PART I

INTRODUCTION

A. Constitution as a Social Contract

Mariano Magsalin Jr.

Constitution is a social contract whereby the people have

surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common
good.
Atty. Antonio Jamon
It is the handcuff to restrain the government from encroaching
upon the rights of the People, not the other way around.

It is the balance betwe en authority and liberty

B. How to read the Constitution

Francisco v. House of Representative
Facts: Pres. Estrada filed an impeachment case against Chief Justice
Davide and seven (7) associate justices for culpable violation of the
Constitutio,betrayal of Public Trust and ot her high crimes.
The House Committee on Justice dismissed the case due to
insufficient substance although it was sufficient in form.
A day after the dismissal of the case, the Secretary General filed
another impeachment case against Chief Justice Davide together with
a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment signed by atleast 1/3 of
the members of the House of Representatives.
Due to this instance, various instant petition filed against the House
of Representatives contending that the said action is unconstitutional
as it violates of Sec. 5 Article XI of the Constitution provided that
“no impeachment proceedings shall be INITIATED against the same
official more than once within a period of one year”;
Held: In determination the merit of the petitions, the court shall go
turn to the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled
principles of the constitutional construction:
Verba Legis – Wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution
must be given ordinary meaning except where technical are
employed. The words in which constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained. They are to be given
their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in
which case the significance thus attached to them prevails.
Ratio legis est anima - The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. The object
is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the
Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose
sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole
as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to
effect that purpose.
Ut magis valeat quam pereat - The Constitution is to be interpreted
as a whole. It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction
that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all
the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing
upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument.
Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and
interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another,
if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand
together. In other words, the court must harmonize them, if
practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will
render every word operative, rather than one which may make the
words idle and nugatory.
Reliance on Foreign Jurisprudence to Interpret the Constitution
In this case, the House argues that the impeachment proceedings are
outside the scope of judicial review in relation to Art XI Section 3(6)
of the constitution which says that the Senate has the sole power to
try and decide impeachment cases. The House also relies b on
American jurisprudence to support their claim.
As held in the case of Garcia vs. COMELEC, "[i]n resolving
constitutional disputes, [this Court] should not be beguiled by foreign
jurisprudence some of which are hardly applicable because they have
been dictated by different constitutional settings and needs." Indeed,
although the Philippine Constitution can trace its origins to that of
the United States, their paths of development have long since
diverged.
There are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. Constitution and
the Philippine Constitution with respect to the power of the House of
Representatives over impeachment proceedings.
-the U.S. Constitution bestows sole power of impeachment to the
House of Representatives without limitation
-the Philippine Constitution, though vesting in the House of
Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases,
provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as
embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These
limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach,
and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same
official.

C. FRAMEWORK FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION

Francisco v. House of Representative
Section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution– The court’s power of
Judicial Review is conferred on the Judicial Branch of the
Government.
Judicial Review – It is the duty of the Court of Justices to settle
controversies which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of any branches and
instrumentality of government.

is an integral component of the delicate system of checks and

balances which, together with the corollary principle of separation of
powers, forms the bedrock of our republican form of the government
and insures that its vast powers are utilized only for the benefit of
the people for which it serves.
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
does not assert any superiority over the other departments; rather, it
only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
Constitution to check the other departments in the exercise of its
power to determin e the law, and hence to declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitutio n.
The power of judicial review includes the power of review over
justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.
Essential Requisites for Judicial Review:
1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power;
 2. The person challenging the act must have “standing” to
challenge;
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and
4. The issue of unconstitutionality must be the very lis mota of
the case.

PART II
AMMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
A. Amendments v. Revision
Amendment v. Revision
Amendment refers to any alteration in the Constitution. It is a
piecemeal or isolated change in the Constitution involving a
particular provision or certain provisions thereof, while
Revision is a total change involving a re-writing of the entire
instrument.
Javellana Doctrine –
Revision may involve a re-writing of the whole constitution. On
the other hand, the act of amending a Constitution envisages a
change of specific provisions only.
B. Proposal
Section 1 Article XVII, 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 (Congress as a Constituent Assembly); or
2. A Constitutional Convention.
Section 2 Article XVII of the Constitution
3. By the People through initiative (R.A. 6735, August 04,
1989)

