplining
members of the house is within the power of the
legislature. It would amount to a violation of the
separation of powers if the court intervened. The
legislature can even punish its members even outside
sessions. If there is a complaint here will be a hearing in
the ethics committee, the only right protected is the right
to due process.
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (2001)
Santiago was charged for acts when she was in the
executive branch, but she was suspended when she
was already part of the legislature. She questioned the
authority of the SB to decree a preventive suspension.
Ruling: There was no intrusion of powers in this case.
Although the legislature has the sole power to discipline
15
its members, it does not preclude the SB from issuing
the preventive suspension. A preventive suspension is
distinct from the disciplinary action of the congress
because the former prevents an official from influencing
the witness or tampering with documentary evidence.
Hence, a preventive suspension is not really disciplinary
in nature.
De Venecia v. Sandiganbayan (2001)
De Venecia refused to suspend Panelo as directed by
the SB, he contended that there are separation of power.
Ruling: Separation of powers does not excuse Congress
from complying with the direction of the SB. Preventive
suspension is not disciplinary in nature but prevents a
person from influencing the witness or to tamper with
documentary evidence.
Journal and Record
Journal- abbreviated account of daily proceedings.
What should be entered? 1.Yeas and Nays on 3 rd and
final reading of a bill; 2. Veto message of the President;
3. Yeas and Nays on the re-passing of a bill vetoed by
the president; 4. Yeas and Nays on the repassing of a
bill vetoed by the President.
VALUE: The journal is an evidence that the bill went
through the required proceedings of due enactment
Record- it is the word for word transcript of the
deliberations of Congress, but SC will not go over this, it
will go directly to the enrolled bill
VALUE: It is considered when the court construes the
law when it is trying to find the intention of the law-
makers.
THE ENROLLED BILL ALWAYS PREVAILS BECAUSE
THAT IS THE FINAL OUTPUT.
Casco v. Gimenez (1963)
Casco was asking for tax exemption from the imported
products Urea and Formaldehyde as provided by the
law. Gimenez denied the tax exemption because what
the law provides is the tax exemption of Urea
Formaldehyde. The bill that was approved by Congress
states, “Urea and Formaldehyde”, while the Enrolled Bill
states, “Urea Formaldehyde”.
Ruling: The enrolled bill prevails; the tax exemption is on
Urea Formaldehyde. This was actually a mistake by
Congress, but the SC is bound by the enrolled bill. It
cannot use its power to correct the mistake because that
would be a violation of the separation of powers.
US v. Pons (1916)
Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and
fraudulently importing and introducing contraband
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
materials in the PH. Pons appealed the sentence
arguing that the law was null and void because it was
passed on March 1, a day after session in congress was
supposed to end.
Ruling: SC did not go beyond what was indicated in the
journal which stated that it was passed on Feb. 28.
Hence, the law is valid.
Astorga v. Villegas (1974)
There was a law that was passed that defined the
powers and duties of the vice mayor of Manila. It was
later found out that the said law was not the same as the
one approved in the Senate. Because of this, the Senate
President and the President, withdrew their signatures.
The petitioner now contends that the law is by-passing
the vice mayor. Can the Court now go beyond the
enrolled bill and go beyond the journal?
Ruling: Yes. Since the Senate President and the
President have already withdrawn their signatures, there
is no enrolled bill to speak of, so the SC may now go to
the journal. If there was indeed an enrolled bill and there
are mistakes, the Court may not intervene. The only
remedy is for Congress to amend the law.
Morales v. Subido (1969)
There was a law that stated that police officers cannot
qualify as Chief of Police, only members of the armed
forces can.
Ruling: The court is still bound by this no matter how
ridiculous it may seem.
Sessions
1. Regular Session- 3x a week?
2. Special session- called by the president and is
held when Congress is adjourned, usually after
the end of elections and by the end of their
terms to pass priority measures, to pass the
budget before the end of the year
3. Joint Sessions- 1. When congress convenes for
the canvassing of the Presidential election and
proclamation of the next Pres and VP; 2.
Declaration of state of war; 3. SONA
Salaries- it shall be determined by law but it can be
increased by the members of the Congress. However
the increase shall not take effect unless all the terms of
the members of the Congress are finished.
Philconsa v. Mathay (1966)
The members of the Congress wanted their salary
increase to take effect immediately.
16
Ruling: It is not allowed under the Constitution. Salary
increase takes effect only after all the members of the
Congress have finished their terms.
Ligot v. Mathay (1974)
Ligot wanted his pension be based on the salary
increased that took effect after his term as member of
the Congress. Can the salary increase apply to him?
Ruling: No. The effect of this is circumventing the
provision. The Pension that Ligot will be receiving is the
salary that was enacted. This falls within the prohibition
of the Constitution.
Freedom from Arrest- it is to perform the functions of
their office without fear of criminal prosecution. The
privilege can be invoked as long as Congress is in
session and it does not matter where the member of the
congress may be found. The crime for which the
member is to be arrested should be punishable by 6
years imprisonment or less. Otherwise, the member can
be arrested.
PURPOSE: People will not be deprived of
representation.
People v. Jalosjos (2000)
The crime that was committed by Jolosjos was Statutory
Rape which was punishable by reclusion perpetua.
Ruling: The privilege does not apply to him because it is
clear that the crime was punishable more than 6 years.
He cannot attend sessions. His Constituents will lose
representation? No. He has his staffs.
Speech and Debate Clause- exemption from libel or
slander for any speech or any form of expression made
in Congress in any of its committees in the discharge of
legislative duty. However, they are not exempted from
disciplinary measures from Congress.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang (1966)
Cabangbang made an open letter to the Chairman of the
National Defense through the newspaper.
Ruling: He lost his privilege. It is an open letter and not
directed to anyone whom someone can take action. One
of the requirements of the speech and debate clause is
you are doing it in pursuant to a moral, social duty.
Disqualifications
1. Holding of both offices
2. Appearing as a counsel
3. Exercising their profession
4. Conflict of interest
5. Appointment to an office created during your
term
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Adaza v. Pacana (1985)
During the time Adaza was governor of Misamis, he was
elected as a member of the Batasan Pambansa.
Pacana, as VM, assumed the position as governor.
Adaza then filed a petition to prevent him from being
governor as Adaza was the lawful occupant of the
governor’s office.
Ruling: Adaza must vacate his post as governor. Under
the Constitution, a member of the Batasan is prohibited
from holding any other office or employment in the
government during his tenure.
Puyat v. De Guzman (1982)
Fernandez was not allowed to appear as counsel before
the SEC. He then acquired 10 shares of stock of the
company and filed a motion of intervention in the SEC as
owner of the shares of stock.
Ruling: Fernandez may still not appear because in
effect, it is a circumvention of the law.
Liban v. Gordon (2009)
Petitioners contend that when Gordon was elected as
Chariman of the Red Cross he has forfeited his seat as
Senator.
Ruling: Sen. Gordon may serve as Chariman of Red
Cross and as Senator at the same time. The Red Cross
is not a government office or a GOCC for purposes of
the application of the prohibition.
Duty to disclose
1. SALN
2. Financial and business interests
3. Conflict of interest
4. Records and books of accounts
Electoral Tribunals- it comprises of 3 SC justices and 6
members if the Senate or the House of Representatives
to be chosen by proportional representation.
COMELC  Electoral Tribunal: Valid proclamation
Abbas v. SET (1988)
Abbas filed a case against all senators who won. He
contended that SC must be the only one who will sit.
Ruling: There would be no valid decision. There are only
3 members in the SC. A valid decision must be from the
majority which is 5.
Bondoc v. Pineda (1991)
Camasura, one of the members of the tribunal, decided
in favor of Bondoc. However, Camasura was
subsequently replaced by the LDP for disloyalty.
17
Ruling: Camasura cannot be removed because
disloyalty is not a valid ground for the expulsion of a
member of the tribunal. They also enjoy security of
tenure.
Codilla v. De Venecia (2002)
When her case was pending in the COMELEC, Locsin
immediately took an oath of office and went straight to
her office. She contended that the COMELEC no longer
has jurisdiction over her because there was already a
proclamation.
Ruling: The COMELEC still has jurisdiction of the case.
The Electoral tribunal can only take cognizance of the
case when there is a valid proclamation. In our present
case, there was no valid proclamation yet because there
was still a case pending in the COMELEC.
Pimentel v. HRET
There were no members from the party list
representatives that will sit in the HRET. The petitioners
contend that there must be at least 1 coming from the
party list.
Ruling: The court cannot review because it is the
prerogative of the HOR to choose their representatives
from the district representatives or the party list
members.
Commission on Appointments
Composition: 12 Senators*
12 Members from the HOR*
Senate President (acts as ex-officio
chairman and only votes when there’s a tie)
*to be elected by each house on the basis of
proportional representation from their political parties
*a defection from 1 party to another changes the
proportion
Daza v. Singson
Daza was chosen as the representative of the LP to be
part of the 12 seats apportioned to the HOR in CA. Later
on, 24 members of the LP joined the LDP. Because of
this, representations in the CA were revised. Hence, the
