Concept of Academic Freedom – DECS vs SAN DIEGO

Justify the method, but it is a

This talks about the NMAT, the
settled rule in the Constitution, in
National Medical Admission Test.
jurisprudence that the school or
This person, San Diego wanted to
the institution of higher learning
take up medicine. However, he
has the prerogative or the right to
cannot pass the test. He took it 3
determine using its academic
times and failed many times and
freedom to among others – who to
there is a regulation issued by this
teach, who may teach, how it will
entity here. The check during this
be taught and what will be taught.
time, naay limitation as to how
What happened in this case? many times you can take it.
Academic Freedom is in Article
He went to court to challenge the
XIV, Section 5 Paragraph 2.
validity of that issuance by way of
Academic Freedom shall be
mandamus to compel right to entry
enjoyed in all institutions of higher
as well as the school involved here
learning.
to allow him to take the NMAT
So this institution of higher again despite the regulation.
learning enjoying its freedom, a
WON the person who have tried 3x
guarantee that is given to these
in the NMAT, is he entitled to take
schools by the Constitution. What
again?
does it giveth? It includes the right
of the school/college or the school NO. The purpose of the NMAT at
to decide and adopt to its aims and the outset is to limit the admission
objectives, and to determine how to the medical schools only to
these objectives can be best those who have initially proved
attained. How may be these their competence and preparation
objectives be attained? So if the for medical education, consistent
school wants to impose this to the Philsat.
threshold in the QPI, pwede yan
This is to regulate those who wish
sya, among other things, because
to practice medicine. Because, if
it has the right granted by the
mga mali na tao ang makasulod
Constitution. More importantly,
ana, without that regulation, it
this academic freedom
bring perils to the public to their
encompasses four freedoms: who
patients. They cannot apply the
may teach? Who may be taught?
medical concepts, practices and
How will the lessons be taught in a
theories properly with the
manner by which to say can be
situations given – because, they
taught, or will be taught? *pwede
were not properly screened prior
na mag impose ang school na
to the entering of medschool.
ingon ani dapat.* Who may be
admitted to? What to teach?
So, the three-flunk rule here can
be regarded as nonetheless valid
of a regulation of the medical
profession. This can be done by the
State, this regulation, this
limitation. Take note that a person
cannot insist on being a physician
if he will be a menace to his
patients. If one wants to be a
lawyer may prove better as a
plumber, he should be so advised
and adviced. Of course, he may not
be forced to be a plumber, but on
the other hand he may not force
his entry to the bar.
Academic Freedom announced this
institution of higher learning to
determine who will be admitted to
study. Such as in the case of
GARCIA vs FACULTY
ADMISSION COMMITTEE in the
Loyola School of Theology. So we
have Epicharis – female, one of the
reasons she was not allowed to
enroll – she is a female, in a
seminary, it’s unusual. But the
more important reason here is that
she was problematic in class. She’s
asking these questions, etc. So,
she challenged, she should be
admitted because she has
academic freedom. The courts said
that the academic freedom is not
given to you, but rather to this
institution of higher learning.
Freedoms: who to teach, who may
teach, how it will be taught and
what will be taught, who may be
admitted to study.
If the exercise of these freedoms
are abused, whimsically invoked by
the institution, pwede sad sya
machallenge. You can challenge
such freedom if it is proved to be
whimsical.
These freedoms are not supposed
to be abused. You can challenge it
when there are no basis of
freedom.
SC cannot find merit that such
freedom was abused, it was
justified by the school as to why
she was not admitted to the
university.
DLSU vs CA
He was a student of DLSU, there
was this brawl between these two
fraternities. Nagblame siya ug mga
members sa Lux Fraternity to have
caused the injuries on him. So,
there were administrative student
disciplinary proceedings filed
against the members of Domino
Lux and they were notified of the
charges, filed their respective
defences and ultimately they were
expelled by the school.
They claimed that their rights
were violated to education. Was
the implication of the right here
proper?
YES. It is the institution of the
higher learning possesses
academic freedom which includes
among others: 1. The freedom to
determine who may study? 2. What
it may teach?
The school teaches discipline. So,
if you cannot abide by the rules of
this institution, you can be
sanctioned accordingly. A school
has an interest in teaching their
students discipline, necessary, an
indispensable value of learning.
The right to discipline the student,
likewise finds its free basis in the
freedom of what to teach.
In the case of CUDIA vs
SUPERINTENDENT, this case
become prominent, the media of
this student of the PNP, he was
expelled, asked helped from PAO.
He was expelled for violating the
Honor Code because he lied. He
was late, and he blamed their
professor because his previous
professor dismissed them late.
The professor said, no. I released
them on time.
It was found out that he lied, and
defended his lie. And because of
these proceedings, disciplinary
proceedings were conducted.
Imagine, he was only late for 2
minutes and then he was expelled.
It was not because he violated the
tardiness. But rather his violation
is bigger than that. It digs deep
into what is really in him and that
is his lack of honor among other
things.
He claims that his expulsion was
unwarranted, he wants to be re-
admitted, also he was not given
due process. The PMA, on the
other hand is consistent to its
academic freedom. It has the
power to deny his admission and
grant the expulsion here.
Thus, this rule in academic
freedom which all rises impose
disciplinary measures and
punishment as it deems fit and
consistent with the peculiar needs
of the academy.
It also discussed the freedoms.
The power of the school to impose
disciplinary measures extends
even after graduation for any act
done by the student prior thereto.
The Honor Code is set of basic and
fundamental ethical and moral
principle. It is the minimum
standard for cadet behaviour and
serves as the guiding spirit behind
each cadet’s action. As a student of
PMA, you have to adhere to this
Honor Code. He/she is absolutely
bound thereto.
The Honor Code constitutes the
foundation for the cadets’
character development. It defines
the desirable values they must
possess to remain part of the
Corps.
