I.
General Consideration
a. Definition of Terms
i. Constitutional Law - The study of the maintenance of the proper
balance between authority as represented by the three inherent
powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
ii. Public Law –
iii. Political Law – That branch of public law which deals with the
organization, and operations of the governmental organs of the
State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of
its territory.
b. Basis of the Study
i. 1987 Constitution
ii. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions
iii. Other organic laws made to apply to the Philippines, e.g.,
Philippine Bill of 1902, Jones Law of 1916, and Tydings-
McDuffie Law of 1934
iv. Statues, Executive Orders and Decrees, and Judicial decisions
v. U.S. Constitution
II. Constitutional History
a. 1935 Constitution
i. Pursuant to the authority granted under the Tydings-McDuffie
Law, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 4125 (May
26,1934) calling for the election of delegates to the Constitutional
Convention.
ii. b) Election of delegates: July 10, 1934; Constitutional Convention
inaugural: July 30,1934.
iii. c) Draft Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention
on February 8, 1935; brought to Washington on March 18, 1935,
and on March
iv. 23, 1935, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt certified that
the draft constitution conformed substantially with the Tydings-
McDuffie Law.
v. d) The Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite held on May 14,
1935.
vi. e) The Philippine Commonwealth established under the
Constitution was inaugurated on November 15, 1935; full
independence was attained with the inauguration of the (Third)
Philippine Republic on July 4, 1946. -
vii. f) The Constitution was amended in 1939: Ordinance appended
to the Constitution, in accordance with the Tydings-Kocialkowski
Act of August 7, 1939 [Resolution of Congress: September 15,
1939; Plebiscite: October 24, 1939]
viii. g) It was amended again in 1940: Changed President’s and Vice
President’s term from six to four years, but no person shall serve
as President for more than 8 years; changed the unicameral to a
bicameral legislature; established an independent Commission on
Elections [Resolution: April 11, 1940; Plebiscite: June 18, 1940]
ix. i) Another amendment was adopted in 1947: Parity Amendment,
effective July 4, 1949, granting to Americans, for a period of
twenty-five years, the same privileges as Filipinos in the
utilization and exploitation of natural resources in the Philippines
[Resolution: September 18, 1946; Plebiscite: March 11, 1947],
See: Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1.
x. 4. The Japanese (Belligerent) Occupation
xi. a) With the occupation of Manila, the Commander in Chief of the
Japanese Forces proclaimed, on January 2, 1942, the military
administration over the territory occupied by the army, and
ordered that “all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as
well as executive and judicial institutions shall continue to be
effective for the time being as in the past”, and “all public officials
shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their
duties as before”.
xii. b) Order No. 1 of the Japanese Commander in Chief, on January
23, 1942, organized the Philippine Executive Commission.
xiii. c) Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4, dated January 30 and February
6, 1942, respectively, continued the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals,
xiv. the Courts of First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts, with
the same jurisdiction, in conformity with later instructions given
by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Army in
Order No. 3, dated February 20, 1942.
xv. d) October 14, 1943, the (Second) Philippine Republic was
inaugurated, with Jose P. Laurel as President.
IMBONG VS. COMELEC
The constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. 6132 by Congress must be upheld for the
following reasons: 1) Congress, acting as Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the
Constitution, has authority to propose constitutional amendments or call a convention for the
purpose by 3/4 votes of each house in joint session assembled but voting separately; 2) Such
grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power by
necessary implication; 3) Implementing details are within the authority of Congress not only as
a Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power so long
as it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution; and 4) Congress as a legislative body
may thus enact necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps which Congress as a
Constituent Assembly omitted.
Facts:
Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, filing separate cases and both interested in running as
candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, question the constitutionality of R.A.
No. 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as such candidates. On March 16, 1967, the
Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Res. No. 2 which called for a Constitutional
Convention which shall have two delegates from each representative district. On June 17, 1969,
the Congress passed Resolution No. 4 amending Resolution No. 2 by providing that the
convention shall be composed of 320 delegates with at least two delegates from each
representative district. On August 24, 1970, the Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted
R.A. 6132, implementing Res Nos. 2 and 4 and expressly repealing R.A 4914 which previously
implemented Res. No. 2. Gonzales assails the validity of Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a), and
the entire law, while Imbong questions the constitutionality of par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A.
6132.
Issues: 2. The act of the Convention calling for a plebiscite on a single amendment in Organic
Resolution No. 1 violated Sec. 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which states that all
1. Does the Congress have the right to call for a constitutional convention and set the amendments must be submitted to the people in a single election or plebiscite. Moreover, the
parameters of such convention? voter must be provided sufficient time and ample basis to assess the amendment in relation to
2. Are the provisions of R.A. 6132 constitutional? the other parts of the Constitution, not separately but together.