seat of Daza was given to Singson.
Ruling: The court cannot review because it would be a
violation of the separation of power is so. It upheld the
authority of the HOR to change its representation in the
CA to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire
in the political alignments of its membership
Coseteng v. Mitra (1990)
Coseteng is the sole member of her party;
She claimed that she is entitled to a seat in the CA as
she is endorsed by 9 congressmen.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Ruling: Coseteng is bound by the choice of the majority.
The endorsement of the 9 congressmen is immaterial
because they are not members of her party. Hence, she
is not entitled to a seat.
Guingona v. Gonzales (1992)
The LP-PDP obtained a ½ or 0.5 in the computation of
the allocation of seats in the CA. WON the party is
entitled to a seat in the CA.
Ruling: No. ½ is not equivalent to 1 seat. If that is
followed, the members will go over the maximum 12
members prescribed under the law. In fact, the law does
not require filling these 12 seats. For purposes of
quorum 13 members and at least 4 shall come from
either house are required. In our present case, there
would be exactly 10 members that would come from the
party- list. Even though there are 2 members lacking,
they may still operate.
Drilon v. De Venecia
Sen. Madrigal requested the reorganization of the
membership of the CA.
Ruling: The court cannot review because of the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is the exclusive discretion that the congress
has. It is different from the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies where the SC is appellate body.
Power of Congress
General Plenary Powers- legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the PH except to the extent
reserved to the people under Art. 6, Sec. 32 on initiative
and referendum
Limitations on the Legislative Power
1. Substantive limitations- eg. Bill of rights
2. Procedural limitations- eg. Revenue measures
shall emanate from the HOR
Legislative Process
a. Requirements as to bills
1. As to title of bills- Every bill passed by
Congress shall embrace only 1 subject matter to
be expressed in the title.
-title must accurately describe the subject of the
law or statute
-to prevent log-rolling or the insertion of
provisions not germane to the subject
Tio v. Videogram
A PD was passed entitled “Creation of Videogram
Regulatory Board”. The petitioner contends that the title
18
does not state that there is going to be a 30% tax
imposition.
Ruling: The law is still valid. The creation of the
regulatory board is basically to regulate or to limit by
imposing certain costs such as taxes. Hence, the title is
sufficient.
Lidasan v. COMELEC (1967)
The title in this case did not mention a new municipality
would include barangays coming from Catabato.
Ruling: The title was misleading, it gave an impression
that all municipalities are from Lanao Del Sur. It
misleads people into thinking that it only affects areas
and territories in Lanao when it actually includes areas in
Cotabato.
Dela Cruz v. Paras (1983)
An ordinance was passed that prohibiting night clubs
and cabaret and dance halls. Similarly, there is an
existing law that also prohibits their operations.
However, reading the title of the RA yields that the RA
was created to regulate their operations.
Ruling: The title of the RA should prevail. In cases where
there is a conflict between the provision and the title, the
title should prevail because the purpose of the title is to
inform the people what the sanctions of the law are, it
will be a violation of the people to their right to notice
before they can be made accountable. Hence, there can
be only regulation. The ordinance cannot prohibit.
Tobias v. Abalos (1994)
There is an act that converted the municipality of
Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. However, the
act did not reflect in its title that the City of San Juan will
be a separate legislative district.
Ruling: The title is sufficient. The separation of San Juan
from Mandaluyong is a natural logical consequence of
converting Mandaluyong into a city.
2. Requirements as to certain laws
a. Appropriation laws
1. It must emanate from the HOR.
-The senate must wait for the HOR to approve
HOR’s version before Senate can
2. Congress may not increase the appropriations
budget (National Expenditure Plan or the budget
proposal of the president)  They may
decrease
3. There should be a specific line item
appropriation
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
-Special provisions are valid only if they would
relate to the appropriation
-Riders are provisions unrelated to the
appropriation bill which are prohibited
-item + amount
4. Budget of Congress needs to be approved  it
will follow the same procedure in passing a law
(1st reading, 2nd reading, etc..)
5. Special appropriations or those not included in
the budget, there is a certification from DBM that
there is money or that there is a revenue raising
measure
6. No transfer of appropriations but there can be a
realignment or augmentation from savings
7. Discretionary funds/lump sum appropriations
8. Automatic re-enactment
Demetria v. Alba (1987)
A PD was passed that empowered the President to
indiscriminately transfer funds from one department to
another.
Ruling: Unconstitutional. The president may not transfer
the funds. He will be usurping the power of the
legislative. The GAA have to go under the legislative
because they are the representative of the people and
the people will decide where their money should go.
Augmentation using savings is allowed only if savings
from activities by which money had been allocated had
been completed. The only persons who can authorize
the augmentation are the heads of each branch.
Guingona v. Caraque (1991)
An item in the GAA provides for the automatic debt
servicing. However, it does not provide the exact amount
but a lump sum of money
Ruling: Valid. The amount can be ascertainable based
on the parameters under the law.
Belgica v. Exec. Secretary (2013)
The petitioners seek that the PDAF be declared
unconstitutional because it violates the principle of
separation of powers. The PDAF is a discretionary fund
after appropriation has been enacted. There is a
congressional pork barrel and presidential pork barrel.
Ruling: PDAF is unconstitutional because it violates the
separation of powers.
19
For the Congressional pork barrel- executive power was
being exercised by the legislative because they basically
instruct what project will be done through the budget—
they enact the budget which only the executive function
can perform.
The presidential pork barrel is a violation because the
president was performing a legislative function. Through
this, the president determined where to spend the funds
which only the congress can do.
SC: from now on the presidential pork barrel in the form
of the Malampaya funds will only be used for energy
related and the Federal Social Fund for any calamity
emergencies.
Araullo v. Aquino (2014)
DAP enables the Executive to realign funds from slow
moving projects to priority projects instead of waiting for
next year’s appropriation. The funds will be withdrawn
and be declared savings even though they are not yet.
Ruling: The DAP is unconstitutional. Transfer of funds is
only allowed when there are savings. Savings in the
GAA only occurs when there is an excess in the funding
of a certain project and once it is completed,
discontinued or abandoned. Savings are only declared
at the end of the fiscal year. In our present case, when
the funds were transferred, they were not yet savings
because they were withdrawn from existing projects.
Hence, there is no basis for the transfers.
b. Tax laws
1. Uniform- all of the those in the same class are
taxed the same way
2. Equitable
3. Progressive
Tax exemptions: Religious, Charitable and Educational
institution used actually, directly and exclusively. They
may still be taxed, but not on their properties.
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1994)
Public utilities are being tax under VAT.
Ruling: The tax is valid. Tax exemptions are strictly
construed against the tax payer. It is a privilege granted
by congress and they can take it away. The power of
taxation prevails but it should not also violate individual
rights.
Lung Center v. QC (2004)
Lung Center is a government hospital that is tax
exempted. It leased out portions of the land for
commercial purposes. The QC contended that since it is
not used exclusively for charitable purposes, it must be
taxed.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Ruling: Partly granted. The portions leased to private
entities are not exempted from taxes. The portions used
for charitable purposes maintain their exemption.
Tan v. Del Rosario (2000)
Gross income taxation is a violation of equal protection
because gross income was treated differently with those
with gross compensation.
Ruling: No violation. There is a substantive distinction
regarding the tax bases. Taxes are uniform; those of the
same class are tax the same way.
Garcia v. Caraque (1991)
EO imposed duties on petroleum.
Ruling: The EO is valid. The president may validly
impose the taxes (duties, tariffs, etc) to the industry. The
world industry is fast changing and to adapt to this, tariffs
and duties must also change. If these are legislated by
congress, it will take time and it might be too late before
it is passed.
John Hay PAC v. Lim (2003)
A proclamation was passed that gave John hay the
same tax exemption of Subic.
Ruling: The proclamation is invalid. The president
usurped the power of congress by legislating tax
exemptions. It is only congress that can do that.
c. Appellate jurisdiction of the SC
The appellate jurisdiction of the SC may not be
increased by congress without its advice and
concurrence. This is to prevent any undue increase of
case loan in SC.
Fabian v. Disierto (1998)
The Ombudsman provided direct appeal to the SC.
Ruling: This is not valid. It was not concurred by
congress and it goes against the hierarchy of courts. The
Ombudsman is like a prosecutor, it determines probable
cause.
Procedure for the passage of bills
1. Filing- Congress/Senator
2. 1st reading
-number and title of the bill are read
-recommendations on what committee it will be
referred to
-no deliberation
3. Referred to appropriate Committee
20
 -hearing of related bills/ invite resource persons
-processed by committee staff or technical working
group
-a committee report is drafted Reported to Senate
and the HOR
-if there are separate bills they are consolidated
-a Substitute bill is produced