The Spirit of the Honor Code is a
way for the cadets to internalize
Honor in a substantive way.
Here, he violated it, by lying. So,
this Honor Code consistent to be
justified primarily for achieving the
cadets’ character development.
He did not comply with this honor
code, mugawas na wala syay honor
and pwede siya madiscipline
accordingly. Was his dismissal
cruel and unjust? NO.
It was found here that in truth and
in fact, he lied, and the violation of
the honor code (isa sa mga
sanctions didto) warrants the
penalty of dismissal from the PMA.
So that’s what happened.
SON vs UST
We have here the petitioners, they
were professors in the UST. Now,
they were admitted to be full time
professors in that institution but
on probationary status. One of the
conditions there is that they must
comply all the requirements which
include among others the
possession of the graduate degree
before the expiration of the
probationary period and by
satisfactory performance of the
duties and responsibilities set forth
in the job description hereto
attached.
If they won’t have a degree after
the expiration, they could be not
re-hired anymore. To emphasize
the importance of this
requirements, there was the
issuance from CHED – directing
the strict implementation of the
minimum qualification for faculty
members which includes this
masters degree and also licensure
requirements. Because of this
issuance, the school just followed
it. They issued a memo to the
professors who must comply with
this masters degree, otherwise,
their employment will not be
renewed.
Now, they were ultimately
terminated by the non-compliance
with the requirement of this
masters degree and they insist that
they were illegally dismissed.
They seek relief to the Labor
Arbiter, and it’s successful and
NLRC. The Court of Appeals
moved to reverse the decision
because one of the expressions or
reasons why this was done was
because the school merely exercise
its academic freedom. And the SC,
affirmed the ruling of the CA.
By affirming with the decision of
the CA, we can discuss it, what is
the rationale, the reason why CA
uphold this? Because this
institution enjoys academic
freedom. It includes the freedom of
who may teach. So katong mga
teachers na wala nagcomply sa
mga requirements, exercising this
right. Pwede madetermine na dili
na sila pwede mag-teach.
Undeniably, it is the school’s
prerogative of the school to set
high standards of efficiency for its
teachers since quality education is
a mandate of the Constitution, in
accordance with academic
freedom gives the institution the
right to choose who should teach.
Now, do students have academic
Freedom? In this jurisdiction.
NONE. But we have the right to
education. In the US, there is still
continuing development of the
adoption of this right.
It requires the professor to
encourage a discussion, inquiry of
expression, value the students
solely on academic basis and not
on conduct.
It matters on the regulated
academic standards. It also
involves the right outside the
classroom. They should be free to
organize, promote their common
interests.
There is that recognition at least in
the US na nay sila’y ana na form of
student academic freedom. But in
this case, there is no such
recognition.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROPER
Before we go to the definition of
the Constitution is we have to
define what political law is.
Political Law is a branch of public
law which deals in the organization
of the operations of the
government organs, state, and
defines the relations of its State
and inhabitants of its territory.
Why is it so important for us to
determine the concept of
POLITICAL LAW?
Because, of this case of
MACARIOLA vs ASUNCION.
Naay relevance, to determine its
specific law to be a political law or
not a political law.
What happened in Macariola vs
Asuncion?
What happened in this case?
 Judge Asuncion invested into
a fishing and that it was
argued by Macariola that it
doesn’t have any business
aside from he being a judge
and that Judges have some
sort of judicial immunity.
What did he violate? By possessing
this kind of interest, what did he
violate?
 Article 14 of the Code of
Commerce,
Also the Anti-graft law, by his
association to this entity na nay
kasong pending before his court.
He is even a stockholder and a
ranking officer of this entity. So,
naa na syay impartiality and more
importantly, violated his provisions
of the Code of Commerce. Did he
violate these provisions kining sa
Code of Commerce?
 Not violate.
The law itself, Nganong dili man
niya maviolate ni nga law? Kining
Code of Commerce?
 It regulates the conduct of
certain of public officers in
respect to them engaging in
business and ex-political
investments.
It is a form of political law.
So what you kung political law?
What happens to political laws
when there’s a change in
sovereignty?
  Where there is change of Administrative law. Change in
sovereignty, the political sovereignty, being abrogated, so
laws of the former sovereign, there is no provision to violate in
whether compatible or not this case.
with those of the new
sovereign, are automatically Now in this case, the Court
abrogated unless they are distinguish kung unsa diri ang
expressly re-enacted by municipal laws and political laws.
affirmative act of the new Municipal laws katong dili political
sovereign. laws. Municipal laws of the newly
acquired territory, not in conflict
So where did we get the provisions with the laws of the new sovereign
of the Code of Commerce? continue in force without the
It is significant to note that the express assent or affirmative act of
present Code of Commerce is the the conqueror, the political laws
Spanish Code of Commerce of do not.
1885, with some modifications made
by the "Commission de Codificacion What is the scope of the political
de las Provincias de Ultramar," which law? Constitutional law, admin
was extended to the Philippines by the law, law on public corporations,
Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and law on public officers and election
took effect as law in this jurisdiction
laws.
on December 1, 1888. Upon the
transfer of sovereignty from Spain Constitutional law, what is
to the United States and later on
constitutional law which is part of
from the United States to the
Republic of the Philippines. political law? It is a branch of
public law of a state which speaks
So because of that if it is a political of organization and frame of
law, these political laws are being – government, the organs and
abrogated. Because when there is a powers of sovereignty, the
change in sovereignty, Where there distribution of political and
is change of sovereignty, the governmental authorities and
political laws of the former functions, fundamental principles
sovereign, whether compatible or which are to regulate the relations
not with those of the new of government and subject and
sovereign, are automatically which prescribes generally
abrogated unless they are planned – to which public affairs
expressly re-enacted by affirmative of the State are to be
act of the new sovereign. administered.