Held: b. 1973 Constitution

i. a) Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1, March 16, 1967,
1. The Congress has authority to call a constitutional convention as the constituent assembly.
increasing
The Congress also has the authority to enact implementing details, contained in Res. Nos. 2 and
ii. the membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180
4 and R.A. 6132, since such details are within the competence of the Congress in the exercise
iii. b) RBH No. 2, March 16,1967, calling for a Constitutional
of its legislative power. Convention to revise the 1935 Constitution
iv. c) RBH No. 3, March 16, 1967, allowing members of Congress
2. The provisions are constitutional. Sec. 4 of R.A. 6132 is merely an application with Sec. 2 to sit as delegates in the Constitutional Convention without
of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute a denial of due process or equal protection forfeiting their seats in Congress
of the law. Sec. 2 also merely obeyed the intent of the Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding v. d) RBH 1 and RBH 3 were submitted to the people in a plebiscite
the apportionment of delegates. The challenged disqualification of an elected delegate from simultaneously with local elections in November 1967, but both
running for any public office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. were rejected by the people.
Lastly, par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) which is both contested by the petitioners is still valid as the restriction vi. e) RBH No. 4, June 17, 1969, amending RBH No. 2, and
contained in the section is so narrow that basic constitutional rights remain substantially intact authorizing that specific apportionment of delegates to the
and inviolate thus the limitation is a valid infringement of the constitutional guarantees invoked Constitutional Convention and other details relating to the
by the petitioners. election of delegates be embodied in an implementing legislation
vii. f) Republic Act No. 6132: Constitutional Convention Act of 1970.
TOLENTINO V. COMELEC viii. i) See Imbong v. Comelec, 35 SCRA 28, where the
constitutionality of the RA 6132 was challenged because it had to
The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not included in the do with the calling of a Constitutional Convention but was not
general grant of legislative powers to Congress (Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the passed by % of all the members of the Senate and the House of
Philippines). It is part of the inherent powers of the people — is the repository of sovereignty in Representatives, voting separately. The Supreme Court upheld
a republican state, such as ours (Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines) — to make, the validity of the law, declaring that after Congress had exercised
and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. its constituent power by adopting RBH 2 and RBH 4, with the
requisite % vote as required by the 1935 Constitution, it may, by
Facts: simply exercising legislative power, pass a law providing for the
After the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention held on November 10, 1970, the details for the implementation of the resolutions passed in the
convention held its inaugural session on June 1, 1971. On the early morning of September 28, exercise of its constituent power.
1971, the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which seeks to amend Section 1 of ix. g) Election of delegates: November 10, 1970; Constitutional
Article V of the Constitution, lowering the voting age to 18. On September 30, 1971, Convention was inaugurated on June 1, 1971.
COMELEC resolved to inform the Constitutional Convention that it will hold the plebiscite x. i) Attempt of the Constitutional Convention to submit for
together with the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971. Arturo Tolentino filed a petition for ratification one resolution (reducing the voting age from 21 to 18)
prohibition against COMELEC and prayed that Organic Resolution No. 1 and acts in obedience in a plebiscite to coincide with the 1971 local elections was
to the resolution be null and void. declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Tolentino v.
Comelec, 41 SCRA 702. The Court held that when a
ISSUE: Constitutional Convention is called for the purpose of revising the
Constitution, it may not submit for ratification “piecemeal
1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the case?
amendments”because the 1935 Constitution speaks of submission
2. Is the Organic Resolution No. 1 constitutional?
of the proposed amendments in “an election” (in the singular), and
also because to allow the submission would deprive the people of
HELD:
a “proper frame of reference”.
1. The case at bar is justiciable. As held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, the issue of whether or not xi. h) Presidential Proclamation No. 1081, on September 21, 1972:
a resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the constitution is a Declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
justiciable one and thus subject to judicial review. The jurisdiction is not because the Court is xii. i) Constitutional Convention approved the draft Constitution on