4. 2nd reading
-Committee Chair or Sponsorship Speech
-Interpellation  questions are raised. If they are
not happy with the substitute bill, it will be sent back
to the committee
-Period of amendments on the substitute bill
5. 3rd reading
-occurs 3 days later, but it can be waived for priority
measures
-clean copy of a bill is produced
-votation  yays and nays
6. Bill is sent to the bicameral conference committee
-consolidation of 2 bills from both houses
-return the bill to plenary for voting
-if approved by 2 houses it will become an enrolled
bill
7. Signed by speaker and the senate president
8. Submitted to the president for approval
*Number 6 is not provided for under the Constitution
*Whatever is done in 1 house is done in the other house
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1994)
The VAT law was being contest by contending that the
bill was not reconciled and was only re-written in the
Bicameral. It is also alleged that the revenue bill did not
originate in the HOR as required under the law. Also, it
did not comply with the 3 day requirement of the 3 rd
reading.
Ruling: The law did not pass the proper procedure.
On the reconciliation and re-writing of the bill in the
bicameral, there was no provision in the Constitution
about the Conference Committee. Hence, it will only be
discretionary. There was no violation on this part.
Procedural:
On the 3 day requirement, there was no violation. The 3
day rule may be waived as long as the bill is certified as
urgent by the president.
On the origination of the bill, there was a violation. It was
not filed before the HOR. Under the law, revenue bills
should originate exclusively in the HOR.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
VETO  disapproval  Ratio: Checks and balances
Effect: The bill is sent back to congress
What are the options of Congress after veto?
1. 2/3 votes congress overrides veto  this
must be done before Congress adjourns, or
else the bill dies
2. Congress does not act on it
3. They will come up with a substitute
President’s Veto  Entire law for ordinary laws
Xpn. Items in the GAA  items are not laws they are
specific expenditures with corresponding amount
Special provisions  directly related to particular items
-the president cannot veto this but must veto special
items
Philconsa v. Enriquez
The president vetoed the following:
1. A special provision that provided for the
payment of the national debt and payment of
liabilities from Central bank for any excess by
approval of the president  this was an attempt
to repeal the foreign borrowing act and EO 292.
 Germane to the item on debt service  It
cannot be vetoed separately from the item 
VETO IS VOID
2. Revolving funds  Violation of 1 fund policies
Veto is valid
3. DPWH, GR: 30/70 ratio  Congress provided
for a different ratio.  This is a special provision
limiting the use of money  Veto is void
4. AFP Modernization  Before payments can be
made they have to be approved by congress 
they were vetoed because there will be a
violation of the non-impairment clause  Veto is
valid
5. Medicines  they were vetoed because
generics have not been shown to be effective 
there was already a law that government
procurement of medicines be in accordance of
generics law  Veto is void
6. CAFGU  Payment of separation pay of
CAFGU  Since it is under the executive
branch, the president is the one who will decide
on matters of CAFGU  Veto is valid
21
 Proper remedy: enactment of a law
Gonzales v. Macaraig (1990)
WON the veto of the president on augmenting items
using savings is valid.
Ruling: Yes. It was an inappropriate provision; it is not
germane to a particular item. It has the effect of
amending PD 1177.
Bengzon v. Drilon (1992)
The president vetoed the pensions because it violates
PD 644 which repealed certain section of a RA.
Ruling: The veto was invalid. The PD was
never published, hence it is null and void. Therefore, the
RA exists. You cannot veto an existing law in the GAA.
Miller v. Mardo (1961)
WON DOLE has jurisdiction over money claims (before
they have no jurisdiction on this matter, but through the
reorganization plan, they can take cognizance of these
matters).
Ruling: No. It turns out that the Reorganization plan is
not a valid act of congress. The reorganization plan
stated that it will be effective without doing anything.
Meaning, congress provided for the process of its
effectivity. It did not follow the proper process of
passage. The essence of the process is for deliberation.
Effectivity of laws
15 days after its publication either in the OG or in a
newspaper of general circulation. The law may take
effect immediately.
General circulation: accredited newspaper
For IRRs- Registered in the Office of the National
Administrative Register
Question Hour
Heads of departments may appear and be heard before
any matter pertaining to their departments.
Ratio: Since the departments receive money from the
budget and congress has the power over the budget,
they may call the heads to monitor the utilization of funds
Legislative Investigation
Coercive power in aid of legislation
They may:
1. Issue subpoena
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
-Subpoena Testificandum- testimony
-Subpoena Duces Tecum- document
2. Cite someone in contempt
- This is not provided for in the constitution
- This is pursuant to duly published rules
Right of individual must still be respected
When can’t congress investigate anymore: When a case
has already been filed in court
Arnault Cases (1950 & 1955)
1st Arnault case: Arnault refused to disclose the name of
the person to whom he gave money. He was then cited
in contempt and was imprisoned.
Ruling: The act was valid. Congress has the power to
cite someone in contempt.
2nd Arnault case: Arnault disclosed the name of the
person but Congress does not want to believe him so
they sent him back to prison.
Ruling: The Court may not review the decision of the
Senate because that would be a violation of the
separation of powers.
Bengzon v. SBRC (2006)
The petitioners were required to testify and produce
evidence on the alleged sale of the equity of Romualdez
to the Lopa Group in several corporations. They wanted
to look into possible violations of the Anti-graft and
corruption practices act.
Ruling: The Committee can no longer investigate
because there was already a case pending in court.
They can only investigate in aid of legislation and it stops
whenever a case has been filed in court.
Executive privilege- it is a privilege of the president to
withhold information from public and congress
1. Foreign relations
2. National Security
3. Communication between the president and the
cabinet
4. Trade secrets
5. On-going negotiations
6. Informer’s privilege
7. Military matters
Ratio: To prevent affecting the decision making of the
president
Senate v. Ermita (2006)
An EO was passed that executive officials cannot be
compelled to attend any legislative investigation unless
the president gives consent.
22
Ruling: The EO is partly valid. The provisions that
enumerated the information that they will withhold is
valid because under the law, they are covered by
executive privilege. However, the particular provision
that extended the executive privilege to other persons is
invalid. Only the president can invoke the privilege
because he alone is the executive. Other persons are
his mere alter egos.
Neri v. Senate (2006)
Neri’s right was violated because he was cited in
contempt without deliberation. Executive privilege was
invoked on some matters that were being asked to Neri.
Ruling: The privilege was properly invoked. The
president invoked the privilege and was communicated
through the executive secretary by order of the
president.
If congress requires president to invoke personally 
this would be a violation of the separation of powers
The Senate did not follow the protocol.
1. There were no published rules so there is so
basis for the contempt power
2. They did not give Neri a hearing
Garcillano v. HOR (2008)
The investigation was not valid. There were no rules
published. They contended that they posted it in their
internet. However, this was not substantial compliance.
To satisfy requirement of publication, it must be done in
the OG or in a newspaper.
Sabio v. Gordon (2006)
Sabio was the chairman of the PCGG, he contended
that he can’t be investigated because under EO no. 1,
no member of the PCGG can testify in legislative
investigations.
Ruling: He can still be investigated. With the ratification
of the 1987 Constitution, the EO has been impliedly
repealed. The Constitution provides the authority of
Congress to investigate.
Other powers:
a. Oversight
1. Scrutiny- congress looks into overall
administration and utilization of funds,
compliance of programs, eliminate
dishonestly and issues of graft and
corruption, and possible usurpation or undue
delegation of power
2. Legislative investigation
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
3. Congressional supervision
Abakada v. Purisima (2008)
The petitioners assail the creation of the joint
congressional oversight committee because it was a
violation of the separation of powers.
Ruling: It was unconstitutional. It was not performing the
function of oversight. It was implementing an already
complete law which is the executive’s function.
Since there is no more joint congressional oversight
committee is the law still complete? Yes! There is a
separability clause.
b. Act as board of canvassers for presidential
election
Pimentel v. Joint Comm. (2004)
WON the joint canvassing commission may exist even if
the congress has already adjourned.
Ruling: Yes! When congress sits as canvassers they are
not performing a legislative function but a quasi-judicial
function. The adjournment only applies in legislative
functions.
c. Call a special election for presidency
There is vacancy upon the president’:
1. Death
2. Resignation- the president resign to the
congress
3. Disability- the cabinet submit to the
congress
4. Impeachment
d. Decide on disability of the president
e. Legislative veto or extension for suspension of
writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial
law
-revoke marital law or writ of habeas corpus
f. Presidential amnesties
-The congress concurs on the proclamations of
the executive for amnesties
g. Treaties
-congress confers by 2/3 votes
h. Declaration of existence of war
-Only congress can declare the war
i. Delegation of emergency powers
-congress delegates the power to make a law to
the president to make use his emergency power.
23
 j. Utilization of natural resources
-congress approves service or agreement
entered by the president