Considering that the provision What happened in the case of
here, the Code of Commerce was a GENUINO vs DE LIMA?
form of a political law, specifically
what kind of Political Law? –  It is actually the case filed by
the legal counsel of former
 president GMA during the
time when her involvement
in the election case was
questioned. The DOJ Hold
Departure Order was issued
against PGMA
PGMA had pending cases before
the DOJ. Unsay process ang
ginaundergo before the DOJ?
 preliminary investigation
Later on she wanted to get out of
the country because magpa opera
sya, but naay, HOLD DEPARTURE
ORDER.
This is HDO where was it
anchored? What was the circular
issued by the DOJ?
DOJ Circular No. 41
Consolidated Rules
Regulations.
So karon, wala siya kaleave ug
country so nagfile sya ug case
against among others
constitutionality of this circular. Is
it valid or not? And kung invalid
siya, invalid pud iyahang Hold
Departure Order, so pwede sya
maka-travel.
The circular was valid but the DOJ
has no power to issue a Hold
Departure Order against PGMA.
Are you sure?
So the DOJ’s circular valid or not?
It is invalid. Is it unconstitutional?
NO.
The court discussed here the
supremacy of the Constitution.
Unsa ang basis ni GMA nganong
unconstitutional daw ning DOJ
Circular? Unsa’y rights ang
naviolate?
The right to travel.
Under Bill of Rights. It also
discussed that the Supremacy of
the Constitution where the right
was intended, the Constitution is
the fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation. So
gidefine ang constitution diri.
It is deemed written in every
statute and contract. If a law or an
administrative rule violates any
norm of the Constitution, that
issuance is null and void and has
no effect.
–
It is a testament to the living
and
democracy in this jurisdiction.
Karon, giviolate daw iyahang right
to travel, naa pud ning right to due
process under the Bill of Rights.
the
The right to travel – restricted for
very limited reasons or grounds
that there are only three
considerations that may permit the
restriction of the right to travel.:
NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC
HEALTH, or PUBLIC SAFETY.
As a requirement, there must be
an explicit provision or a law or a
rules of Court, providing for the
impairment of that right.
So kelangan ug law or provisions
under the Rules of Court before
that right can be limited.
The requirement for a legislative
enactment was purposely added to
prevent inordinate restraints on a
person’s right to travel by
administrative officials who may be
tempted to wield authority under
the guise of national security,
public safety or public health.
Before you can hold a person,
because, you want to restrict
his/her travel there must a LAW to
issue a HOLD DEPARTURE
ORDER.
Was there a law? NONE.
Executive 292 – Administrative
Code of 1987
The provision states here, granting
her or the agency ruling powers
under Section 1 and 3, etc etc gi-
cite niya ang mga specific
provisions of the Administrative
Code.
Were the provisions cited proper?
Did it support the argument?
Section 3 does not authorize the
DOJ to issue WLOS and HDOs to
restrict the constitutional right to
travel. There is even no mention of
the exigencies stated in the
Constitution that will justify the
impairment.
Basically, the provisions here were
what?
Unsa ilahang nature?
They were mere general provisions
designed to lay down the purposes
of the enactment and the broad
enumeration of the powers and
functions of the DOJ. In no way can
they be interpreted as a grant of
power to curtail a fundamental
right as the language of the
provision itself does not lend to
that stretched construction.
So there is no basis. It was actually
issued by the previous DOJ
secretary, then ginagamit sya as
basis to justify the issuance of
HDOs. Now, she argued that DOJ
secretaries are cabinet members,
have rule-making powers.
Secretaries of government
agencies have power to
promulgate rules and regulations.
This is the exercise of that power.
Correct or not?
Because of the ruling powers of
the DOJ secretary, naa sila’y power
to issue this circular.
Not correct.
Why?
The case distinguished the types of
rule-making power.
Secretaries of government
agencies have the power to
promulgate rules and regulations
that will aid in the performance of
their functions.
This is adjunct to the power of
administrative agencies to execute
laws and does not require the
authority of law. This is, however,
different from the delegated
legislative power to promulgate
rules of government agencies.
Another power given to secretaries
is the delegated legislative power
of rules of government agencies –
which may include the power to
formulate IRR (implementing rules
and regulations).
Whether the rule-making power by
the Executive is a delegated
legislative power or an inherent
Executive power depends on the
nature of the rule-making power
involved. If the rule-making power
is inherently a legislative power,
such as the power to fix tariff
rates, the rule-making power of
the Executive is a delegated
legislative power. In such event,
the delegated power can be
exercised only if sufficient
standards are prescribed in the
law delegating the power.
If the rules are issued by the
President in implementation or
execution of self-executory
constitutional powers vested in the
President, the rule-making power
of the president is not a delegated
legislative power. The rule is that
the president can execute the law
without any delegation of power
from the legislature. Otherwise, it
becomes a mere figure-head and
no the sole Executive of the
Government.
Mahulog ba ang DOJ circular or
either of these two rule-making
powers?
Sa First line, Katong aid in the
performance of their functions,
katong circular that restrain one’s
right to travel, facilitates in the
performance among other things.
NO. – Sa second type na rule-
making power: delegated
legislative power to promulgate
rules of government agencies.
Mahulog pa ba siya diha?
NO. the promulgation which is
expressly vested by law in the
president relative to matters under
the jurisdiction of the Department.
In the first place, there must be a
law. Walay law that would justify
the issuance (HDO). Since, wala,
walay basis.
What about the pendency of the
preliminary investigation? Naay
pending case before the DOJ – the
prosecutor, ginaresolve niya ang
kaso. Is that not enough to restrict
her right to travel? If naa kay
pending case before the
prosecutor for example. Unsa ka
kawatan, tapos kasuhan kag kaso
sa city prosecutor’s office, pwede
ba ka makagawas sa country? Are
you required to be present in the
PI?
