MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v.
GSIS
What is a constitution?
(MEMORIZE)!
A constitution is a system of fundamental
laws for the governance and
administration of a nation. It is supreme,
imperious, absolute and unalterable
except by the authority from which it
emanates
- It has been defined as the
fundamental and paramount law of
the nation.
DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPREMACY
- If a law or contract violates any norm
of the constitution that law or contract
whether promulgated by the
legislative or by the executive branch
or entered into by private persons for
private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus,
since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and
supreme law of the nation, it is
deemed written in every statute and
contract.
PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTION:
It prescribes the permanent framework of
a system of government, assigns to the
different departments their respective
powers and duties, and establishes certain
fixed principles on which government is
founded. Effectivity of constitution:
February 2, 1987.
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
STATCON TOPICS:
1.) Miscomprehension of Constitution
- The SC would rather remedy
the indiscretion while there is
still an opportunity to do so
than let the government
develop the habit of forgetting
that the constitution lays
down the basic conditions and
parameters for its actions.
- Application in case: Insisting
that Manila Hotel be sold to
foreigners when there is a
Filipino group willing to
match the bid of the former is
to insist that the gov’t be
treated as any other market
player. In this light, the
miscomprehension of the
constitution is regrettable
since the case calls for the
application of the filipino first
policy (Article XII, Section
10).
2.) Words and Phrases
- Application in the case:
When the Constitution speaks
of national patrimony it refers
not only to the natural
resources of the Philippines
but also to the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos.
3.) Self- executing provisions
 - 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.
When in doubt, the provisions of the consti
are deemed to be self-executing; otherwise,
the legislature may be able to abuse their
powers.
OCAMPO v. ENRIQUEZ
This case is about the burial of Ferdinand
Marcos at Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
STATCON ISSUES: Justiciable
Controversy; interpretation of the spirit of the
law as per the decision of President Duterte
to bury Ferdinand Marcos in LNMB; self-
executing provisions.
1.) Self-executing provisions:
- The assailed memorandum
and directive, being the
President’s decision, to bury
Marcos at the LNMB is in
accordance with the
Constitution, domestic and
international laws. 1987
Constitution Ocampo, et al.
invoked Sections 2, 11, 13,
23, 26, 27 and 28 of Article II;
Sec. 17 of Art. VII, Sec. 3(2)
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
of Art. XIV; Sec. 1 of Art. XI;
and Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII of
the Constitution. While the
Constitution is a product of
our collective history as a
people, its entirety should not
be interpreted as providing
guiding principles to just
about anything remotely
related to the Martial Law
period such as the proposed
Marcos burial at the LNMB.
- Tañada v. Angara already
ruled that the provisions in
Article II of the Constitution
are not self-executing. The
reasons for denying a cause of
action to an alleged
infringement of broad
constitutional principles are
sourced from basic
considerations of due process
and the lack of judicial
authority to wade “into the
uncharted ocean of social and
economic policy making.” In
the same vein, Sec. 1 of Art.
XI of the Constitution is not a
self-executing provision. The
Court also found the reliance
on Sec. 3(2) of Art. XIV and
Sec. 26 of Art. XVIII of the
Constitution to be misplaced,
with such provisions bearing
no direct or indirect
prohibition to Marcos’
interment at the LNMB. The
Court also found no violation
of President Duterte’s
 mandate under Sec. 17, Art.
VII (THIS PROVISION IS
EXECUTIVE THAT IS
WHY IT IS SELF-
EXECUTING) of the
Constitution to take necessary
and proper steps to carry into
execution the law. The same
also underscores the RULE
OF LAW and the cardinal
principle that the president is
not ABOVE THE LAW.
- This is because of the
FAITHFUL EXECUTION
CLAUSE, the said clause is
power of the President to take
necessary and proper steps to
carry into execution the law.
2.) Judicial Inquiry
REQUISITES ( TAKE NOTE!!)
(a) there must be an actual case or
controversy calling for the exercise of
judicial power;
(b) the person challenging the act must
have the standing to question the validity
of the subject act or issuance;
(c) the question of constitutionality must
be raised at the earliest opportunity;
and (d) the issue of constitutionality must
be the very lis mota of the case.
OPOSA v. FACTORAN
STATCON ISSUES: Hi, disclaimer lang,
for this case, I tailored the information
here to what was discussed in class. I hope
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
my memory would do us justice.
HAHAHA
1. Timber Licenses and Non-
impairment Clause
- In Tan v. Director of
Forestry, a TLA is an
instrument by which the state
regulates the utilization and
disposition of forest resources
to the end that public welfare
is promoted.
- It is not a contract within the
due process clause. It is
ONLY a LICENSE or
PRIVILEGE, which can be
withdrawn whenever dictated
by PUBLIC INTEREST OR
WELFARE. It also does not
create a vested right (doctrine
in Yinlu, to be discussed
later).
- And since it IS NOT A
CONTRACT, the non-
impairment clause may not be
invoked.
- Non-impairment clause
should yield to police power.
2. Right to Healthful and Balanced
Ecology
- As a general rule, the
provisions under Article 2 of
the Constitution are not self-
executory. EXCEPTION:
Article 2, Section 16). The
said provision is also
judicially enforceable.
- The intent of the framers of
placing such a provision
despite being an implied duty
 is the fear that man may not
opt to take care of his
environment unless mandated
or written in a set of policies.
FRANCISCO v. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
SUMMARY: On July 22, 2002, the House
of Representatives adopted a Resolution
which directed the Committee on Justice "to
conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation,
on the manner of disbursements and
expenditures by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF). Then on June 2, 2003, former
President Joseph Estrada filed an
impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr. and seven Associate
Justices. The complaint was endorsed and
was referred to the House Committee in
accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of
the Constitution. The House Committee on
Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the
first impeachment complaint was "sufficient
in form, but voted to dismiss the same on
October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in
substance. On October 23, 2003, a second
impeachment complaint was filed 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.
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
“No impeachment proceedings shall be
initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.”
STATCON ISSUES: Constitutional
Construction tools (Similar doctrine with
JM Tuason and Co).
Verba Legis
- The words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning
except where technical terms are
employed.
Ratio Legis Est Anima
- The Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with intent
of the framers.
- A doubtful provision would be
examined by the history of times and
the condition and circumstances
under which the constitution was
framed.
- A foolproof yardstick in
constitutional construction is the
intention underlying the provision
under consideration (Civil Liberties
Union v. Executive Secretary).
Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
- The Constitution should be
interpreted as a whole.
If the plain meaning of the word is not found
to be clear, resort to other aids is available
(e.g. ConCon debates and proceedings).
These may be used if the tools fail.
Transcendental importance
Justice Florentino P. Feliciano:
 (1) the character of the funds or other
assets involved in the case; (2) the presence
of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by
the public respondent agency or
instrumentality of the government; and (3)
the lack of any other party with a more
direct and specific interest in raising the
questions being raised.
“In not a few cases, this Court has in fact
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, as when the issues raised are
of paramount importance to the public. Such
liberality does not, however, mean that the
requirement that a party should have an
interest in the matter is totally eliminated. A
party must, at the very least, still plead the
existence of such interest, it not being one of
which courts can take judicial notice. In
petitioner Vallejos' case, he failed to allege
any interest in the case. He does not thus have
standing.”
Meaning of the word “intent” (as used in
the case)
- To do, to begin, to commence. The
amicus resorted to statutory
construction in interpreting the use of
this word in impeachment
proceedings.
- It was deemed clear that the framers
intended initiation to start with the
filing of the complaint.
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
Reddendo Singula Singulis - The term cases
must be distinguished from the term
proceedings.
Impeachment case - legal controversy that
mus be decided by Senate.
However, before a decision is made in a
case, a PROCEEDING must be undertaken.
STEPS IN PROCEEDING:
(1) there is the filing of a verified complaint
either by a Member of the House of
Representatives or by a private citizen
endorsed by a Member of the House of the
Representatives; (2) there is the processing of
this complaint by the proper Committee
which may either reject the complaint or
uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the
Committee rejects or upholds the complaint,
the resolution must be forwarded to the
House for further processing; and (4) there is
the processing of the same complaint by the
House of Representatives which either
affirms a favorable resolution of the
Committee or overrides a contrary resolution
by a vote of one-third of all the members. If
at least one third of all the Members upholds
the complaint, Articles of Impeachment are
prepared and transmitted to the Senate.
It is at this point that the House "initiates an
impeachment case." It is at this point that an
impeachable public official is successfully
impeached. That is, he or she is successfully
charged with an impeachment "case" before
the Senate as impeachment court.
YNOT v IAC
STATCON ISSUE: DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE
Summary: Executive Order No.626- A was
put into question. This was an order declared
by Ferdinand Marcos mandating that no
carabao regarldess of age, sex, physical
condition or purpose, and no carabeed shall
be transported from one province to another.
The petitioner transported six carabaos in a
pump boat to Msbate, Iloilo, and then they
were confiscated by the police station. The
Court then decided to rule on the
constitutionality of the act.
● Clearly, the petitioner had the right to
be heard before a competent and
impartial court, and that the outright
confiscation was unlawful.
● As to its legislative character, it was
posed as an executive order when it
was fact, it was supposed to be a
presidential decree.
- In the case of SANIDAD v.
COMELEC, the legislative
power was adjunct to the
executive powers of the
president. Presidential
Decrees are therefore,
legislative acts made by the
president (Tanada v.
Tuvera).
- Under Amendment No. 6,
whenever the president, in his
judgment, there existed a
grave emergency or a threat or
immience thereof, or
whenever the legislature
failed or was unable to act
adequately on any manner, he
could, in the exercise of his
GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW
power, execute decrees or
letters of instructions which
have would have the force and
effect of law. There was no
emergency in this case.
Hence, an alleged violation of
the due process clause.
The due process clause is
INTENTIONALLY VAGUE so it would
remain conveniently resilient.
- Flexibility is the best virtue of
guaranty.
- Its elasticity of the clause was meant
to make it adapt easily to every
situation, enlarging, or constricting it
application as the changing times and
circumstances may require.
Justice Felix: “the embodiment of the
sporting idea of fair play.”
However, notice and hearing ARE NOT
IMPERATIVE in every case. There are
certain exceptions.
1. Conclusive Presumption - bars
contrary evidence as long as such
presumption is based on human
experience or there is a rational
connection between the fact proved
and the fact presumed.
2. Expeditious action - justifies
omission of notice and hearing (e.g
contaminated meat, narcotic drugs,
pornographic materials).
- Justified due to urgency of the need to
protect general welfare from a clear
and present danger.
Salus populi est suprema lex - the welfare
of the people is the supreme law
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - use
your own property in such a manner as not to
injure that of another (basis of police
power).
Fait accompli - a thing that has already
happened or been decided before those
affected hear about it, leaving them with no
option but to accept it.

Police Power- power inherent in the state to

regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of the general welfare.

● The said act was declared

unconstitutional.

GILDA FLORES 1J SBU LAW