k. Amendment of the Constitution

-3/4 vote to constitute a constituent assembly
-2/3 vote to constitute a constitutional
convention

l. Power of impeachment
- try and adjudge (senate) and to initiate
impeachment (HOR)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 24

ARTICLE VI
The Legislative Department
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the
extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-
four Senators who shall be elected at large by the
qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided
by law.
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of
the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to
read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the
Philippines for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be
six years and shall commence, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
SECTION 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty
per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except
the religious sector.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty
thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standards provided in
this section.
SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House
of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least
twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and,
except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in
the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 7. The Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of three
years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election.
No member of the House of Representatives shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the
regular election of the Senators and the Members of the
House of Representatives shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the
House of Representatives, a special election may be
called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by
law, but the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
SECTION 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives shall be determined by
law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all the
Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
25
SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall
be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office,
make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a
potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing
of a proposed legislation of which they are authors.
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall
he be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased during the
term for which he was elected.
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned
or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his
term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before
any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on account of his
office.
SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every
year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session,
unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue
to be in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the opening of its next
regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays. The President may call a special session
at any time.
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President
and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective Members.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from
day to day and may compel the attendance of absent
Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as
such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings,
and from time to time publish the same, excepting such
parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security;
and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered
in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more
than three days, nor to any other place than that in which
the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and
the parties or organizations registered under the party-
list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate,
as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve
Members of the House of Representatives, elected by
each House on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and parties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote,
except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
26
appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of
the Congress from their submission. The Commission
shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the
Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within
thirty days after the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall have been organized with the
election of the President and the Speaker. The
Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers
and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
SECTION 20. The records and books of accounts of the
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public
in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited
by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually
an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses
incurred for each Member.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of
Representatives or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
be respected.
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their
own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon
the request of either House, as the rules of each House
shall provide, appear before and be heard by such
House on any matter pertaining to their departments.
Written questions shall be submitted to the President of
the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their
scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be
limited to written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto. When the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so states in
writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.
SECTION 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds
of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified in the budget.
The form, content, and manner of preparation of the
budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to
the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose
for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds
actually available as certified by the National Treasurer,
or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed
therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be
supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall
have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the
ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for
the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and
shall remain in force and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
27
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress
shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed
in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress
shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the
President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his
objections to the House where it originated, which shall
enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of
all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the
other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the
votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or
nays, and the names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal. The President
shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House
where it originated within thirty days after the date of
receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he
had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object.
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform
and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive
system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President
to fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues,
and other duties or imposts within the framework of the
national development program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of the Congress.
SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the
use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion,
or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special
purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out
for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special
fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds
of the Government.
SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided
in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
SECTION 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility
shall be enacted.
SECTION 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible,
provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and
the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can
directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any
act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or
local legislative body after the registration of a petition
therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per centum
of the registered voters thereof.
28
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS
EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE
PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR
EFFECTIVITY
WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Civil Code partly provides
that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided . . .;"
WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective
only a publication thereof in the Official Gazette will
suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized
by the Supreme Court in Tañada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al.
(G.R. No. 63915, December 29, 1986) when it observed
that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that the
publication need not be made in the Official Gazette,
considering its erratic release and limited readership";
WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly,
newspapers of general circulation could better perform
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
the function of communicating the laws to the people as
such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider
readership, and come out regularly"; and
WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises Article 2
of the Civil Code should accordingly be amended so the
laws to be effective must be published either in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the country;
Sec. 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following
the completion of their publication either in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise
known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines," and all
other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect
immediately after its publication in the Official Gazette.
29
 B. Executive Department
The President is the ONLY one in the executive.
Qualifications:
1. Natural Born Citizen
2. Registered Voter
3. Able to read and write
4. 40 years of age on the day of the election
5. Resident of the PH for at least 10 years
immediately preceding the day of the election
Why 40 years old? There is a presumption of experience
and wisdom.
Term: 6 years, for only 1 term
XPN: If he or she has served the presidency for less
than 4 years, he or she may run for another term (Pres.
Arroyo’s case)
Oath- spells out the powers of the president into office
-most important phrase in the oath is “execute the
laws”
Salary- Salary Grade 33 (current 2016)
Succession- President- VP- Senate President- Speaker
of the House
Vacancy
1. Death
2. Resignation
3. Permanent Disability*
4. Impeachment
*Written declaration of Cabinet to Congress
What if only Temporary disability? No vacancy. The VP
will take over.
Prohibitions
1. Holding any other office/employment
2. Practicing any profession
3. Participating any business
4. Being financially interested in any contract of the
government
5. Appointing a spouses or relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil
degree as Con-Con, members of the office of
Ombudsman, Secretary or Usec, Chairman,
Heads of Bureau or offices or GOCCs
Estrada v. Arroyo (2001)
WON the assumption of office of Arroyo is constitutional.
Ruling: Yes.
Framework:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Let’s look into the provisions on succession. What are
the grounds for vacancy? 1. Death? No. He’s still alive
up to now. 2. Disabled? No. He was able to file this case
in the SC. 3. Impeached? No. There was an
impeachment case but he was not convicted because
the Senate suspended the proceedings. What ground is
left? RESIGNATION!
Did Pres. Estrada Resign? The Court looked into his
INTENTION.
1. He left Malacaῇang and went to his house in
Greenhills
2. They also looked into the Diary of Angara and
several communications that indicated that there
was CLEAR ITENTION to resign
The Court also considered the acts of Congress.
1. They issued a resolution recognizing the
presidency of Pres. Arroyo
2. They nominated Guingona as VP
Taken all of these together, Pres. Estrada resigned from
the presidency.
CLU v. Exec. Secretary (1991)
An EO was passed by Cory Aquino that stated that the
Cabinet, Usec, Assistant Secretary, or other appointees
may hold other offices in addition to their positions.
Ruling: EO is unconstitutional. The prohibition on holding
other offices is violated.
The prohibition does not apply to executive officials
without additional compensation in Ex-officio capacity.
-it is not any other office
-it must be required by official’s primary function or it is
closely related to his duties
If the duty is alien or inconsistent  It is a different
office, hence, it falls within the prohibition.
Cruz v. COA (2001)
COA directed all government agencies who have
effected additional compensations to officials in violation
of the rule on holding additional offices to effect refund.
Ruling: The direction was valid. If the president is
prohibited from holding other offices, his alter-egos are
also prohibited. It also applies to those persons who are
designated by his alter-egos. The only exception to this
is ex-officio capacities because they are germane to the
functions of the appointee.
NAC v. COA (2004)
30
Ex officio officials delegated their tasks to their staffs
who were given honoraria.
Ruling: The staffs were not entitled to compensation
because they are covered by the prohibition.
Powers and Functions of the President
1. Executive power- power to enforce and
administer laws
Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)
WON the president has the power to prohibit the
Marcoses from returning in the PH. YES!
What is the right being asserted by the Marcoses? Right
to return. It is not provided under the Constitution.
However, the right to return is recognized in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is
Customary International Law. It was then deemed
incorporated. It was also transformed because the
Senate ratified it. Hence, the right to return is now part of
the law of the land. The Marcoses has the right to return.
Is it absolute? No. The limitation is National Security
which the president has the prerogative.
Marcoses’ contention: But the power of the president is
limited to those listed in the Constitution.
Framework of the president’s power:
1. What is the correct way of construing the power
of the president? No strict interpretation.
2. The Court looked into how the Courts
appreciated executive power. It was found that,
through times, the president was compelled by
specific situations to define his powers to control
specific crises, but it was impractical because
our experience shows that the president needs
to react quickly. Hence, there is a need for
greater flexibility. The court concluded that there
was a penumbra. Although there are boundaries
between the 3 branches, these boundaries are
actually elastic that allowed them to perform acts
that are incidental to their functions.
Now, are the ones enumerated in the
Constitution the only powers of the president?
No! It must include the incidental powers of the
president because he had an oath. An oath that
he must “faithfully execute the laws”, meaning,
he must MAKE DECISIONS TO PROMOTE
THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST
NUMBER which is part of our agreement in the
social contract.
3. Considering the elasticity of the boundaries in
the 3 branches, how would the relationship
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
between the 3 branches be? As long an act is
not exclusively exercised by 1 branch, it can be
exercised by the president.
4. Use the Test of Arbitrariness  Was the act
made without consideration of the facts?
If yes  There is grave abuse of discretion
If no  The act is valid
Does the court need to verify the facts? No.
The president can now prohibit the Marcoses to return in
relation to national security.
Almario v. Exec. Secretary (2013)
The president gave an award to a person who was not
part of those recommended.
Ruling: Not valid. Although the president has the power
to award, she herself provided for the procedure. This is
called Theory of Auto-limitation, through this, the
president has set the standards or processes. In our
present case, the president has provided for the process
of awarding. Hence, the president may not add to the list
because it did not go to the process of screening and
other procedures imposed.
DENR v. DENR Region 12 employees (2003)
The DENR Secretary directed the transfer of DENR
Region 12 Office from Cotabato to Koronadal City.
WON the DENR Secretary had the power to reorganize.
Ruling: Yes. The act of the DENR Secretary is deemed
to be that of the president. This is called Doctrine of
Qualified Political Agency. The different executive
departments are mere adjuncts of the president, hence,
the president has the power of control, he can alter,
modify, nullify or set-aside what the subordinate has
done in the performance of his duties.
2. Control of executive departments
Blaquera v. Alcala (1998)
An AO was passed that directed the heads of
departments to return the unauthorized payments of
Bonus to employees. The heads then deducted the
salaries and allowances of petitioners to cover the
overpayment.
Ruling: Valid. The president was just exercising his
power to control over the executive department. In the
view of the president, the respondents made a mistake.
Through his power of control, he nullified the decision of