NO. The preliminary investigation
is an inquiry or proceeding for the
purpose of determining whether
there is sufficient ground to
engender a well founded belief
that a crime cognizable by the RTC
has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for
trial. A preliminary investigation is
not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties’
evidence. It is for the presentation
of such evidence only as may
engender a well grounded belief
that an offense has been
committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.
It is not mandatory. It is optional.
Your privilege to file counter-
affidavit rests on you. So dili ka
gusto magfile ug CA, so bahala ka.
So in other words, dili siya valid
reason because you can actually
opt not to file or participate in the
preliminary investigation.
So this PI, is not a ground to
restrict your travel. Presence of
the accused is nothing necessary
by the prosecutor who discharges
the investigatory duties.
So this case also discussed the
Constitution. Again, it is the
fundamental and paramount law of
the nation to which all other laws
must conform an in accordance
with which all private rights are
determined and all public authority
administered.
And what are the types of
Constitutions?
According to its adaptation, it
may be written or unwritten.
Written, the provisions have been
reduced to writing and embodied
in one instrument or to set of
instruments at a particular time.
Also known as the conventional re-
enacted constitution. Because it
was given depth and form by a
constituted body which is a
constitutional convention.
A constitution may also be
unwritten which -- may be not
committed to writing at a specific
time. But it is the accumulated
product of gradual political and
legal development.
Integrated to a single form of the
scattered and various forces.
Cumulative constitution based on
the collection of established
customs, traditions, or actions.
Conventional Constitution – which
is a characteristic of a written
constitution because it is created
by a process of deliberate - a
debate and deliberation invented,
codified, public ideals of a given
society.
According to its amendment,
Constitution may be rigid or
flexible. Rigid, one which can not
be amended or altered except by
some special machinery other than
ordinary legislative process. it is
difficult to change, high degree of
stability.
Flexible constitution – may change
– which possesses no higher legal
authority than ordinary laws and
which may be altered in the same
way as other laws.
What is the characteristic of the
1987 Philippine Constitution?
It is written, conventional, rigid.
=
What distinguishes a constitution
from a statute or a mere law?
A constitution is a legislation
direct from the people. Meaning –
who adopted the Constitution.
Kinsa ang nagframe or nagpropose
sa Constitution? Our
representatives by way of a
constituent assembly which is our
congressmen or the constitutional
commission. So they are acting in
the subrogating sovereign capacity
representing us. What the
constitution embodies general
principles. Constitution is invented
not to meet existing conditions but
suppose to meet exigencies in the
present time even if it was enacted
way,way back and it is of course a
fundamental law of the state such
that a violation thereof would
render an act or law invalid. And
void it unconstitutional.
A law enacted is a legislation from
the people’s representatives. Kinsa
man nang nagrepresent stoa?
Congressman. They provided the
details, subject matter which is
treated of in that law. These laws
are intended to meet existing
conditions only and these laws
must conform to the constitution.
What are the parts of the good
constitution? The constitutional
liberty, katong fundamental rights
of the people and sa atoang bill of
rights, the constitution of the
government and provisions of the
established structure of the
government, branches and their
operations and sovereignty, which
provides a constitution may be
changed.
How do you interpret a
Constitution? There are three
major doctrines that we need to
learn as to how to interpret. (you’ll
learn this in Statcon.)
1. Verba Legis – whenever
possible, words in the
Constitution must be given
its ordinary meaning, except
where technical terms are
employed.
2. If there is an ambiguity in
the provision (dili nimo
magets ang meaning, there
are several interpretations),
the doctrine of ratio legis
est anima – a doubtful
provision should be
examined in the light of the
history of the times and the
condition and circumstances
under which the Constitution
was framed. Therefore, if
there is ambiguity what? In
to the discretions of the
constitutional commission,
unsa ba jud ang meaning
that they wanted to insert or
unsa ba jud ang
interpretation kani nga
provision, only if there is an
ambiguity. If the words of
the Constitution are not
clear, based from whom ang
interpretation? You apply
verba legis.
3. Finally, ut magis valeat
quam pereat, meaning that
the Constitution is to be
 interpreted as a whole. You appoint ang mga di mao. So, naay
do not interpret the composition of their membership
provisions in isolation. Dapat which is supposed to represent all
read sya as a whole. the concerned sectors of the
society.
CHAVEZ vs JBC. This involves
two cases. What happened in this Pila kabuok? 7 lang kabuok. What
case? happened here was that Congress,
diba naa silay seat. How many
Sir, there was a judicial and bar
members did they fill sa JBC? Pila
council, because he added one
ang gipalingkod? 2 ang sa
representative from Congress and
Congress – 1 from the house of the
one representative from Senate,
representatives and 1 from the
given them half a vote together to
senate.
give them one vote. Later on, they
decided to give the Congressman Since congress is composed of two
one vote. houses, dapat duha ang seat, ½
vote daw each.
So we have this Judicial and Bar
Council, where is this JBC found? But later on, gibuhat ug 1 vote
Or what created the JBC? each. SO karon, kay si Chavez,
former solicitor general, nag file
Section 8, Article VIII – must be
sya ug case before the Supreme
composed of the Chief Justice as ex
Court and challenged this
officio Chairman, the Secretary of
composition of the JBC.
Justice, and a representative from
Congress as ex officio members, a Because, unsa iyahang argument?
representative from the Integrated
Because the Constitution is very
Bar, a professor of law, a retired
clear that there should be 7
member of the Supreme Court,
members, so it should not be
and a representative of the private
interpreted in any other way.
sector. There must only be seven
(7) members. Yes, 7 seven members lang ang
gienumerate sa Constitution, unya
But what did Congress do? Unsay
karon nahimong 8. And so, is he
purpose sa JBC?
correct?
