Interpretation of Constitution
along constitutional channels" is inherent in all
- Verba legis (plain meaning)
- When there is ambiguity, it should be
interpreted in accordance to the intent of
the framers
- It should be interpreted as a whole
- The proper interpretation should depend
on how it was understood by the people
adopting it than in framer’s understanding
thereof (Francisco V. HOR) “initiate”
Francisco V. HOR
FACTS
On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada
filed an impeachment complaint[4] (first
impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices[5] of this
Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high
crimes."[6] The complaint was endorsed by
Representatives Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B.
Secretary General of the House[12] by
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First
District, Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella
(Third District, Camarines Sur) against Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the... alleged
results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-
mentioned House Resolution. This second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a
"Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment" signed
by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the
House of Representatives. most of which petitions
contend that the filing of the second impeachment
complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution
that
"[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
against the same official more than once within a
period of one year."
ISSUE:
W/N the power of Judicial review extends to that of
impeachment proceedings
HELD:
The Court's power of judicial review is conferred on
the judicial branch of the government in Section 1,
Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution. The
"moderating power" to "determine the proper
allocation of powers" of the different branches of
government and "to direct the course of government
courts as a necessary consequence of the judicial
power itself, which is "the power of the court to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable."
Self-executing Provisions
Is a mandatory, positive command which is complete
in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement
Manila Prince Hotel V. GSIS
FACTS
The controversy arose when respondent
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
pursuant to the privatization program of the
Philippine Government, decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and
outstanding shares of respondent Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC). The winning bidder, or the
eventual “strategic partner,” will provide
management expertise or an international
marketing/reservation system, and financial support
to strengthen the profitability and performance of
the Manila Hotel.
In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only
two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation,
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000
shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel
operator, which bid for the same number of shares
at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
petitioner. Prior to the declaration of Renong
Berhard as the winning bidder, petitioner Manila
Prince Hotel matched the bid price and sent a
manager’s check as bid security, which GSIS refused
to accept.
Apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender
of the matching bid and that the sale may be
consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner filed a
petition before the Court.
ISSUE:
W/N Sec 10, 2nd par. Art. 12 of the Consitution is
Self-executing
HELD:
Since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and contract. A
provision which lays down a general principle, such
as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is
usually not self-executing. But a provision which is
complete in itself and becomes operative without
the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or
that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which
the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
self-executing.
PAMATONG V. COE
FACTS:
Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for President. Respondent
COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as
nuisance candidates who could not wage a
nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a
political party or are not supported by a registered
political party with a national constituency.
Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with
the Supreme Court claiming that the COMELEC
violated his right to "equal access to opportunities
for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the
1987 Constitution, by limiting the number of
qualified candidates only to those who can afford to
wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated
by political parties. The COMELEC supposedly erred
in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified
among all the presidential candidates, i.e., he
possesses all the constitutional and legal
qualifications for the office of the president, he is
capable of waging a national campaign since he has
numerous national organizations under his
leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an
international campaign since he has practiced law in
other countries, and he has a platform of
government.
ISSUE:
Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold
public office?
HELD:
No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the
Constitution is merely a privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such a
right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain
language of the provision which suggests such a
thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The
privilege of equal access to opportunities to public
office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid
limitations specifically on the privilege to seek
elective office are found in the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates.”
AMENDMENT
- an alteration of one or a few specific
provisions of the Constitution.  Its main
purpose is to improve specific provisions of
the Constitution.  The changes brought
about by amendments will not affect the
other provisions of the Constitution.
REVISION
- An examination of the entire Constitution to
determine how and to what extent it should
be altered.  A revision implies substantive
change, affecting the Constitution as a
whole.
SANTIAGO V. COMELEC
FACTS:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, filed with
COMELEC a petition to amend the Constitution to
LIFT TERM LIMITS OF ELECTORAL OFFICERS, through
people’s initiative. He based his petition on Art XVII
section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Which directly
provides people to propose amendment of the
constitution. (It was opposed by SANTIAGO et al.,)
ISSUE:
W/N the lifting of term limits constitutes an
amendment
RULING:
The lifting of the electoral term is that of a revision.
As it would affect other provisions of the
Constitution in synchronization with elections, the
constitutional guarantee of equal access
opportunities for public service, and prohibiting
political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by
initiative. Thus making the case moot and academic.
LAMBINO V. COMELEC (Presidential to
parliamentary, Bicameral to unicameral case)
 valididty of
election law
4. Concerned
citizens involving
transcendental
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW importance w/c
must be settled
- The power of the courts to test the validity
early
of executive and legislative acts in light of
c. The question of constitutionality must be
their conformity with the Constitution
raised at the earliest opportunity
- Includes the duty of the courts of justice to
d. The issue of constitutionality must be the lis
settle actual controversies involving rights
mota of the case
which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or Exceptions of MOOT and ACADEMIC review
not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of a. Grave violation to the constitution
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or b. The situation involves a paramount
instrumentality of Government. public interest (Biraogo V PTC)
c. When the Const. Issue raised
In Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, requires formulation of controlling
February 1, 2001, it was held that the Constitution principles to guide the bench
vests the power of judicial review not only in the d. The case is capable of repetition
Supreme Court but also in Regional Trial Courts yet evading review
(RTC). Furthermore, BP. 129 grants RTCs the
authority to rule on the conformity of laws and
treaties with the Constitution. However, in all
actions assailing the validity of a statute, treaty,
presidential decree, order or proclamation — and
not just in actions involving declaratory relief and
similar remedies — notice to the Solicitor General is
mandatory, as required in Sec. 3, Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court. The purpose of this mandatory notice
is to enable the Solicitor General to decide whether
or not his intervention in the action is necessary. To
deny the Solicitor General such notice would be
tantamount to depriving him of his day in court
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
a. There must be an Actual case or
controversy
b. The constitutional question must be raised
bv the proper party.
i. EXCEPTIONS
1. case involves the
constitutional
issue
2. taxpayers in
relation to illegal
disbursement of
Pub. Funds
3. Voters in relation
to showing obv.
Interest in the