his subordinate for the automatic grant to bonus.
Hutchingson Port v. SBMA (2000)
31
The president ordered a rebidding although the
petitioner was already declared the winning bidder.
Ruling: Valid. SBMA was under the direct control of the
president, hence, he may within his authority, overturn
any award made by the SBMA for justifiable reasons.
The courts cannot interfere because it would be a
violation of the separation of powers unless such
exercise of discretion is used to shield unfairness or
injustice.
NEA v. COA (2002)
The NEA implemented the salary increase in one lump
sum. The president passed an EO that decreed that the
salary increase must be in 2 tranches. NEA now assails
the EO.
Ruling: Valid. It is in the exercise of the president’s
power of control.
3. General Supervision over local governments/
autonomous regions- overseeing the
subordinates to make sure that laws are
executed.
Power to control is not applicable here if acts are
within the LGU’s discretion. The only remedy left for
the president then is to: FILE A CASE.
(Administrative, Criminal or Civil)
Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000)
An AO was passed that directed the LGUs to save 25%
of their budget. 10% will be automatically saved or
withheld from the LGUs.
Ruling: Not valid. This amounts to power of control which
the president does not have over LGUs. It controls the
LGUs on how they should spend their money which
interferes with their autonomy.
National Liga ng mga Barangay v. Paredes (2004)
Due to the irregularities in the election in the Liga, the
DILG was appointed ad interim caretaker by judge
Paredes. The DILG issued memorandums and circulars
for the Liga.
Ruling: The DILG may validly be appointed as a
caretaker because the President though his alter ego,
the DILG secretary, exercises supervision over local
governments. However, the DILG secretary went beyond
the power of supervision when it issued the
memorandums circulars because this amounted to the
power of control.
4. Power of Appointment
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Appointment- vesting of an office which is created and
funded by law to a person who acquires rights, duties,
and responsibilities.
Appointments that are subject to confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments:
1. Heads of executive department- those heads of
the line department or those provided for under
the Administrative code of 1987
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls- representatives of the PH in other
countries
3. Officers of the AFP with the rank of colonel or
naval captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in
the president under the constitution:
A. Chairman and members of the
Constitutional Commission
B. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar
Council
*This list is exclusive
Oscar Bermudez v. Exec Sec. Torres (1999)
Quiaoit was the one appointed as Provincial Prosecutor
while Bermudez was the one recommended and he
refused to vacate the office. He contends that Quiaoit’s
appointment was not valid because there was no
recommendation from the Sec. of justice as provided for
under the law.
Ruling: The appointment was valid. The power to
appoint is discretionary in nature and the
recommendation is only persuasive, hence, it is not
binding and obligatory upon the president.
Sarmiento v. Mison (1987)
WON the appointments of the heads of bureaus are
required to be confirmed by the commission on
appointments.
Ruling: No. During the deliberation of the 1987
Constitution, the word “bureau” was deleted from the
provision that lists those that required confirmation from
the commission on appointments. It follows then that the
appointments of the heads of bureaus are not subject to
confirmation.
Bautista v. Salonga (1989)
Bautista was appointed chairman of the CHR. Her
appointment is now challenged because it was not
confirmed by the commission on appointment.
Ruling: The appointment is valid. The Constitution does
not provide for the appointment of the Chairman and the
Members of the CHR unlike with the other commissions,
such as CSC, COA and COMELEC. Hence, the
32
Constitution has impliedly taken out the requirement of
appointment by not including the same provision that
you can expressly find in other commissions.
Calderon v. Carale (1992)
A law was passed that required the confirmation of the
appointees from the NLRC by the commission on
appointments.
Ruling: The law is unconstitutional because it amends
the Constitution by adding the list of those that needed
the confirmation by the commission on appointment. The
list under the Constitution is EXCLUSIVE.
Manalo v. Sistoza (1999)
The respondents were appointed as Director and Chief
Superintendent without submitting their appointments to
the commission on appointments.
Ruling: The appointments were valid. The PNP is
different from the AFP which requires confirmation by
the commission on appointments under the Constitution.
The PNP is civilian in nature.
Soriano v. Lista (2003)
The legality of the appointments made by PGMA to
different positions of the Philippine Coast Guard is
assailed because they were not confirmed by the
commission on appointment.
Ruling: The appointments were valid. The Coast Guard
is no longer in the AFP they are now under the DOTC.
Hence, they are no longer covered under the
requirement of confirmation.
Pimentel v. Ermita (2005)
PGMA issued appointments to respondents as acting
secretaries of their respective departments.
Ruling: Valid. An acting capacity is only temporary in
nature and not continuous that it will interrupt the
succession of the department. Under the admin code,
the president may appoint, “or any other competent
person”. Hence, it is still the discretion of the president to
appoint who will be taking charge of the department
even if in a temporary capacity.
In re: Valenzuela (1998)
This was an old rule. The ban is absolute. The president
may not appoint anyone during the period of ban.
De Castro v. JBC (2010)
This is now the new rule. During the period of ban, the
president may still appoint but not those under the
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
executive branch. In other words, the ban only applies to
the executive branch.
Ratio: Under Art. 8, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, the
Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower
courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of
at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation. For the lower courts, the President shall
issue the appointments within ninety days from the
submission of the list.
Hence, there is a duty on the part of the president to
appoint because the appointment is essential to the
administration of justice.
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President (2015)
Ante-dating of appointments is valid as long as the
appointees will take their oath and assume their
office before the period of ban.
De Rama v. CA (2001)
De Rama sought to recall the appointments of 14
municipal employees and contended that they were
midnight appointments.
Ruling: The appointments were valid. The ban only
applies to the president. There is no law that bans the
mayor from appointing.
Ratio: The appointments by the mayor are not co-
terminus with his position.
Matibag v. Benipayo (2002)
Benipayo was appointed ad-interim in COMELEC.
Matibag now contends that Benipayo had no power to
transfer her because he was a mere ad-interim
appointee.
Ruling: The transfer was valid. An ad-interim
appointment is permanent in nature. It has the same
powers of those of the permanent appointee.
Removal power- GR: The President may only exercise
his removal power when there is just cause.
XPN: Members of the cabinet and other executive
officials whose term of office is determined at the
pleasure of the president.
Ratio of XPN: The president’s relationship with them is
based on trust and confidence. If this trust and
confidence is no longer present, the president may
remove them.
Larin v. Executive Secretary (1997)
Larin was removed from service without just cause.
33
Ruling: The removal was invalid. The power of removal
is not absolute. Larin is under career service, thus, he
enjoys security of tenure and may not be removed
without just cause. Since, there was no just cause, he
may not be removed.
Kinds of Appointments:
1. Regular- those that are covered under the
commission on appointment
2. Ad interim- it is made while congress is not in
session. The appointee can take his post right
away. It is complete and permanent appointment
that lasts until disapproved by the commission
on appointment or until next adjournment of
congress, unless in the meantime the
commission confirms it
3. Acting capacity- has the powers and authority of
those appointed in a regular capacity
*Midnight appointments- these are made 2 months
before the next presidential election
XPN: Temporary appointments to executive positions
when continued vacancies will prejudice public service
or endanger public safety
5. Executive Clemency- Art. 7, Sec. 19
Pardon- extinction of both principal and accessory
penalties
A. Absolute- extinction of both penalties
B. Conditional- accused is set free but release
is subject to conditions
Amnesty- extinction of the crime as if there is no crime;
it is applicable to political offenses (rebellion, treason,
etc)
Commutation- lessening of the penalty
Reprieve- suspension of the application of the penalty
Eg. Death Penalty
Parole- after serving of a minimum term, the accused
can be released; it can be revoked if the accused would
violate the conditions imposed
Torres v. Gonzales (1987)
Torres was given a conditional pardon, but he committed
another crime. Torres contended that the pardon cannot
be revoked yet because the case was still pending.
Ruling: The revocation of the pardon was valid. The
president is the one who will determine if the conditions
were violated not any other branch.
What are the remedies of the state when a conditional
pardon has been violated?
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
1. Revoke the pardon, order his arrest, no hearing
required
2. Charge with violation of criminal law
3. Charge with a new crime
In a pardon, it is important that it should state the extent
and the consequences of the pardon.
Rios- Vidal v. COMELEC (2015)
Estrada filed his COC for mayor but this was opposed by
petitioner. She contended that when he was convicted
for plunder, he was sentenced with perpetual
disqualification. Estrada was however, pardoned by
PGMA.
Ruling: Estrada may run. When Estrada was pardoned,
the penalty of perpetual disqualification was
extinguished together with the crime of plunder.
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez (1949)
Jimenez and Barrioquinto were claiming amnesty but
refused to admit the crime charged.
WON admission to the crime is necessary to claim
amnesty.
Ruling: No. It is sufficient that the evidence comes with
the terms of the amnesty proclamation. What are the
effects:
If you are not charge yet  ask for the dismissal of the
case
If you are convicted  ask judgment to be vacated
If you are serving sentence  ask for release, file the
writ of habeas corpus
Vera v. People (1963)
This case repealed the doctrine in Barrioquinto that to be
entitled to the benefits of amnesty it is not necessary that
there must be an admission to the commission of the
crime. In this case, it was held that it is inconsistent to
ask for forgiveness from the crime that you are claiming
to not have committed because in amnesty it
presupposes the commission of the crime. Hence, when
a person is claiming not to have committed the
crime, he cannot claim the benefits of amnesty.
Cristobal v. Labrador (1941)
WON Cristobal can run for public office after he was
convicted and was given pardon.
Ruling: Yes because in pardon, the penalties are
extinguished.
Pellobelo v. Palatino (1941)
34
Pellobello was extended pardon but he was not
permitted to take his oath when he was elected mayor
because when he was convicted, there was a penalty of
disqualification.
Ruling: Pellobello may take his oath. The SC here
interpreted the pardon liberally in favor of Pellobello as
to interpret the pardon that was given to include the
restoration of his civil rights.
In Re Lontok (1923)
A lawyer was granted pardon from the president but the
SolGen moved to disbar him by reason of his conviction
of the crime.
Ruling: The lawyer cannot be disbarred. When a person
is extended pardon, it blots out the existence of guilt,
and treats him as innocent as if he had never committed
anything. After pardon, a person is given a clean slate.
6. Commander-in-chief-
Three powers:
1. Call out the AFP
-direct the AFP to deal with lawless violence
(lawlessness)  defense function, not law enforcement
-to prevent or suppress invasion or rebellion or lawless
violence
-it can be subject to judicial review
-no suspension of rights
Graduated responses: (follow in order)
A. Call out
B. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (legal
grounds: Commission of a crime, contagious
disease, violent insanity)
C. Declaration of Martial Law (Lasts for 60 days/
The courts and congress cannot be closed)
Grounds for the latter 2 graduated responses:
A. When there is actual rebellion and public safety
requires it.
B. When there is actual invasion and public safety
requires it
*The ground cannot be “public safety requires it” alone.
2. Faithful execution clause or “Take care
power”
-the president acts as chief executive not as commander
in chief
-the president shall take care that the laws are faithfully
executed
3. Take-over in national emergency
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
-public utilities are controlled by the president
-legislative power is delegated to the president
-there must be a valid delegation through a law
IBP v. Zamora (2000)
The marines are called out to assist the civilian police to
suppress lawless violence.
Ruling: The call out was valid. The call out power is a
discretionary power of the president which is vested in
his wisdom. The court cannot be called upon to
substitute its wisdom to that of the president. However,
the court may still review on the basis of WON such
power was exercised within permissible constitutional
limits or whether it was exercised in a manner
constituting GAOD. The call out must state the time
frame and the limitations of it.
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004)
WON a state of rebellion is necessary for the president
to exercise the call out power.
Ruling: No. Sec. 18 provides that whenever it becomes
necessary, the president may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion.
Courts can still review based on the test of arbitrariness.
WON the president has factual basis in making his
decision.
Aquino v. Enrile (1974)
In this case, the court ruled that the declaration of martial
law is a political question; hence, the courts cannot
intervene.
Now that the 1987 Constitution has been ratified, the
declaration of martial law is now justiciable. It can be the
subject of review through a petition. The courts can
determine if there was factual basis for the declaration
and that if it is arbitrary.
Olaquier v. MC No. 4 (1987)
Olaquier was tried and convicted in a Military Court.
Ruling: Not valid. The declaration of martial law does not
shut down the courts. Civil Courts remain open and
civilians must be tried under them.
Navales v. Abaya (2004)
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the cases involving
violation of the articles of war.
Ruling: No. The Military Tribunal remains to have
jurisdiction over these cases. The RTC cannot make the
decision to deprive the MT its jurisdiction. It is only the
35
legislative department that has the power to change the
jurisdiction of courts.
Lansang v. Garcia (1971)
The president suspended the writ of habeas corpus
following the explosion that occurred and in conclusion
that there is conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection. The
petitioners contended that there was no valid ground to
suspend the writ because the proclamation did not
indicate any actual invasion or rebellion and that public
safety requires it.
Ruling: The suspension is still valid. Even if there is no
actual invasion or insurrection, there was conspiracy and
actuality of intent to cause uprising.
In Re De Villa (2004)
De Villa filed a writ of habeas corpus to determine the
basis of his detention.
Ruling: The writ is not the proper remedy. He was
already convicted so there is really a legal ground for his
detention.
David v. Arroyo (2006)
The extent of reviewing the commander in chief powers:
There are Substantive limitations that are imposed by
the Constitution and Individual rights that are
recognized under the law.
3 Emergency Powers
-emergency power is legislative in nature but it is
delegated to the president
-there must be a law that will define the parameters of
the excess of that power
President as Head of State- Foreign relations power
4 Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans
Contracting loans- power to incur debt in behalf of PH
Why does PH need the debt? It is for economic means.
Although we have the GAA, it is not yet funded, hence
we need to borrow money
To expand, you need money to generate more income
The country needs funds  to generate services 
economic growth  build infrastructures, but we don’t
have money?  so we need to borrow!!!
Guaranteeing debts (sovereign guarantee)- securing
debts of non-government entities
Is that possible? Yes! Non- government borrows 
builds infras  Benefit of PH 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Constantino v. Cuisa (2005)
These were contested in this case:
1. Bond conversion
Ruling: It is covered by the power of the president to
contract loan. The SC interpreted the power to contract
loans as a general power to incur indebtedness.
Meaning, it includes various kinds of debts
2. Buy- back scheme
This mode pre-terminates debts. Constantino contends
that it is a violation of the separation of powers because
Congress has already appropriated a certain amount,
the buy-back scheme is using more money than the
appropriations.
Ruling: The scheme is valid. This is a prerogative of the
president. Only the president as chief executive can
perform this, here, it is the Secretary of Finance. Under
the doctrine of qualified political agency, an act of an
alter ego of the president; is an act of the president.
Besides, it is impractical for the president.
5 Foreign Affairs- president acts as
representative of the PH/ the president makes
the decision and articulates the policy
A. Treaties- these are national policies that are
permanent in nature which must be concurred by 2/3