JBC is supposed to sit, mga
Yes, because the provision is clear,
applicants sa RTC, mga courts,
and it can be taken in its ordinary
even the certain constitutional
meaning. Clear and Unambiguous,
bodies.
so there is no need to interpret.
Sila ang nagasala. They are Kung naay representative, pila
composed of these members. kabuok man? ONE.
Importante ilahang role kay kung
magpataka sila ug sala dira, ma-
Because the words in the disobedience and defiance. What
Constitution are clear, plain and the Constitution clearly says,
free from ambiguity, it must be according to text, compels
given in its literal meaning. acceptance and bars modification
even by the branch tasked to
In a motion for consideration in
interpret it which is the Supreme
Chavez vs JBC, they assert that –
Court.
na ilahang giapply members are
valid and the arguments that they You cannot accept the argument
raised here was that kani dawng 7 and justify the strain of the
membership composition, Constitutional Construction.
especially the singular
Now, we said earlier that acts,
representation from congress was
laws must conform, must be
adopted in the Constitution by
consistent with the Constitution
mere sight??--- claiming that prior
such that it did not declare
to the 1987 Constitution form of
unconstitutional.
government, adopted in the
present Constitution, there was a If there is a challenge in a specific
shift from unilateralism to law or act, what is the
bicameralism (because of the 1987 presumption? Is it presumed to be
Constitution – 2 houses na ang unconstitutional? O presumed to
congress). be valid?
So tama ba? Did the Supreme WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION? It
Court subscribed to the argument is presumed to be NOT
that the adoption singular UNCONSTITUTIONAL
membership congress in the JBC (CONSTITUTIONAL). Because if
was ***ted by the Framers of the it is presumed to be otherwise, if
constitution namistake? Namali imo siyang ipresume na
daw? unconstitutional, why do you obey
the laws?
The courts said that NO. In
interpretation of the Constitutional Now, when there is a question,
provisions, it relies on this basic whether or not this contravenes
postulate that the Framers mean the constitution and your answer
what they say. The language used “it does not contravene the
in the Constitution must be constitution” it must be written,
interpreted to exude its the provision the law or the act is
deliberately chosen for a definite not unconstitional. Use the double
purpose. Every term/word negative. Kung dili nimo gamiton
employed in the Constitution must ang double negative, and you
be interpreted to exude its CONSTITUTIONAL, so you are
deliberate intent which must be saying na unconstitutional diay
maintained inviolate against siya in the first place.
We say, NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL because
presumed man gyud siya na
constitutional. USE THE DOUBLE
NEGATIVE, if you have to answer.
Presumption of Constitutionality –
acts, laws issuances, by the agents
of the government, etc they are
deemed to be or presumed to be
valid and not unconstitutional.
Now in the case of PEREZ vs
PEOPLE. He is a municipal
treasurer in a small locality in
Bohol and he incurred a shortage
of Php 72,000, shortage na dili
niya ma-account which means na
may presumption na gikawat ang
kwarta and because of that he was
charged with malversation of funds
– using the provisions of the
revised penal code. He was
sentenced penalty- imprisonment
of 10 years and 1 day to 14 years
for his malversation. So he claims
that the provision in the Revised
Penal Code is unconstitutional.
Cruel and unusual for Php 72,000
for 14 years? Lisud man gani
mapriso ug 2hours diri sa
classroom.
So unconstitutional daw. How did
the Supreme Court rule?
He challenged that provision to be
unconstitutional. What to prove
that it is unconstitutional because
they are presumed to be not
unconstitutional.
If the presumption is enjoined by a
law, so we have to rebut that
presumption. So dapat maprove
niya. Wala niya giingon. It is
established doctrine that a statute
should be construed whenever
possible in harmony with, rather
than in violation of, the
Constitution. The presumption is
that the legislature intended to
enact a valid, sensible, and just
law, and one which operates no
further than may be necessary to
effectuate the specific purpose of
the law. It is presumed that the
legislature has acted within its
constitutional powers. So, it is the
generally accepted rule that every
statute, or regularly accepted act,
is or will be, or should be,
presumed to be valid and
constitutional.
He who attacks the
constitutionality of a law has the
onus probandi (burden of proof) to
show why such law is repugnant to
the Constitution. Failing to
overcome its presumption of
Constitutionality, a claim that is
cruel, unusual or inhuman, like the
stance of petitioner, must fail.
Basic Doctrines Pertaining to the
Constitution. Let’s go to the
adoption and effectivity of the
present Constitution.
Did you know that 1987
Constitution was ratified against
the provisions of the previous
constitution. Why? Naa puy issue
actually ang 1973 Constitution.
It was followed by the 1986
Constitution – Provisional or
Freedom Constitution. After the
EDSA revolution, si Cory na ang
nag-assume as president.
Proclamation No. 1 – file ng 1986
Constitution.
Mao ni siya ang naging bedrock for
the change overall of the
government during that time.
Later on she issued Proclamation
No. 3, declaring a national policy
to implement reforms mandated by
the people protecting their basic
rights, adopting a provisional
constitution and providing for an
orderly transition to a government
under a new constitution.
One of the whereas clauses of this
proclamation was that the new
government was installed through
a direct exercise of the power of
the Filipino people assisted by
units of the New Armed Forces of
the Philippines. So this suggested
that the Aquino government was a
revolutionary government, because
it was installed using the
provisions of the previous
constitution. So this proclamation
no. 3, announced the
promulgation… One person sulat
lang siya ani, naa na tay bag-ong
constitution, because she was
acting in her sovereign capacity
purportedly.
So promulgated the penal
constitution pending the drafting
and application of the new
constitution. This proclamation
abrogated by the executive
provisions of the 1973 Constitution
modify the provision regarding the
executive department, and totally
re-organized the government. This
proclamation also call for a
Constitutional Commission
composed of 30-50 members, to
frame the new constitution. Of
course, kung mag federal
constitution tayo naa napuy kaso
ipangfile sa Supreme Court,
regarding the rectification or a
change or shift in the Constitution,
but it’s in the future pa.