superior to the Convention but they are both subject to the Constitution. November 29, 1972 .
 xiii. j) On November 30,1972, President Marcos issued a decree
setting the plebiscite for the ratification of the new Constitution
on January 15, 1973; on December 17, 1972, issued an order
suspending the effects of Presidential Proclamation 1081 in order
to allow free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
xiv. . i) Planas v. Comelec, 49 SCRA 105, and companion cases
(collectively known as the Plebiscite Cases) sought to prohibit the
holding of the plebiscite. The cases were eventually dismissed for
being moot and academic when President Marcos issued
Presidential Proclamation 1102, declaring that the Constitution
had been ratified and has come into force and effect.
xv. k) On December 23, 1972, President Marcos announced the
postponement of the plebiscite, but it was only on January 7,
1973, that General Order No. 20 was issued, directing that the
plebiscite scheduled on January 15,1973, be postponed until
further notice, and withdrawing the order of December 17, 1972,
suspending the effects of Pres. Proclamation 1081 which allowed
free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
xvi. l) On December 31, 1972, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No.
86, organizing the Citizens Assemblies to be consulted on certain
public issues; and on January 5, 1973, issued Presidential Decree
No. 86-A, calling the Citizens Assemblies to meet on January 10-
15, 1973, to vote on certain questions, among them: “Do you
approve of the new Constitution?” and “Do you still want a
plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?”
xvii. m) On January 17, 1973, President Marcos issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1102, declaring that the new Constitution had
been ratified by the Citizens Assemblies, and “has thereby come
into force and effect”.
xviii. i) The validity of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was
challenged in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, and
companion cases (collectively known as the Ratification Cases).
The basic issues and the votes of the SC justices were: (1)
Whether the validity of Proclamation
xix. 1102 is a political or a justiciable question - Six justices said it is
justiciable, three said it is political, and one justice qualified his
vote. (2) Whether the new Constitution was validly ratified (with
substantial if not strict compliance) conformably with the 1935
Constitution - Six justices said no, three said there was substantial
compliance, and one qualified his vote. (3) Whether the people
had acquiesced in the new Constitution (with or without valid
ratification) - Four justices said the people had already accepted
the new Constitution, two said that there can be no free expression
by the people qualified to vote of their acceptance or repudiation
of the proposed Constitution under martial law, one said he is not
prepared to state that a new Constitution once accepted by the
people must be accorded recognition independently of valid
ratification, and three expressed their lack of knowledge or
competence to rule on the question because under a regime of
martial law with the free expression of opinions restricted, they
have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty,
whether the people have accepted the Constitution. (4) Whether
the petitioners are entitled to relief - Six justices voted to dismiss
the petitions, while four were for giving due course to the
petitions. (5) Whether the new Constitution is already in force -
Four said yes by virtue of the people’s acceptance of the same,
four said they could not with judicial certainty whether or not the
people had accepted the Constitution, and two declared that the
new Constitution is not in force, “with the result that there are not
enough votes to declare tha the new Constitution is not in force”.
The SC decision concluded: “Accordingly, by virtue of the
majority of six votes x x x. with four dissenting votes x x x all of
the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the
vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the
new Constitution being considered in force and effect. ”
xx. n) The 1973 Constitution was amended in 1976: Package often
(10) amendments, proposed by Marcos on September 2, 1976,
without specifying the particular provisions being changed. This
package contained the infamous Amendment No. 6. The
amendments were ratified in a plebiscite held on October 16,
1976.
xxi. i) In Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333, where the authority of
President Marcos to propose amendments to the Constitution was
challenged,
xxii. the high tribunal said: “If the President has been legitimately
discharging the
xxiii. legislative powers of the interim (National) Assembly (which was
never convened), there is no reason why he cannot validly
discharge the functions of the Assembly to propose amendments
to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, though peculiar, to its
gross legislative power x x x (W)ith the interim Natiional
Assembly not convened and only the President'and the Supreme