of Senate
B. International agreements- changes in policy which
must also be concurred by 2/3 of the senate
C. Executive agreements- these are implementing
agreements which do not need concurrence by the
senate; common substances are: commercial and
consular relations, most favored nation rights,
patent rights, trademark and copyright protection,
postal and navigation arrangements and the
settlement of claims.
Ratio on why they are for executive- it requires
immediate action.
Saguisag v. Ochoa (2016)
The constitutionality of the EDCA is being assailed in
this case. The petitioners contend that the EDCA was
not sent to congress to be concurred. They also assert
that the agreed locations in the PH for the prepositioning
of supplies and equipment and sending personnel
amounts to a US base.
Ruling: The EDCA is not a treaty; it is an executive
agreement.
36
Can the president enter into an executive agreement
relating to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities?
Yes. The role of the President as the executor of the law
includes the duty to defend the State, for which purpose
he may use that power in the conduct of foreign
relations. In light of this duty, it is the prerogative of the
president to do whatever is legal and necessary for
Philippine defense interest.
The agreed locations are not bases:
1. They are located in existing PH Military
reservations
2. PH has control and jurisdiction
3. They are temporary
4. Locations are still going to be agreed upon
5. During is good for 10 years
What is the wisdom of the EDCA? The EDCA was
necessary because of the threat of China
Nicolas v. Romulo (2009)
The petitioner contends that the VFA is not effective
because even if concurred in the Senate, it was not
concurred in the US.
Ruling: The VFA is valid because it is not a treaty that
must be concurred. The VFA implements the treaty, the
Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA does not provide for
policy, it provides for jurisdiction which is its substance.
The policy of the treaty is mutual aid. For treaties like
this, there must be mutuality and reciprocity to be
effective.
Vinuya v. Romulo (2010)
The question whether the Philippine government should
espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign
government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not
to the courts but to the political branches. In this case,
the Executive Department has already decided that it is
to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of
its nationals for reparations against Japan.
People’s movement for press freedom, et al. v.
Manglapus (1988)
The case is about the extension of military bases in the
PH.
WON the public have the right to information on the
matters of negotiation of the president with other heads
of state.
Ruling: No. These information are confidential It cannot
be disclosed because it is possible that other states
might use the information against us. It can however be
disclosed after an agreement is met and when it has
become a matter of public concern.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Comm. Of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
There was an agreement with japan regarding
importations.
Ruling: This is more appropriate for executive agreement
and does not require a treaty. It is not permanent and
does not relate to policy.
Intellectual Property Association v. Ochoa (2016)
The petitioners in this case seek to nullify the Madrid
Protocol on the ground that it lacks concurrence form the
senate and that its implementation is in conflict of the IP
code.
Ruling: The Madrid Protocol does not need concurrence
from the senate because it is not a treaty but an
executive agreement. There is a right given to the
executive to enter into binding agreements without the
necessity of congressional approval covers subjects
such as trademark and copyright protection. Cases such
as trademark and copyright need prompt action.
There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the
IP code because the method of registration in the IP
code is distinct from the system of registration of the
Madrid Code. The applications under the Madrid
protocol are subject to relevant national law while
applications under our country are governed by our local
registration requirements.
Go Tek v. Deportation Board (1977)
Go Tek was found to be in possession of fake dollars
which was in violation of the RPC. Hence, he was
declared an undesirable alien. He was recommended
for deportation but Go Tek contended that the case
against him was still pending.
Ruling: The pending case is immaterial because the
Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the
existence of facts which warrant the deportation of alien.
This power is not dependent in any judgment. He has
the power to allow entry or to deport aliens.
6 Legislation
a. Address Congress- SONA
b. Preparation and submission of the
Budget- the president will submit a budget
of expenditures and sources of financing,
including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures
c. Veto Power- power of the president to
disapprove a bill
d. Emergency Powers- it is delegated from
Congress; it is the power to issue rules and
regulations to carry out a declared national
policy.
37
 7 Immunity from suit- the president cannot be
sued
Beltran v. Macasiar (1988)
The petitioner maintains that since the president can’t be
sued, the president cannot sue.
Ruling: No. There is no law barring the president from
filling a suit.
The Vice President
The VP has the same qualifications as the president
because the VP is a spare tire. He has no other job but
to wait for the president to die, to be impeached or to be
permanently become disabled. Nevertheless, the VP
may be appointed in a cabinet position.
Important definitions, for palabok purposes. 
1. International agreement- refers to a contract or
understanding entered into between PH ad
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
another government in written form and
governed by international law
2. Treaties- international agreements entered into
by the PH which require legislative concurrence
after executive ratification. It includes compacts
like conventions, declarations, covenants and
acts. They involve political issues or changes of
national policy and those involving international
arrangements of permanent character
3. Executive agreements- they are similar to
treaties but they do not require legislative
concurrence; they are agreements embodying
adjustments of detail carrying out well-
established national policies and traditions and
those involving arrangements of more or less
temporary nature
*from the case of Intellectual property association
38
 ARTICLE VII
Executive Department
SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines.
SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty
years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of
the Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election.
SECTION 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall
have the same qualifications and term of office and be
elected with and in the same manner as the President.
He may be removed from office in the same manner as
the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of
the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
SECTION 4. The President and the Vice-President shall
be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six
years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following the day of the election and shall end
at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The
President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No
person who has succeeded as President and has served
as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election
for President and Vice-President shall be held on the
second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon
receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of
the election, open all certificates in the presence of the
Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public
session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner
provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have
an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the
canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
SECTION 5. Before they enter on the execution of their
office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting
President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-
President or Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws,
do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the
service of the Nation. So help me God.” (In case of
affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)
SECTION 6. The President shall have an official
residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-
President shall be determined by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration
of the term of the incumbent during which such increase
was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure
any other emolument from the Government or any other
source.
SECTION 7. The President-elect and the Vice-
President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of
their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President-
elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall
have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice-
President-elect shall act as President until a President
shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall
become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been
chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have
died or become permanently disabled, the President of
the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall act as President until a
President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen
and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in
which one who is to act as President shall be selected
until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified,
in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the
officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
39
SECTION 8. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of the President, the
Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of both the President
and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in
case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and
qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as
President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until
the President or the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, and be subject to the same
restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President.
SECTION 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office
of the Vice-President during the term for which he was
elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President
from among the Members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the
morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices
of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call and
within seven days enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be
held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty
days from the time of such call. The bill calling such
special election shall be deemed certified under
paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution
and shall become law upon its approval on third reading
by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election
shall be charged against any current appropriations and
shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4,
Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening
of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special
election postponed. No special election shall be called if
the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the
date of the next presidential election.
SECTION 11. Whenever the President transmits to the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until
he transmits to them a written declaration to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by
the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
transmit to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
immediately assume the powers and duties of the office
as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives his written declaration that no
inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties
of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the
Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For
that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in
session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its
rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last
written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve
days after it is required to assemble, determines by a
two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as the
President; otherwise, the President shall continue
exercising the powers and duties of his office.
SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of the President,
the public shall be informed of the state of his health.
The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national
security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied
access to the President during such illness.
SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution,
hold any other office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract
with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not
during his tenure be appointed as members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
SECTION 14. Appointments extended by an Acting
President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the
elected President within ninety days from his assumption
or reassumption of office.
40
SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein
will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments
shall be effective only until after disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.
SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-
in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension
for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without any need of
a call.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with the
invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President
may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress.
SECTION 20. The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines
with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the
end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the
Congress a complete report of its decisions on
applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by
the Government or government-owned and controlled
corporations which would have the effect of increasing
the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be
provided by law.
SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall
be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
SECTION 22. The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days from the opening of every
regular session, as the basis of the general
appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures.
SECTION 23. The President shall address the Congress
at the opening of its regular session. He may also
appear before it at any other time.
41
 C. Judicial Department
1. Judicial power- duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies, involving rights which
are legally demandable and enforceable; it is
also the power to determine WON there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality
2. The Supreme Court-
Composition- 1 CJ, 14 Associate Justices
Mode of Sitting- GR: They sit in divisions of 5
XPN. En Banc when:
1. Constitutionality issues
2. When SC has to abandon a previous doctrine
3. Dismissing judges
4. Disbarment
Ratio for en banc decisions: SC decisions become laws
*In case 1 division lacks members, the CJ may appoint
another justice to that division
Appointment- they are appointed by the president
through a short list given by the JBC
What is the participation of the president in the JBC? He
is one of the members of the JBC through his alter-ego,
the secretary of justice.
Non judicial work for judges- members of the judiciary
shall only have judicial functions
Meralco v. Pasay Trans Co. (1932)
The SC is requested to sit as board of arbitrators as
provided for under the law.
Ruling: Invalid. This is not a judicial function.
Garcia v. Macaraig (1971)
Judge Macaraig was asked to review the petitioners for
the DOJ. He was acting like the executive secretary for
the Secretary of Justice.
Ruling: Invalid because there is conflict of interest. It is
possible that he might review decisions that may be filed
before his court. Macaraig was performing an executive
function which is a violation of the separation of powers.
Can members of the judiciary perform administrative
functions? Yes, but limited to those:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
1. Provided in the Constitution (Presidential
electoral tribunal, HRET, SET)
2. Germane to their judicial task
Salary- fixed by law/ cannot be decreased
Nitafan v. CIR (1987)
WON the salaries of judges are taxable.
Ruling: Yes! Exemption of the judiciary from taxes is a
violation of equal protection. Equal protection means that
the same class of persons receives the same treatment
unless they have substantial distinction. Is there such in
our present case? None. Members of the judiciary and
other members of the different branches are all
government employees. Since other members of the
different branches are taxed, the judiciary must also be
taxed.
Tenure- they shall serve until they are 70 years old
unless they become incapacitated
Ratio: The older the wiser. 
Removal- Justices in SC, impeachment that will be filed
in Congress; Judges, en banc decision of SC,
administrative case
In Re Gonzales (1988)
WON the ombudsman can dismiss a judge.
Ruling: No. The SC has the sole disciplinary jurisdiction
over judges.
Ratio: To prevent undue influence and harassment
cases.
*The Ombudsman is like a prosecutor. Its findings are
filed before the RTC.
Fiscal autonomy- the budget proposal on the judiciary
cannot be decreased by congress
Ratio: To prevent political pressure from congress
Jurisdiction- courts have jurisdiction over cases which
have actual case or controversies or rights that are
legally demandable and enforceable
1. Original jurisdiction- Sec. 5(1)
Certiorari/Manadamus/ Quo Warranto/ Action of
Sepcial Civil Action
2. Appellate- judicial review/ review error or
question of law
42
*Questions of facts are resolved from MTC to CA level
only