Because of this revolution,
nachange ang government, of
course gichallenge sa mga
incumbent katong mga girepose,
gipangtanggal.
In the case of LAWYERS LEAGUE
vs CORAZON AQUINO but this
questioned the validity of the
Aquino government. And how did
the Supreme Court ruled on that
issue?
That is a political question. The
legitimacy of her government is
not a justiciable matter. The
Supreme Court said that we
cannot decide whether or not the
government was installed,
consistent, constitutional or not
mga ana because the people
themselves installed this new
government. The Supreme Court
sitting on the matter is of little to
nothing. In fact, it’s not even a
matther that can be dissolved by
the Supreme Court.
Why?
It belongs to the politics. Only the
people of the Philippines are the
judge and the people will lay the
judgment. They accepted the
government of Aquino, which is –
control of the entire country. So
that, it is not merely a de facto
government, but it’s in fact a de
jure government.
So, that’s how the Supreme Court
resolved the challenge against the
New or the Aquino Government on
political question. – you don’t have
the power to do so.
==
It distinguished the principles of
de jure and de facto.
In the context of a government
that is naga-ilugay ug power.
De jure government – it has the
rightful title.
But if there is turmoil, or
revolution. It has a rightful title
but no power to control.
De facto government – actually
exercises power or control but
without legal title.
What was the Aquino Government?
De jure government. It is a result
of the direct state of action. It is
the entire state who voted for the
government.
It is right from the beginning.
It is also the issue of when the
1987 Constitution took effect.
When took effect? –
DE LEON vs ESGUERRA
We have here De Leon and
Esguerra. They were challenged
the position for this Barangay
office. De Leon, received a
memorandum which was signed by
the OIC –Governor Feb 8, 1987. Na
unsa? Designating another person
– Magno as Barangay Captain, and
it was alleged by the Governor and
Magno as well that this issuance
was valid because it was based on
the provisional constitution.
In other words, gi-appoint niya ang
other person as Brgy. Captain on
this date based on the provisional
Constitution. Because under the
Article III, Section 2 of the
Provisional Constitution – pwede
mu-appoint all elective and
appointed officials under the 1973
Constitution in an contingent office
unless otherwise provided by a
Proclamation of people or upon the
designation appointed and
qualification of the successors if
the appointment is made from 1
year from February 26 1986, or
until February 25, 1987. So kung
ang appointment daw nahimo
within that period, valid ang
appointment.
Si Brgy. Captain karon nga
natanggal, claims that cannot be –
kay katong nasign-nan na
memorandum installing this
person to be the Captain na-adopt
and na-ratify na. nagtake effect na
ang 1987 Constitution which
totally abrogated that provision in
the Provisional Constitution.
In other words, because of the
issue of the new constitution, wala
nay basis tong memorandum. So
nagka-issue karon. GI-issue ning
memorandum on February 8 ang
ingon ni Governor kaning Magno..
The Constitution has actually
ratified on February 8 and
declared to be so rectified on
February 11 because that is the
time na nagcount og votes after
the
On the other hand, it is argued
here by De Leon that the 1987
Constitution was ratified and took
effect on February 2, 1987. Kani
sya nga date naga-cast ug vote
ang mga people in a plebiscite for
the purpose of ratifying the said
Constitution.
So, kanus-a man jud? Kung
February 2, ang implication invalid
ang memorandum kay wala na
siyay basis. Kung Feb 8 or 11 ang
effectivity sa Constitution, valid pa
tong memorandum, kay sulod pa
sya -- prior pa sya sa present
constitution.
When did the 1987 Constitution
take effect?
This is a simple issue which
reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said, that the
1987 Constitution was took effect
on February 2, 1987. The date that
was ratified in a plebiscite. And at
the time na giratify ang provisional
constitution was deemed to be
superseded.
Discussion on the effectivity of the
Constitution was on the Opinion of
Justice Teehankee. When was the
Constitution ratified? -–February 2,
1987. The time when the voting
was done. And not on the date
when tabulated. It is the act of
ratification or the act of voting by
the people that gave effect to this
Constitution.
The Proclamation of the votes is
made in the mathematical
confirmation of the voting. So
kanus-a ta nagvote ta and nag-act
ta on it, adopt the Constitution
that’s the time na ratify sya and
that it took effect. February 2,
1987.
We distinguished earlier the
distinction between Constitution
and the Law vis-à-vis their
effectivity.
As we discussed, the constitution –
it becomes effective when it’s
ratified by the people in a
plebiscite called for a purpose.
What about a law? When does a
law in effect?
What happened in Tañada vs
Tuvera?
This concerned the laws that were
not published.
What was the form of these laws?
Presidential Decrees,
Kinsay nag-issue? Congress or si
Marcos?
Marcos.
What did he issue?
Presidential Decrees, Letters of
Instructions, General Orders,
Presidential Proclamations – it had
the force and effect of the law.
Pero gichallenge ning mga
issuances ni President because
they were what? What was the
defect?
Unpublished.
What was the basis? Unsa ilahang
argument?
If a law is not fully published, it
should not take effect.
Where can you find the legal basis
for that?
Article 2 of the Civil Code.
Laws shall take effect after 15
days following the completion of
the publication in an OG or in a
newspaper of general circulation
unless it is otherwise provided. So
dapat published sya before laws
shall take effect.
Who was correct here? The state
arguing these issuances were
valid? Nganong nagtake-effect ni
sila.
During the earlier part, the case
was dismissed because it was in
the law that it should be effective
immediately.
Yes naay provision, that these
shall take effect immediately. So,
there is no need for the
publication because it should take
effect immediately, otherwise – the
other party said that the Civil
Code is clear they should take
effect after 15 days …
In other words, publication is
indispensable.