Court in operation, the urge of absolute necessity renders it
imperative upon the President to act as agent for and in behalf of
the people to propose amendments to the Constitution.”
xxiv. o) The Constitution was amended again on January 30, 1980:
Restored original retirement age of judges to 70 years of age
xxv. p) Another amendment was adopted on April 7, 1981: Restored
the presidential system, while retaining certain features of the
parliamentary system; granted natural-born Filipinos who had
been naturalized in a foreign country the right to own a limited
area of residential land in the Philippines
xxvi. q) Still another amendment was made on January 27,1984:
Provided for new rules on presidential succession, replaced the
Executive Committee with a revived Office of the Vice President,
and changed the composition of the Batasan Pambansa
xxvii. r) Snap presidential election of 1986.
xxviii. i) A petition to prohibit the holding of the snap election was filed
with the SC in Philippine Bar Association v. Comelec, 140 SCRA
455. But the petition was dismissed because considerations other
than legal had already set in, the candidates were in the thick of
the campaign, and the people were already looking forward to the
election.
 xxix. s) February 22-25,1986: EDSAI People’s Revolution. See: ISSUES:
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino, G.R.
No. 73748, May 22, 1986, where the Supreme Court held that the 1. Is the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 justiciable?
Cory Aquino government was not only a de facto but a de jure 2. Was the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention ratified validly in
government. compliance with applicable laws?
3. Was the proposed Constitution acquiesced by the people?
PLANAS V. COMELEC 4. Are the petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the proposed Constitution in force?
Facts:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the president HELD:
issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law. On November 29,
Whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according to an existing
1972, the Convention approved its proposed constitution. The next day the president issued PD
constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine whether
No. 73 submitting to the people for ratification or rejection the proposed constitution as well as
the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the constitution. The Constitution
setting the plebiscite for said ratification. On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a petition
proposed by the 1971 Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV section
to enjoin respondents from implemented PD No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among
1 of the 1935 Constitution which provides only one way for ratification (election or plebiscite
others is lodged exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the president issued an
held in accordance with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the environmental and social
order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of the free and open debate
conditions in the Philippines (i.e. martial law), the Court cannot honestly say that the people
on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the president announced the postponement of
acquiesced to the proposed Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the
the plebiscite, as such, the Court refrained from deciding the cases. On January 12, the
effectivity of the proposed Constitution is the basic issue posed by the cases which
petitioners filed for an “urgent motion” praying that the case be decided “as soon as possible”.
considerations other than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new constitution is in force
as there are not enough votes to say otherwise.
ISSUES:
1. Is the validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2. Is PD 73 valid? SANIDAD V COMELEC
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the proposed
constitution? Facts:
On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to
HELD: call for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens Assemblies
(“barangays”). Its primary purpose is to resolve the issues of martial law (as to its existence and
The Court may pass upon the constitutionality of PD 73 not only because of a long list of cases length of effectivity).
decided by the Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the 1935
Constitution which expressly provides for the authority of the Court to review cases revolving
such issue. The validity of the decree itself was declared moot and academic by the Court. The On September 22, the president issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the questions
convention is free to postulate any amendment as long as it is not inconsistent with what is that are to be asked during the referendum on October 16. The first question is whether or not
known as Jus Cogens. the citizen wants martial law to continue, and the second one asks for the approval on several
proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.
JAVELLANA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the national
referendum in October 16.
Facts:

