Carmelia Coline B.

Arceo

Constitutional Law 1

Atty. Antonio B. Arellano

1. Why should a Written Constitution have the characteristics of being brief, broad,
and definite?

-A Written Constitution must have the characteristics of being brief, because it

should have the advantage of a fundamental law. If a constitution is too detailed it
would probably never be understood by the public. Also, it should have the
characteristic of being broad for statement of the powers and functions of
government, and the relations between the governing body and the governed,
requires that it be as comprehensive as possible. It must be wide enough to make
the Constitution easily adaptable to changing social, economic, and political
conditions, and enable it without requiring, if possible amendment, to meet every
exigency, for a constitution is designed to be a permanent document. Lastly, it must
have the characteristic of being definite, for the application to be in a concrete
situation. Any vagueness shall lead to opposing interpretations of essential features
may cause incalculable harm, political instability or even civil war and disruption of
the state.

2. Read the case of: Raul Lambino, et. Al. vs. Comelec” (G.R. No. 174153, October
25, 2006) and answer the following questions:

a. Whether the Lambino Group’s Initiative petition complied with Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through People’s
Initiative?
 -No, the Initiative Petition does not comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People. There is no presumption that the
proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures.
The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the
constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures and that the petition
contained, or incorporated by attachment of the full text of the proposed
amendments. The Lambino Group did not attach their present petition with this
Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. It was
then they have submitted a copy of the signatures after the arguments of
September 26, 2006, when they filed their memorandum on October 11, 2006.

b. Whether the Court should revisit its Ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec (270 SCRA
106), declaring RA 6735 as “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms
and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution?

-Petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with basic requirements of

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit the Court’s ruling in
Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms
and conditions” to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An
affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present
petition. Hence, this Court decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA
6735 does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the
initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.

3. Acts of the Chief Executive or Congress can be set aside by the Supreme Court in
the exercise of its supreme judicial authority. Does this violate the principles of
“Separation of Powers” which provides that the three branches of government
are separate and equal?
 -No, for the Constitution Separation of Powers defines the “Function and
powers of each department which is the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary,
including the limits thereof. Judicial power primarily relates to the interpretation
of laws. Actions of both the Executive and Legislative are therefore subject to
review by the Supreme Court as to whether or not they comply with both the
Constitution and laws. And in fact, even laws enacted by Congress are likewise
subject, in proper cases, to review by the Supreme Court as to their adherence
to the Constitution.