So who is correct? The State or
those challenging the issuances?
Are the laws be given effect?
Should they take effect?
No.
Why?
Because, any law should be fully
published before issuing. So, even
if it says that it should take effect,
it should be first published.
Why? Aside from the fact nga
ginarequire sya sa New Civil Code.
Because, the reason for the
publication is to inform the public.
That requirement of information,
where was it rooted on? Where
was this publication requirement
rooted on? Nganong kinahanglan
man iinform ang mga tao ani?
It is the requirement of the due
process. Due process requires
what? Notice and dealing. So
before you can be condemned or
before a law can bind you, there
must be what? Unsay effect sa
publication you are informed or
notified of that law.
Is a requirement of due process. It
is a rule of law that before a
person may be bound by law, he
must first be officially and
specifically informed of its
contents. Kay kung wala na
gipublish, wala ta kabalo na bawal
na diay na siya, that would be a
violation of your right in due
process.
Of course, it’s also a requirement
in the Civil Code.
Now in the motion for
reconsideration of this case, the
Court clarified the ruling kay sige,
required ang publication, but what
about the those issuances that
were issued by Marcos that take
effect -- How can they be given
effect? Is there a requirement –
based on Article 2, or should it be
given effect immediately?
The Court said that the publication
is never dispensable. It is
INDISPENSABLE. So if it says
there, the law will take effect
immediately, it will not take effect
immediately unless it is
PUBLISHED.
What if the law is silent? Unsa may
ifollow nimo nga period?
Article 2 of the Civil Code.
They were alleging or challenging
that this phrase “unless it is
otherwise provided” meant na
pwede man diay iprovide ug
magtake effect immediately ang
law. The provision itself is clear.
The court said, it refers to the
period of the publication and not to
the requirement of the publication.
So if it is provided in the law, to
take effect 5 days or immediately,
ifollow nimo to. Kung silent,
Article 2, but never remove the
requirement of PUBLICATION. It
is at all times INDISPENSABLE.
Dapat ba sa official gazette lang?
Who reads the OG? Asa Makita
ang OG? Naa siya sa internet diba?
Sauna wala pay internet so,
information, so the limited
readership made if difficult for the
people to be informed of the laws
being promulgated. So because of
that, EO 200 was promulgated on
June 18, 1987. Amending this
provision of the Civil Code, so
karon, it reads, Laws shall take
effect after 15 days following the
completion of the publication
either in an OG or in a newspaper
of general circulation in the
Philippines unless it is otherwise
provided. So dapat published sya
before laws shall take effect.
Sometimes, you can find a case
challenging the validity of a law
because gipublish sya in a
newspaper not in a general
circulation. Pwede na siya
mahimong argument. General
Circulation ba nang, Bandera?
You can actually use that as an
argument.
Amending process.
Provision of the Constitution on
Sovereignty. It did not limit, dili
pasabot nga naay Constitution it is
perpetually effective. The
Constitution itself prescribes the
name by which it can be amended
or revised.
It is on Article XVII, Section 1.
“Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution may be proposed
by (1) The Congress, upon the vote
of three-fourths of all its
Members.”
Makita ninyo sa provision ning
distinction aning amendment and
revision and that it can be
proposed. Kinsa ang magpropose
sa amendment or provision?
Congress, upon the vote of three-
fourths of all its Members. And it is
called as a Constituent Assembly.
Con-As. Or a Constitutional
Convention (Con-con).
Constitutitional Convention, mag-
himo ug body. Sila ang maghimo
ug proposals to amend the
Constitution.
Con-As vs Con-con
How else may amendments to the
Constitution be directly proposed?
Article XVII, Section 2 votes, they can subject that to the
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.
People, because we are sovereign.
We can amend the constitution
through what? An initiative upon a
petition on case.
We can infact propose an
amendment to the Constitution.
There are 3 ways to propose an
amendments: Con-As, Con-con,
and Initiative.
What about revisions? Can it be
filed by the people the revisions of
the Constitution? NO.
Wala siya gigrant na power. Who
can make those revisions? Only
Con-con or Con-as. Revisions
cannot be opposed by the people
under the 1987 Constitution.
How is a Constitutional Convention
created? In 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.
Dili sila makakuha anang 2/3
people beside by a majority vote.
Magvote nalang sila by majority to
subject a question to vote from the
people.
So ang distinction karon is that a
Con-As – it requires a ¾ votes from
all the members of Congress. 3/4 ths
vote Con-As voting separately ang
HOR and the Senate. Through a
Con-As, they must get the
numbers. 3/4 in the HOR, 3/4ths
ths
in the senate. Or they can form a
Constitutional Convention which
requires a lesser vote, 2/3rds lang
of all its members. Or if they
cannot decide, they sent that vote
to the people requiring only the
majority vote among others.
So after the proposal of the
proposed amendment, what is the
next step?
First is propose, the next step is to
ratify the Constitution, which is in
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.
To recap the provisions, any
amendment who are – may be
proposed by the Congress or to
Constituent Assembly (Con-As) or
Constitutional Convention (con-
con). Amendments can also be
proposed by the people through an
initiative, but they cannot revise
the Constitution. They are limited
to amendments.
Speaking of amendments and
revisions, we have distinguished
the two, ngano wala mani gigrant
sa people ning power to revise?
Nganong gigrant raman ni siya sa
Con-As or sa Concon?
So the distinction between the two
is that an amendment is a
piecemeal or isolated change in
the Constitution. (isa isa lang,
generic term used to denote
change in the Constitution).
When we talk about revision, it is a
recall, revamp, re-writing of the
entire Constitution. It involves the
overhauling of the change in the
fundamental principle. So kaning
suggested federal Constitution, is
it revision or amendment?