On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a prohibition case to restrain respondents from
implementing any of the provisions of the proposed constitution not found in the present
constitution. Javellana maintained that the respondents are acting without or in excess of
jurisdiction in implementing proposed constitution and that the president is without power to
proclaim the ratification of the constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan, Gerardo
Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the nullification of Proclamation 1102 (Citizens
Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation which are similar in their objectives.
Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction to
enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16,
and to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they
propose amendments to the Constitution.
Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction, asserting
that the power to propose amendments or revisions of the Constitution during the transition
period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under Section 16, Article XVII
of the Constitution.
Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan sought to restrain the direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces
implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of of the Philippines.”
October 16. They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to
propose amendments to the Constitution and a referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the ISSUE:
Constitutions of 1935 and 1973. Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate

Decision:
The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation As early as April 10, 1986, this Court* had already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons
renders the plebiscite a nullity. To lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people to be stated below.
via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the 1. On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and
Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years 73972 withdrew the petitions and manifested that they would pursue the question by
of age and above. extra-judicial methods. The withdrawal is functus oficio.
2. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the
realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the
The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the issue raised people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President
is political in nature – and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor General also Corazon C. Aquino
asserts that at this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority 3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.
to exercise constituent power; the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the
fundamental law of the Republic under her government.
ISSUE: WON the issue poses a justiciable question (specifically on the constitutionality of PDs c. 1987 Constitution
991 and 1033). i. Proclamation of the Freedom Constitution
1. a) Proclamation No. 1, February 25, 1986, announcing
that she (Corazon Aquino) and Vice President Laurel
HELD: YES. 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a justiciable question, while only 3
were assuming power.
maintained it was of political nature and thus not justiciable.
2. b) Executive Order No. 1 [February 28, 1986]
3. c) Proclamation No. 3, March 25,1986, announced the
The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a political one. promulgation of the Provisional [Freedom]
This is because the 1973 Constitution expressly provided that the power to propose amendments Constitution, pending the drafting and ratification of a
to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition. new Constitution. It adopted certain provisions of the
1973 Constitution, contained additional articles on the
executive department, on government reorganization,
After that transition period, and when the regular National Assembly is in its active session, the and on existing laws. It also provided for the calling of
power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National a Constitutional Commission to be composed of 30-50
Assembly. The normal course has not been followed. members, to draft a new Constitution. See: Lawyers
League for a Better Philippines v. Aquino, G.R. No.
73748, May 22, 1986; In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145
Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the SCRA 160.
president undertook the proposal of amendments through Presidential Decree 1033 and in effect, a. i) As stated in Proclamation No. 3, the EDSA
through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the irregularity of the revolution was “done in defiance of the 1973
amendment procedure raises a contestable issue. Constitution”. The resulting government was
indisputably a revolutionary government
bound by no constitution or legal limitations
LAWYERS LEAGUE V AQUINO except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government, as the de jure
Facts: government in the Philippines, assumed
under international law [Republic v.
On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003)].
she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. b. ii) During the interregnum, after the actual
On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino take-over of power by the revolutionary
government assumption of power by stating that the “new government was installed through a government (on February 25, 1986) up to
March 24, 1986 (immediately before the
 adoption of the Provisional Constitution), the Ratio
directives and orders of the revolutionary The affectivity of the Memorandum should be based on the date when it was signed, February
government were the supreme law because 8, 1987. By that time, the 1987 Constitution was already in effect, thus superseding all previous
no constitution limited the extent and scope constitution as provided in Section 27 of its Transitory Provisions. Respondent OIC Governor
of such directives and orders. With the could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution to designate
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.
successful revolution, there was no municipal Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern since it is not inconsistent with the 1987
law higher than the directives and orders of Constitution.
the revolutionary government. Thus, during For the above-quoted reason, which are fully applicable to the petition at bar, mutatis
this interregnum, a person could not invoke mutandis, there can be no question that President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice-President
an exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights Salvador H. Laurel are the incumbent and legitimate President and Vice-President of the
because there was neither a Constitution nor Republic of the Philippines.or the above-quoted reasons, which are fully applicable to the
a Bill of Rights [Republic v. Sandiganbayan, petition at bar
407 SCRA 10].
4. 2. Adoption of the Constitution
5. a) Proclamation No. 9, creating the Constitutional
Commission of 50
6. members.
7. b) Approval of draft Constitution by the Constitutional
Commission on October 15, 1986.
8. c) Plebiscite held on February 2, 1987.
9. d) Proclamation No. 58, proclaiming the ratification of
the Constitution.
10. 3. Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: February 2,
1987, the date of the plebiscite when the people ratified
the Constitution [De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602].

DE LEON V. ESGUERRA

Facts:

In 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon was elected as Baranggay Captain along with the other petitioners
as Barangay Councilmen of Baranggay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, he
received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, signed on February 8, 1987 by OIC Gov.
Benhamin B. Esguerra designating Florentino Magno as new Barangay Captain. A separate
Memorandum with the same dates was also issued by Hon. Esguerra replacing the Barangay
Councilmen. De Leon along with the other petitioners filed a petition to declare the subject
Memorandum null and void and prevent the respondents from taking over their positions in the
Barangay. The petitioners maintained that OIC Gov. Esguerra no longer have the authority to
replace them under the 1987 Constitution and that they shall serve a term of six (6) years in
pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982.

Issue:
Was the designation of the new Barangay Officials valid?

Ruling:
The designation by the OIC Governor of new Barangay Officials was declared NO LEGAL
FORCE AND EFFECT and the Writ for Prohibition is GRANTED enjoining respondents
perpetually from ouster/take-over of petitioners’ position subject of this petition.