Santiago v. Bautista (1970)

The proclamation of honor students of a graduating

class is being assailed.

Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no right to be an honor

student, hence, no legally demandable right that is
violated.

Felipe v. Leuterio (1952)

The petitioner was asking the court to reverse the award

given in an oratorical contest.

Ruling: No jurisdiction. There is no legally demandable

right. There is no right to win an oratorical contest.

They alleged that there was cheating. WHO CARES?

How about the case involving a student that was

prevented from finishing her speech during her
graduation and because of that the school refused to
give her a certificate of good moral which prevented her
from entering college? This is justiciable. The certificate
was a requirement that the student needs. Valladolid v. Inciong (1992)

Deliberation- certification/consultation
Voting- majority of members
Requirements as to decision-
Resolution
Legal basis
Relates to why the case
was not given due course
Lack of merit/ No real
issue
Process:
The order of the Deputy minister of labor was being
assailed because it did not state the facts and the law.
Ruling: Valid. The Constitutional requirement is only
applicable to court of law and judicial decisions. The
order was coming from a quasi-judicial body.
Decision
Facts + Law Nunal v. COA (1989)
Disposition based on
merits after the case is Decision of the COA is being assailed because it did not
given due course follow the requirement under the Constitution. The SC in
a resolution stated the legal basis for the dismissal of the
Answers questions of laws petition to review the decision of the COA.
that needs to be decided
Ruling: The resolution of the SC is valid. Legal basis is
the only requirement for resolutions issued by courts.
The decision of COA is still valid even if it did not follow
the requirement because COA is not mandated under
the law to follow the consti requirement even if it
exercises quasi-judicial functions.

People v. Bugarin (1996)

The decision of the TC does not state the grounds for

the conviction of Bugarin for the felony of rape.

Ruling: Invalid. The requirement was not met. Under the

law, decisions must state the Facts and the law. The TC
must have stated why Bugarin was guilty and if the
elements of the crime were met.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 43

Importance: To inform the parties of the reason for the
decision, so if there is any appeal, he can point out in the
appellate court the matters he disagrees. It is also an
assurance that the judge went to the process of legal
reasoning.
Hernandez v. CA (1993)
The court copied and pasted the facts adopted by the
OSG and it made its own legal discussion.
Ruling: Valid. There is no prohibition against the court
adopting the narration of facts; it suffices that the court
states in its decision the facts on which it is based.
Yao v. CA (2000)
The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC without
stating the facts and the law it is based.
Ruling: Invalid. The requirement is that decisions must
state the facts and the law. The reason is to afford a
person due process by giving him a fair opportunity to be
heard.
Dizon v. Lopez (1997)
Judge Lopez at first only made a verbal dispositive
portion to the accused but she served a copy of the
decision only after 1 year and 8 months.
Ruling: Invalid. The decision must have been made
within 3 months. The law also requires that a decision
contains the law and the facts.
Asiavest v. CA (2001)
The High Court of Malaysia ruled against PNCC. PNCC
alleged that the decision of Malaysia is not valid because
it did not state the facts and the law upon which it is
based.
Ruling: The decision is valid based on the rule of
reciprocity. Final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are respected. To strengthen the
claim, the petitioner should use the foreign judgment as
supplement to his petitioner. To verify its authenticity,
there must be a certification from the Philippine
Embassy in the country where the foreign judgment was
rendered.
Petition for review/Motion for reconsideration- no
denial of petition or MR without stating the legal basis
Periods of deciding cases-
RTC- 3 months
CA- 12 months
SC- 24 months
*All from the time the case is submitted for resolution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Presidential Electoral Tribunal- decides election cases
involving Pres and VP. Electoral Tribunal receives
evidences by verifying all the contested ballots. The SC
cannot originally do this because the SC is not a trier of
facts so the SC sits as an Electoral tribunal.
Administrative powers
1. Supervision of lower courts- Sec. 11 (2)
-remove/suspend/impose fine on all justices
including the Sandiganbayan.
-has power of control, but cannot modify nor
revoke the decision; it can however change the
decision when it is appealed
In re Demetria (2001)
Justice Demetria went to a prosecutor to request him to
withdraw his inhibition against a Chinese drug lord. As a
defense, J. Demetria contended that it was just a social
visit as their offices were adjacent to each other.
Ruling: He can be disciplined. J. Demetria can exercise
ascendency over the prosecutor as he was the former
usec of DOJ. Thus, there is a possibility that he can
influence the outcome of the case. He was dismissed
from service because he showed to be unfit as a judge
instead of showing intergrity and impartiality.
In re letter of PJ Vasquez (2008)
There were allegations that J. Roxas received money as
bribe money. As a result, he himself went door to door
and asked the other justices to sign it.
Ruling: The court dismissed him from services because
he showed undue interest in the case. As a collegial
court, discussion among the justices is necessary. There
was none in this case because he solicited for the
signature of the justices before their discussion.
2. Temporarily assign judges to other stations
in public interest- designated to another court
for a fixed period which should not be longer
than 6 months
3. Order a change of venue or place of trial to
avoid miscarriage of justice- the purpose is to
avoid miscarriage of justice
*The court may initiate the transfer of the proceedings.
Eg. Maguinadanao massacre case, it was originally set
to be heard in Maguinadanao but was transferred in
Metro Manila
People v. Pilotin (1975)
44
The accused was charged because he burned down 2
barangays. He was requesting to transfer the place of
trial because his life was in danger.
Ruling: The trial can be transferred. There is a
miscarriage of justice because the safety of the accused
was at risk.
People v. Mondiguing (1975)
The accused moved to transfer the hearing of the case
because they were expecting the judge to be impartial
as he was the protégée of one of the victims.
Ruling: The transfer is valid. There would be a
miscarriage of justice because the accused may not be
given a fair trial.
People v. Sola (1981)
The mayor allegedly killed a sacada (a sugar cane
worker). There was a request to transfer the venue of
the case because of the possibility that no one might not
come out for the sacadas against the mayor.
Ruling: Valid. There would be a miscarriage of justice
because the witnesses are prevented from testifying
because of fear on testifying against the mayor.
4. Appointment of officials and employees of
entire judiciary
5. Promulgate rules concerning the
enforcement and protection of constitutional
rights
Writ of kalikasan- to order a person to stop a particular
activity because of the harm of the environment
Writ of habeas data- - a remedy available to any person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated
or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Writ of amparo- to a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
6. Promulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure- there must be
uniformity on all courts/ Rules of Court
5 books under the ROC:
I. Civil procedure
II. Criminal procedure
III. Special proceedings
IV. Legal ethics
V. Rules on evidence
7. Admission to the practice of law- SC
administer the licensure examination/ administer
the oath and the signing of the roll of attorneys/
power to discipline lawyers
Zaldivar v. Gonzales (1988)
Gonzales said something in court about the justices as if
he is implying that they are corrupt. He contended that it
is part of his freedom of speech.
Ruling: He was cited for contempt. The court has the
power to maintain order in the proceedings; it is part of
the plenary power to maintain order. There was no
violation of his freedom of speech because it is not
absolute in the first place. The court weight down the
speech of Gonzales with the integrity of the court and it
was concluded that the integrity of the court is important
because the court needs to ensure that the people’s
trust and confidence on the courts are maintained. If the
court chose to ignore the attacks against it, people might
lose their faith on the courts of justice.
In re Cunanan (1954)
Several unsuccessful bar examinees asked congress to
pass a law to reduce the passing rate of the bar exam
from 75 to 70. The ratio for the law is that the examinees
have no legal access to legal materials because of the
war.
Ruling: The law is not valid. Although the Constitution
vests to congress the power to legislate, the Constitution
itself provided for the exception. It specifically reserves
to the SC the power to regulate the admission to the
practice of law.
Aguirre v. Rana (2003)
Before taking his oath, Rana was already representing
himself a counsel. He signed as a counsel and entered
his appearance as such.
45
Ruling: He was barred from taking his oath. He has
showed acts that are unfit to be in the legal profession. A
person does not become a lawyer by passing the bar
alone, he must take his oath and sign the roll of
attorneys.
8. Integration of the bar-
Functions:
1. Discipline lawyers- they investigate and send a
recommendation to the SC
2. Education- MCLE service providers/ they issue
journals and legal articles
3. Service- free legal aid/ IBP provides for the
venue/ 60 hrs per year XPN. Government
lawyers
In re: Edillion (1978)
Edillion refused to pay his IBP dues because it was
allegedly a violation of his freedom of association.
Ruling: There was no violation of his right. Edillion’s
membership in the IBP is not a mere social group, but it
is for the regulation of lawyers. The fees being paid is for
the cost of regulation.
In re: IBP Elections (1989)
There were prohibited campaigning activities and
solicitation of votes done by the candidates.
Ruling: The SC nullified the elections. The court has the
power to do so because it exercises control over the
IBP.
9. Legal assistance to the underprivileged- legal
assistance/ legal aid office
Report on the judiciary- the Court reports to congress
annually regarding the highlights, how many cases were
decided, new rules and doctrines, etc.
Lower courts- judges of lower courts are screened by
the JBC and appointed by the president; their tenure is
until they are 70 years old unless they become
incapacitated
De la Llana v. Alba (1983)
Congress passed BP 129 or the judicial reorganization
law. The petitioners were contending that the law was
unconstitutional because it violates the security of tenure
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
as a lot of judges were dismissed from service.
Ruling: the law is VALID. Reorganization merely
changed the name of the courts. The law even created
new courts. There was no violation of their security of
tenure because most of the judges were later on re-
appointed. There would only be a violation of their
security of tenure if they are terminated without just
cause.
Judicial and Bar Council- they recommend nominees
to the president/ not barred by the election ban because
it is not merely a power but also a duty
Is the procedure in the JBC subject to review? Yes.
Jardeleza case
Chavez v. JBC (2013)
Congress sent 2 representatives in the JBC but the
Constitution only provides for 1. The procedure then is
than the e have an equivalent of ½ vote to get the vote
of 1.
WON the Consti allows more than 1 member of
Congress to sit as a representative in the proceedings of
the JBC
Ruling: No. The majority resolved the issue using verbal
legis. The Constitution is clear that there is only 1
member from Congress.
Dissent:
J. Brion: The issue must have been resolved using intent
+ the law as a whole
J. Leonen: In support of 8 because it is legally
impossible for an ex officio to represent 2 offices
because when you are ex-officio it is limited to particular
office (eg. If a senator is a member of the JBC he is
merely representing the senate and not the HOR)
Jardeleza v. Sereno (2014)
J. Carpio asked CJ Sereno to invoke the integrity rule
because he disagrees with how J. Jardeleza handled an
important case of the PH. J. Jardeleza excluded several
islands in a petition that the PH is claiming against China
and against other countries because including others
would weaken the case since it would amount to making
new enemies with other nations. J. Carpio disagrees
with the strategy because it amounts to betrayal of
national interest.
46
Ruling: The SC intervened because there were Lessons from the Jardeleza case:
allegations of grave abuse of discretion. The procedure
of the JBC violated due process. When the integrity rule 1. SC may exercise jurisdiction over the JBC
was invoked, J. Jardeleza was just summoned; he was 2. Even if not a quasi-judicial body, due process
not given fair opportunity to answer the issues raised must still be observed
against him. He was not given the chance to be heard.
Automatic release of appropriations for the
Since this rule is oppressive, the Court interfered and
judiciary- DBM is required to automatically release the
directed the JBC to revise its rules
funds