Proposal:
1. Congress as a Constituent Assembly, by a vote of ¾ of
all its members;
 2. A Constitutional Convention
a. by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, call a
constitutional convention;
b. by a vote of majority of its members, may submit
to the people, the question of calling such a
convention.
Gonzales v. Comelec – The power to amend the constitution or
to propose amendments is not included in the general grant of
legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers
of the people – as the repository of sovereignty in a republican
state, such as ours (Section 1 Article II) – to make and hence, to
amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose
amendments to the Constitution merely because the same
explicitly grants such power. The members of the Congress act
as a component elements of a Constituent Assembly. Congress
can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at
the same time call for a Constitutional convention to propose
amendments and they may pass three (3) resolutions
simultaneously. It was constrained to proposed amendments to
implement a decision calling for a constitutional convention.
3. The people directly through initiative:
i. Section 32 Article VI – by ten percent (10%)
of the total registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by
atleast three (3) per centum of the
registered voters thereof.
ii. Section 2 Article XVII – by twelve percent
(12%) of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by atleast three (3) per
centum of the registered voters therein.
Santiago v. Comelec – The petitioners filed a case with
Comelec to amend the Constitution to lift the term limits of
public officials through People’s Initiative. Delfin wanted
Comelec to control and supervised the said people’s initiative
the signature-gatherinf all over the Country. Comelec turn
ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Roco
et. Al moved for the dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the
ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable
by the Comelec.
The petitioners raised issues against Delfin Petition:
Santiago v.Comelec
1. The constitutional provision on People’s Initiative to amend
the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed 1. RA 6735 does not
suggest an initiative on
by the Congress, and no such law has passed;
amendments to the
2. RA 6735 provides 3 systems on initiative but failed to Constitution.
provide any subtitle on initiative of Constitution, unlike in the
2. RA 6735 does not
other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission indicates
provide for the contents of
matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law; a petition for initiative on
3. COMELEC has NO POWER to provide rules and regulations the Constitution.
for the exercise of People’s Initiative. ONLY CONGRESS is 3. No subtitle is provided
AUTHORIZED by the Constitution to pass the implementing for initiative on the
law; Constitution.
4. The People initiative is limited to amendment only and not
for revision. And the lifting of term constitute with revision
and not mere revision. Note: Note: While
Congress and
RA 6735 was intended to include or cover people’s initiative Constitutional
on amendments to the Constitution, but as worded, it does Convention may
not adequately cover such initiative. propose both
Section 2, Article XVII, providing for amendments to the amendments and
Constitution is not self-executory. Thus, the people cannot revisions, the electorate
exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide can propose through
for its implementation. initiative only
amendments.
COMELEC, an administratice body exercising quasi-judicial
functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of
delegation of legislative authority. In every case of permissible
delegation, there must be a showing of that the delegation
itself is valid. It is valid only if the law:
1. Is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to
be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate; and
2. Fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate and determinable – to which the delegate
must conform in the performance of his functions.
Lambino v. Comelec – Lambino Group’s initiatve petition
changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of
Article VI (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article
VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled
“Transitory Provisions”. These proposed changes will shift the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to Unicameral-
Parliamentary form of Government.
In order for a petition to be a valid initiative, it must first
comply with the requirements of Section 2, Article XVII, of the
Constitution even before complying with Article 6735 (System
of Initiative Referendum).It must also contain only one (1)
subject.
The framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the
proposed constitutional amendment should be ready and
shown to the people before they sign such proposal.
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal
on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential
elements must be present. First, the people must author and
thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can
sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the
proposal (in full text) must be embodied in a petition.

C. Submission
-Section 4, Artcile XVII, of the 1987 Constitution
-Doctrine of Proper Submission – The plebiscite must be held
not earlier than sixty days nor later that ninety days after the
approval of the proposal by Congress or the Constitutional
Convention, or after the certification by the Comelec of the
sufficiency of the petition. The period indicated is meant to give
the people sufficient and reasonable time to study and discuss
the proposed amendments.
The plebiscite may be held on the same day as the regular
elections.
Tolentino v. Comelec - All amendments to be proposed by the
Constitutional Convention must be submitted to the people in
a single election or plebiscite. In order that a plebiscite for the
ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only the sufficient time but
ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the
amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of
the Constitution with which is has to form a harmonious whole.
A proposal to amend the Constitution should be submitted to
the people not separately from but together with all the other
amendment to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention.
Piecemeal amendments are not allowed.
D. Ratification
Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution – Any
amendment to or revision of the Constitution shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of all the votes cast in the plebiscite.

Part III
Judicial Review
Judicial Review is a power alien to English tradition. It is
invention of American system whence the Philippine system
came.