REVISION. Yes you revise the
entire document. It is not a mere
amendment. This revision cannot
be done by the people. It must be
done by a Con-As or Con-Con.
Kaning gihimo na Constitutional
body karon na duha na sila
maghimo sa draft, --. One of the
ways by which it can propose
amendments in the Constitution or
revisions of the Constitution. It
was an executive act, that is why
gipresent ang ilahang proposal to
the Congress. Kung acceptable ba
sa ilaha then ang Congress now
decide kung Con-as ba or Con-con
para i-adopt the findings or
proposals of that entity created by
the president.
Constitutional Commission.
There are two stages in the
amendment or the revision of the
Constitution:
1. Proposal – unsa man
imohang ipropose, change,
adoption in the Constitution.
When we talk about amendment,
Concon, Conas, or initiative.
Revision – Con-as or concon
Kung silent ang Constitution,
separate ang voting.
The second stage, is the
ratification.
2. Ratify - proposed
amendments shall be ratified
how many votes? MAJORITY.
So it’s 50% + 1 majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite
held for the purpose.
GONZALES vs COMELEC –
decided under the 1935
Constitution. What we can take
from this case is that. It was
argued that Congress may either
propose amendments or call for
the Constitutional Convention but
not both.
The courts said that proposition
was not founded. Weak siya na
proposition. The term OR under
the 1935 Constitution was not to
mean vice ---
Klaro man ang ways on how to
propose the revisions of the
Constitution.
What about the form of ratification
on the Constitution?
It must be a plebiscite.
Let’s go to the amendment may be
proposed which is the initiative
from the people. We have the
power to amend the Constitution if
we just get the requisite votes.
Kung gusto ka na matanggal nang
mga restriction sa foreign
ownership, it can actually (it can
be done) effect that amendment.
So again, Article XVII, 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.
Now, is this provision on the
Constitution self-executing or not?
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.
Is that provision self-executing or
not?
When we talk about self-executing
provisions, there is no need for
legislation. When we talk about
non-self executing provisions, you
cannot give rise to a right, there
must be legislative action. So asa
man sya? Self-executing or non-
self executing?
Congress has to exercise his right.
Non-self-executing
Unsay ginapasa sa Congress?
What is the job of the Congress?
Legislative – they make laws.
It needs law.
Was there a law enacted already to
give effect to this provision? Naa
naba’y law?
WALA!
Unsay nakabutang sa syllabus? R.A.? –
which is –
What is the name of that law?
Initiative and Referendum Act.
Mao ning gipasa na law to take effect
to this provision – power of the people
to propose amendments of the
Constitution.
Before, is law was tested so this law
provides for 3 types / kinds of
initiative.
Initiative on Constitution, Initiative on
Statutes and Initiative on Local
Legislation. Based on the provisions,
so karon naa nay law.
Many people – tempted to propose
amendments of the Constitution using
this initiative and referendum. Gusto
daw nila mahimo ug parliament, lift
some of the term limits. So they used
this power to amend the Constitution.
First in the case of SANTIAGO vs
COMELEC. A case where there is a
petition to ammend the Constitution.
What happened in this case? Atty.
Delfin filed to the COMELEC, because
the COMELEC is supposed to process
this initiative. Nagfile sila ug petition
to amend the Constitution which
involves the lifting of the term limits
of the elective officials by people’s
initiative. So, si Delfin, nagfile ug
petition sa COMELEC. COMELEC,
ikaw ang mag-gather sa signatures –
registered voters.
Because, he wants to amend the
Constitution and in the petition na
gusto nila ma-disseminate sa mga tao
for voting, ang nakabutang didto, do
you approve to the lifting of the term
limits?
So ang COMELEC pud, nagsignature
campaign. Gichallenge karon ning act
of the COMELEC because of several
reasons: What was the argument of
senator santiago?
Santiago – main argument against this
act of the COMELEC? Petition – RA
6735 – Santiago said what?
Power to amend the Constitution by
way of initiative, there is a
What was the main argument of
Santiago? – She attacked the validity
of what?
The law is lacking/ insufficient. Wala
syay provision to actually devise this
way of initiative.
So karon kaning gihimo ni Delfin, the
law does not exist sa RA 6735 – If you
propose the amendments by way of
initiative, the law simply means
insufficient.
Another senator that challenged this
act is Senator Roco. The petition filed
by Delfin was - does not have a
proper?
RA 6735 – governs the conduct of the
initiative.
So unsa mani?
Initiative na magsignature campaign
ang COMELEC it’s not the initiatory
dealing contemplated in the
Constitution of RA 6735. Ang position
ni Roco is that before you can – to
Comelec dapat naa na ang mga
signatures.
And present the proposal, para sa To provide for the way for which
COMELEC –para maghimo siya ug amendments, constitution, by way of
plebiscite. initiatve be done, otherwise, dili jud
nato ni mahimo na right to amend the
Wala daw kay ang ghimo niya kay
Constitution.
kato rawng petition, wala pay
signatures.
Let’s go to the law. What was RA 6735
– provide for the mechanism, for the
initiative to amend the Constitution?
The main reasons stated by the Court
why it’s insufficient?
1. What about the content of the
petition? Daghan ug reasons,
what are those reasons.
2. The law does not provide for
the –
Ang ubang mga initiatives on law
local legislation naay outline kung
unsay ang nakabutang sa petition,
pag abot sa Constitution thru
initiative, walay nakabutang – na
allowed na maghimo ug initiative
without providing the contents of the
petition.
Implementation of the initiative.
Law provides for the mechanism –
So the Conclusion here is that, there
was an attempt of the Congress to
give light but, what?
RA 6735 simply inadequate, essential
terms, provisions, insofar as initiative
or amendments in the Constitution is
concerned.
Unless what? What should be done?
Since the law is insufficient, what
should be done?
It should be amended. By the
legislature.