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 47

 ARTICLE VIII
Judicial Department
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.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of
its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when
it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by
the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically
and regularly released.
SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed
of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three,
five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled
within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which shall
be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other
cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be
heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no
case, without the concurrence of at least three of such
Members. When the required number is not obtained,
the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have
administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
48
SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member
of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty
years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of
judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and
a member of the Philippine Bar.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of
the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of
law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and
the representative of the private sector for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its
annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme
Court may assign to it.
SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees prepared
by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the submission of
the list.
SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power
to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon.
SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and
of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
SECTION 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in
any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in
division shall be reached in consultation before the case
is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of
the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief
Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to
the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any
Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained
from a decision or resolution must state the reason
therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by
all lower collegiate courts.
SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or
denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the
effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pending,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or
by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy
thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and
served upon the parties. The certification shall state why
a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued
within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory
period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility
49
as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an
shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted annual report on the operations and activities of the
thereto for determination, without further delay. Judiciary.

SECTION 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty

days from the opening of each regular session of the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 50

 Part V- Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
Why do we have the Constitutional Commissions? For
ACCOUNTABILITY.
Qualifications:
1. Natural born citizen
2. At least 35 years of age at the time of
appointment
3. Must not have been a candidate for any elective
position in the elections immediately preceding
their appointment
4. No candidate who lost in any election shall,
within 1 year after such election, be appointed to
any office in the government or any GOCC or in
any of their subsidiaries
5. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or
affinity within the 4th civil degree of the president
shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as
members of the Constitutional commissions
*for CSC- must have proven capacity for public
administration
*for COMELEC- 6. They must be holders of a college
degree; 7. Majority, including the chairman must have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years
*COA- 8. Must be a CPA; 9. At no time shall all
members of the commission belong to the same
profession
Disqualifications:
1. Hold any other office or employment
2. Engaged in the practice of any profession
3. Engage in the active management or control of
any business, which in any way may be affected
by the functions of his office
4. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly in
any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege
granted by, the government, its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCC
or their subsidiaries.
Appointments to the commission are subject to
confirmation by the commission on appointment. The
Constitution prohibits reappointment
What if a person was appointed but was by-passed in
the commission on appointment? Can he be reappointed
again? No, this amounts to reappointment which is
prohibited under the Constitution
No acting appointments. Ratio: it will erode the
independence of the commission
Allowed: Regular/ Ad-interim appointment
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Fixed term- 7 years from Feb. 2, 1987
Fixed salary
Fiscal autonomy- upon request of the Chair, DBM must
release the funds
Decisions: CSC/COA  en banc
*COMELEC- GR: divisions; xpn. Motion for
reconsideration  en banc
All other activities must always be germane to the
principal mandate of the commission
B. Civil Service Commission
Core business: Approve/disapprove qualifications
1. Appointment  it confirms the qualifications
What if unqualified  revoke/ issue a temporary
appointment because none of the applicants are
qualified
2. Promotion  makes sure they are qualified or
ensure that appointments are based on merits or
fitness (xpn. Highly technical; highly confidential
What if next in line was not appointed, can he file in the
CSC? No. CSC has no power because its function is
merely to check. He must go the regular courts.
3. Reassignment  ensure that their security of
tenure is protected
What if office was abolished? A valid abolition must be
done in GF and no badges of BF (eg. A new office is
created with the same functions as the abolished office)
4. Disciplinary  original concurrent jurisdiction in
disciplinary cases
Who are covered?
1. All branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies of the government
2. GOCC with original charter (created by law)
*If GOCC created under the corporation code or it
subsequently becomes privatized- it does not fall within
the CSC’s jurisdiction
They have the right to form unions but not given the right
to strike to prevent the hampering of government
functions.
51
Why is there no law permitting the right to strike? Even
if there is a right to self-organization, there is a principle
of public office is a public trust. It is thus limited.
Nevertheless, they may still rally during lunch break or
after office hours.
They may engage in Collective Negotiation Agreement
that contains other benefits and privileges of workers not
provided for by law.
Sec. 7 and 8- other appointments
-they must still be germane/related to primary function
-cannot receive additional compensation
-allowances if provided by law creating the position
C. Commission on Elections
Core business: In charge of election returns and
qualifications of candidates
Original jurisdiction- regional, provincial and city
Appellate jurisdiction- municipal and barangay
When does COMELEC’s jurisdiction end? When there is
a valid proclamation.
Does COMELEC have jurisdiction over senators? Yes
because COMELEC proclaims senators
How about the exclusion to the right to vote? It is not
within the jurisdiction of COMELEC. It is determined by
the regular courts.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
D. Commission on Audit
Core business: Government revenues and expenditures
Ratio: To ensure that public funds and property are
properly used
Revenues- in flows
Expenditures- outflows/ payments made + collections
(taxes by BIR, duties, license fees, etc)
Who are subject to audit?
1. The government
2. GOCC with original charter
3. GOCC under corp code  POST AUDIT ONLY
Where do you go in instances of money claims against
the government? You go to court, not COA.
Who determines the amount? The court because it is a
factual issue
COA’s jurisdiction- WON PAYMENT CAN BE MADE/
WON THERE IS A VALID PAYMENT
*CHR is not one of the commissions. It was created by
an executive order
52
 ARTICLE IX
Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which
shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission,
the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on
Audit.
SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission
shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of
any profession or in the active management or control of
any business which in any way be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in
any franchise or privilege granted by the Government,
any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries.
SECTION 3. The salary of the Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be
decreased during their tenure.
SECTION 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall
appoint their officials and employees in accordance with
law.
SECTION 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall
be automatically and regularly released.
SECTION 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate
its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it
or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is
deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required
by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission
itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
SECTION 8. Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
B. The Civil Service Commission
SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be administered
by the Civil Service Commission composed of a
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven
capacity for public administration, and must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a
Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner
for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to
any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed
or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
SECTION 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters.
(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only
according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far
as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-
determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.
(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be
removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law.
(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall
engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.
(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be
given such protection as may be provided by law.
SECTION 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the
central personnel agency of the Government, shall
establish a career service and adopt measures to
promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall
strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all
human resources development programs for all levels
and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
President and the Congress an annual report on its
personnel programs.
53
SECTION 4. All public officers and employees shall take
an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this
Constitution.
SECTION 5. The Congress shall provide for the
standardization of compensation of government officials
and employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, taking into
account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to,
and the qualifications required for their positions.
SECTION 6. No candidate who has lost in any election
shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to
any office in the Government or any government-owned
or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
SECTION 7. No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure.
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 government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries.
SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor
accept without the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any
foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as
additional, double, or indirect compensation.
C. The Commission on Elections
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position
in the immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be
Members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three
Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members
for five years, and the last Members for three years,
without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.
In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated
in a temporary or acting capacity.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall
exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
questions affecting elections, including determination of
the number and location of polling places, appointment
of election officials and inspectors, and registration of
voters.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other
requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the
Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and
sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to
achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means,
or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or
which are supported by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and
their agencies to political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to elections constitute
interference in national affairs, and, when accepted,
shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their
registration with the Commission, in addition to other
penalties that may be prescribed by law.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
minimize election spending, including limitation of places
where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
54
prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds,
offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any
officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of
any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of,
or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
(9) Submit to the President and the Congress a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en
banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shall be decided by the Commission en banc.
SECTION 4. The Commission may, during the election
period, supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization
of all franchises or permits for the operation of
transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants, special
privileges, or concessions granted by the Government or
any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time,
and space, and the right to reply, including reasonable,
equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns
and forums among candidates in connection with the
objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and
credible elections.
SECTION 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension
of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the President without the
favorable recommendation of the Commission.
SECTION 6. A free and open party system shall be
allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people, subject to the provisions of this Article.
SECTION 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,
organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.
SECTION 8. Political parties, or organizations or
coalitions registered under the party-list system, shall not
be represented in the voters’ registration boards, boards
of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other
similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint
poll watchers in accordance with law.
SECTION 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission
in special cases, the election period shall commence
ninety days before the day of the election and shall end
thirty days after.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O.
SECTION 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office
shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination.
SECTION 11. Funds certified by the Commission as
necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular
and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda,
and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special
appropriations and, once approved, shall be released
automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the
Commission.
D. Commission on Audit
SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit
composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at
the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of
age, certified public accountants with not less than ten
years of auditing experience, or members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment. At no time
shall all Members of the Commission belong to the same
profession.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one
Commissioner for five years, and the other
Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no
case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity.
SECTION 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have
the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and
settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts
of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, and on a
post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions
and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy
under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges
and universities; (c) other government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d)
such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the
Government, which are required by law or the granting
institution to submit to such audit as a condition of
subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control
system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the
Commission may adopt such measures, including
temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and
55
appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the
general accounts of the Government and, for such
period as may be provided by law, preserve the
vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority,

subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the
scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods required therefor, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive,
extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of
government funds and properties.

SECTION 3. No law shall be passed exempting any

entity of the Government or its subsidiary in any guise
whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.

SECTION 4. The Commission shall submit to the

President and the Congress, within the time fixed by law,
an annual report covering the financial condition and
operation of the Government, its subdivisions, agencies,
and instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities
subject to its audit, and recommend measures
necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
It shall submit such other reports as may be required by
law.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 || 2016 || P.O. 56