The power of Judicial Review is the Supreme Court’s power to

declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. It also includes the
power to declare unconstitutional the “application, or operation
of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances, and other regulations” even if the legal basis for the
action itself is constitutional.

Marbury v. Madison – An American jurisprudence where the

grant of judicial power is rooted.

If the law be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law

and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the
Court must either decide the case conformably to the law,
disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the
Constitution, disregarding the law; the Court must determine
which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the
very essence of judicial duty.
 A. Separation of Powers
Executive – Power of the Sword
Legislative – Power of the Purse
Judicial – Power of Judicial Review
Rationale: It aims to prevent a concentration of authority in one
person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible
error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican
institutions. It is intended to secure action, forestall overaction,
to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency.

In re: Laureta and Maravilla – The three co-equal branches of

the government are each supreme and independent within the
limits of its own sphere, neither one can interfere with
performance of the duties of the other.
Judicial power is by no means a “display of arrogance” but a
restatement of the fundamental principle of separation of
powers and checks and balances under a republican form of
government, that the three co-equal branches of the
government - executive, legislative, and judicial – are each
supreme and independent within the limits of its own sphere.
Neither one can interfere with the performance of the duties of
the other.
Demetria v. Alba – -Where the legislature or the executive
branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary
cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where
the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its
constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to
declare what the other branches of the government had
assumed to do, as void. This is the essence of judicial power
conferred by the Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law”.
7 Pillars of Judicial Restraint
a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
legislation unless it is the last resort, and is a necessity in
the determination of the important issues between
individuals.
b. The Court will not decide questions of constitutionality
unless it is absolutely necessary to the case.
 c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional
law outside the context of the facts to which is it to be
applied.
d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question
if there are some other grounds to which it can be
decided.
e. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when a complainant fails to show that he is
injured by its operation.
f. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when the complainant has once benefited from it.
g. When the constitutionality of an act of the Congress is
drawn in question, the Court will first ascertain whether
a construction of the statue is possible of resolving it.

B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review

Angara v. Electoral Commission – Our Constitution as a

definition of the powers and extent of such powers and … when
the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it
does not assert any superiority over the departments… but only
asserts the solemn and sacred obligation entrusted to it by the
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under
the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual
controversy the rights which the instrument secures and
guarantees to them. The independence of the Judiciary is the
indispensable means for enforcing supremacy of the
Constitution and the rule of law.

C. Justiciable and Political Question

Political Question
Tanada v. Cuenco – Political Questions are “those questions
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”.
Santiago v. Guingona – where the dispute involved the
selection of a Senate Minority Leader, the Court said that it
could not because the matter of formulating rules and
implementing those rules have been textually conferred by
the Constitution on Congress itself.
Avelino v. Cuenco – The Court eventually acted to determine
whether the election of Cuenco as a Senate President was
attended by a quorum. The Supreme Court held that
apportionment of representative Districts is not a political
question because there are constitutional rules governing
appointment.

Political Question Doctrine – A political question is a question

of policy, one that involves the wisdom of the acts of the
executive and legislative branches of government, or one that is
left for the people to decide in their sovereign capacity. Political
question are beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry in deference
to the separation of powers doctrine. Political question are
outside the scope of Judicial Review, in which the full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government.
Miranda v. Aguirre – Political question connotes what it means
in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to
those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided
by the people on their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative
or executive branch of the government.’ It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure while a justiciable issue implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable, an act of omission violative of such
right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by aw, for said
breach of right.
Francisco v. House of Representative – The Court possessed the
power of judicial review as there was an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; the
persons challenging the act possessed the standing to
challenge. The question of constitutionality has been raised at
the earliest possible opportunity; and the issue of
constitutionality is the very list mota of the case.
There are two species of political questions: (1) “truly political
questions” and (2) “not truly political questions”. The former is
beyond judicial review, while the former is subject to the review
of the court. The determination of a truly political question
from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to
the question of whether there constitutionally imposed limits
on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there
are, the courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch
or instrumentality of the government property acted within
such limits.
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos – the Court must
restrain from intruding itself from policy matters. The judiciary
is loath to interfere with the due exercise by coequal branches
of government of their official functions. “Just as the Supreme
Court, as the guardian of Constitutional rights, should not
sanction usurpation by any other department of government so
it should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the
powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the
organic act.
D. Requisites of Judicial Review
Requisites:
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. The issue must be raised by a party with standing;
3. It must be raise at the earliest opportunity; and
4. There must be a necessity of deciding the constitutional
question.
1. Actual Case or Controversy
Prematurity
PACU v. Secretary of Education – The power of courts to declare
a law unconstitutional arises only when the interests of litigants
require the use of that judicial authority for their protection
against actual interference, a hypothetical threat being
insufficient.
The case must be ripe for judicial determination. A speculative,
conjectural or theoretical matter does not partake of an actual
case or controversy.
Mariano v.Comelec – Petitioners merely pose a hypothetical
issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversies.
Monteclaros v. Comelec – A proposed bill creates no right and
imposes no duty legally enforceable by Court and it also
violates no constitutional rights or duty. The Court has no
power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or
unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of
rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress.
Mootness
Gen. Rule – Judicial Power is not exercised to address moot
questions. A moot case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so the
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
Generally, the court decline jurisdiction over such case or
dismiss it on ground of mootness.
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR - The provisions that the petitioners
are refuting are now repealed and excluded from the coverage
of CARL. IN view of the foregoing, the question concerning the
constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot
and academic with the passage of a new law which repealed the
same.
Lacson v. Perez - -All the petitions assailing the declaration of a
state of rebellion of PGM and the warrantless arrests allegedly
effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and
in law. Significantly, PGMA ordered the lifting of the declaration
of a “state of rebellion” in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the
instant petitioners have been rendered moot and academic.
2. Proper Party
Joya v. PCGG – where art lovers seeking to enjoin the auction
sale of European artworks and silverware, part of the objects
recovered by the government after the ouster of President
Marcos, on the ground that these formed part of the Filipino
cultural heritage. Plaintiffs where deemed without standing to
sue because they neither owned the properties involved nor had
they been purchased with public funds.
Note: the challenger’s interest in the suit must be personal and
not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right
of some third and unrelated party.
Citizen Standing

Associational Standing
Kilosbayan v. Guingona – the right of the petitioner to challenge
the validity of the lotto contract of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes on the argument that the case was of
transcendental importance.
Locus Standi is broader than the rule on “real party interest”,
which can be used only when constitutional issues are involved
in litigation.
In public law the rule of real party-in-interest is subordinated
to the Doctrine of Locus Standi. The real party-in-interest is not
strictly applicable in public law cases.

IBP v. Zamora – When President Estrada, in the wake of rising

number of kidnappings deployed the marines to assist in the
maintenance of order, the Court said that the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines had no standing to challenge the action.
The Court has adopted a liberal attitude on the Locus Standi of
a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of
transcendental significance to the people. Thus, when the
issues raised are of paramount importance to the public, the
Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure. In this case,
a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced
constitutional issues which deserve attention to this Court in
view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.
D. Judicial Department
1. The Judicial Power
Judicial Power is the duty of the Court of Justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable or 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
branches or instrumentality of the Government.
Echagaray v. The Secretary of Justice – The suspension of
such a death sentence is undisputably an exercise of
judicial power. It is not a usurpation of the presidential
power of reprieve though its effect is the same – the
temporary suspension of the execution of the death
convict.

2. The Supreme Court

a. Composition
Section 4 (1), Article VIII – The Supreme Court shall be
composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen (14)
Associate Justices. Any vacancies shall be filled within
ninety (90) days from the occurrence thereof.
b. Mode of Sitting
Section 4 (2), Article VIII – As to the manner of
conducting business, by command of the Constitution
the following cases have to be heard and decided en
banc: 1.) all cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive agreement; 2.) cases
involving the constitutionality application or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
order, instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
3.) cases heard by a division when the required
majority in the division is not obtained; 4.) cases
where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a
doctrine or principle of law previously laid down
either en banc or in division; 5.) administrative cases
where the vote is for the dismissal of a judge of a
lower court or otherwise to discipline such a one; and
6.) election contests for President or Vice-President.
 All other cases may be decided either en banc or in
division as the Rules of Court may provide.

Division of the Court are not inferior to an en banc

decision.

The only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of

law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc
or in division, may be overturned or reversed only by
the Court sitting en banc.

c. Appointments and qualifications

d. No non-judicial work for judges

Manila Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co. –The Supreme

Court and its members should not or cannot be required
to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to
assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the
administering of judicial functions.

No inherent power in the Executive or Legislative to

charge the Judiciary with administrative functions except
when reasonably incidental to the fulfilment of judicial
duties.